Forbes: Global Warming: Hot Sensations versus Cold Facts

[Burgold]

Whatever happened to the good ol days where woodsy owl, Smokey Bear and the Native American with tear rolling down his cheek next to a dump all convinced us the importance of conservation and pollution control?

I think it coincided with a general philosophical twist from "Ask not what your government can do for you..." to "Greed is good"

The heart of scientific denial is self interest and greed. In what other subject would people so whole heartedly dismissive and desperate to dispute the findings of hard science, replicated, objectively studied, and indepently researched on the basis of... I don't know what. I mean we could trust the scientists, we could trust our eyes, we could trust the changes in secondary factors (acidification of the oceans, rise in environmentally caused illnesses, etc, or the very fact that a change in human behavior DID change the hole in the Ozone Layer) or we could say that it's impossible for man to change the environment even though we know we've created deserts, poisoned the air, and made waterways unliveable.

[SnyderShrugged]

I think it coincided with a general philosophical twist from "Ask not what your government can do for you..." to "Greed is good"

The heart of scientific denial is self interest and greed. In what other subject would people so whole heartedly dismissive and desperate to dispute the findings of hard science, replicated, objectively studied, and indepently researched on the basis of... I don't know what. I mean we could trust the scientists, we could trust our eyes, we could trust the changes in secondary factors (acidification of the oceans, rise in environmentally caused illnesses, etc, or the very fact that a change in human behavior DID change the hole in the Ozone Layer) or we could say that it's impossible for man to change the environment even though we know we've created deserts, poisoned the air, and made waterways unliveable.

Personally, I think there is just as much greeg on the side of pro-agw, but that certainly doesnt excuse the greed involved with some on the anti side either.

I think the entire Envro movement would have been nest served to stick with the an ti-pollution plans and agenda rather than pushing for the specific agw ones. There arent many who would support pollution, but once they started claiming that co2 was a pollutant, they lost many who would have otherwise been on their side.

I also think that an anti-polltion style of approach would enable the movement to connect with conservative conservationists and find much common ground.

The partisan approach really set things back for reaching honorable goals inho

[Wrong Direction]

Well here's another "fun" conversation

Science in any form does not lend itself well to the causes of the media, period. For the many decades that I have been interested in science I cannot recall a single instance where reporting at large covered a subject thoroughly or well. The most you can ever hope is that they draw your attention to a set issue and spark enough interest that you follow it up, and that involves a lot of that boring reading stuff that so many are loathe to do. This is a good case in point.

Science is and has been since its inception a slow, diligent process of observation and analysis, there is very little in it that is flashy enough to garner much attention unless it is stuffed into the food processor and reduced to pap suitable for easy consumption.This is never going to change and you might as well rail against the weather as this.

Any legitimate scientist of any regimen or stripe whatsoever will tell you that we do not know, that knowing is in itself not the point of the process as much as the pursuit of knowing is. It is sheer folly to claim that mankind has no effect, but for arguably the first time ever we are ascending to the level of macro effect on the world's environment and we do not have the tools or historical observation data to fully understand effects on this scale, much less having the slightest grasp on the interactions between multiple macro effects. The overwhelming amount of information we collect nowadays impedes the process just by its volume, it will require decades to make any sense of it.

But none of that constitutes a reason not to investigate, observe and collect data with the intention of "knowing". The most that any of us can hope for is that the science is co-opted as little as possible so that it can pursue knowledge that may be of use.

Great post. This is exactly how science proceeds, and I think a fair representation of the status of global warming science, though some are sure to disagree on that point.

But it begs the question...who's handling the PR around global warming worse; the people who are flat out deniers or the people who are looking for trillion dollar government mandates?

My personal bias is against the AGW alarmists precisely because of the hyperbole of their claims. Gore shows half of the earth flooded in his movie, which is then shown to children who can't pick up on the small caveat that the consensus isn't predicting anything like that to happen. His hockey stick graphs make one wonder why our skin isn't melting off our bodies. Very scary stuff for children and highly impressionable adults. And those poor polar bears are drowning all over the north pole as we speak right? Numerous lobbyists and politicians are out there saying we need to act now or the damange will be irreversible, huge amounts of extinctions, etc. Meanwhile, we're in a war in a part of the world that unfortunatley controls much of the international fuel supply but environmentalists won't allow us to tap our own resources to move us away from our foreign dependence (oil, natural gas, clean coal and nuclear, though their objections on that are different).

And the sensationalizing has dramatically effected the debate about what to do if AGW is indeed real. We're stuck between a huge government program proposed by mostly very liberal or even socialist environmental groups and do nothing at all Republicans.

Is this because we have deniers, or is it because the scientific community itself has been terribly co-opted and sensationalized by liberal politicians and media world wide?

I hate to tell everyone here, but while Fox News and Rush Limbaugh may not be fair on this topic, they're the only entity in the world that's keeping us from spending hundreds of billions, or even trillions, of dollars on "fixes" whose models show temperature decreases in the tenth of degrees over many decades. Not that our budget has any other priorities.

I just can't understand how people don't realize how dangerously powerful government is...how capabale they are to sell our future for their immediate gain...how the politicians are no different than bank CEOs who look for huge short term gain while ignoring the long term...only much, much more powerful than any CEO over the long term.

[panel]

Whatever happened to the good ol days where woodsy owl, Smokey Bear and the Native American with tear rolling down his cheek next to a dump all convinced us the importance of conservation and pollution control?

Stopping CO2 and stopping pollution seem like 2 different things to me.

So, it's serious, but they don't know how it'll manifest itself? I think the question is about how serious it'll be AND how it will/will not manifest itself.

It sounds like a blank check to blame anything that happens in weather on Global Warming.

[PeterMP]

Great post. This is exactly how science proceeds, and I think a fair representation of the status of global warming science, though some are sure to disagree on that point.

But it begs the question...who's handling the PR around global warming worse; the people who are flat out deniers or the people who are looking for trillion dollar government mandates?

My personal bias is against the AGW alarmists precisely because of the hyperbole of their claims. Gore shows half of the earth flooded in his movie, which is then shown to children who can't pick up on the small caveat that the consensus isn't predicting anything like that to happen. His hockey stick graphs make one wonder why our skin isn't melting off our bodies. Very scary stuff for children and highly impressionable adults. And those poor polar bears are drowning all over the north pole as we speak right? Numerous lobbyists and politicians are out there saying we need to act now or the damange will be irreversible, huge amounts of extinctions, etc. Meanwhile, we're in a war in a part of the world that unfortunatley controls much of the international fuel supply but environmentalists won't allow us to tap our own resources to move us away from our foreign dependence (oil, natural gas, clean coal and nuclear, though their objections on that are different).

And the sensationalizing has dramatically effected the debate about what to do if AGW is indeed real. We're stuck between a huge government program proposed by mostly very liberal or even socialist environmental groups and do nothing at all Republicans.

Is this because we have deniers, or is it because the scientific community itself has been terribly co-opted and sensationalized by liberal politicians and media world wide?

I hate to tell everyone here, but while Fox News and Rush Limbaugh may not be fair on this topic, they're the only entity in the world that's keeping us from spending hundreds of billions, or even trillions, of dollars on "fixes" whose models show temperature decreases in the tenth of degrees over many decades. Not that our budget has any other priorities.

I just can't understand how people don't realize how dangerously powerful government is...how capabale they are to sell our future for their immediate gain...how the politicians are no different than bank CEOs who look for huge short term gain while ignoring the long term...only much, much more powerful than any CEO over the long term.

Models don't show temperature increases of tenth of degree over many decades. This is another post of mine in response to somebody posting an article showing how warming due to CO2 is likely over-exaggerated:

Okay, but even at 1/3 that is a significant amount of warming, especially when even only CO2 levels are increasing at a faster than a linear rate (other green house gas increases are also going up at an increasing rate).

And, yes we are only reponsbile for a small amount of total CO2, BUT we are ALMOST entirely responsible (indirectly due to changes in land use to some extant) for the increases in CO2.

Even given the 1/3 decrease in the senstivity when you consider the rate at which CO2 is going out EVEN if you ignore other green house gases, you are looking at substantial changes.

Here's some comments by the author of the piece:

"I'm very concerned about the world my grandchildren will live in," said Mr. Schwartz, who is currently studying climate change. "There could be an increase of four to eight degrees in the next century, and that's huge. The last time there was a five-degree Celsius decrease was the last ice age. An increase of eight degrees Fahrenheit would bring change unprecedented in the last half-million years."

"It's not out of the question that the ice sheet on Greenland could melt, and the consequence of that is the sea level would rise," he said. "The shoreline on Long Island would move inland by two to three miles."

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NorthShoreSun.html

If this guy's studies are what the "hoax" and "no big deal" crowd are basing on their observations on, they are just WRONG.

Moving the Long Island shoreline in a couple of MILES is a HUGE deal.

The proposed cap and trade law is likely to have very minimal costs.

And cap and trade was originally a Reagan idea for dealing with acid rain.

The CBO predicts that cap and trade will have very minimal costs and will actually result in a reduction in the deficit.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11872

Industry has badly over estimated the costs of environmental regulations in the past. Even the EPA over estimated the costs for acid rain related cap and trade.

This is from a previous post of mine:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?246099-Global-Warming-Will-Stop-New-Peer-Reviewed-Study-Says&p=8006571&viewfull=1#post8006571

"http://www.climateconservative.org/whatwouldreagando.html

"In June 1987, with the final negotiating session at Montreal less than three months away, I was at the Reichstag in Berlin to deliver an address on the fortieth anniversary of the Marshall Plan when a breathless U.S. Embassy attaché brought me an “Eyes Only” personal cable from the White House. President Reagan thus became the world’s first head of state to personally approve a national negotiating policy on ozone protection. Ignoring the advice of some of his closest political friends, the President completely endorsed, point-by-point, the strong position of the State Department and EPA.

President Reagan decided to protect our atmosphere from a problem that, at the time, was not fully understood by scientists. He discounted the arguments of those who claimed that the problem was not real or that the economic cost would be too great."

"During Reagan’s presidency, acid rain was a huge environmental problem. In addition to committing funds for research and emissions control projects, Reagan asked his Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief—chaired by then Vice President George H.W. Bush— to examine incentives for the deployment of emissions control technologies and identify new opportunities to address the problem.

C. Boyden Gray, counsel for both Vice President Bush and the task force, became attracted to the idea of emissions trading as a market-friendly alternative to the “command-and-control” approach typically favored by bureaucrats.

President Reagan seemed to allude to this in his 1987 State of the Union address, saying:

We are also developing proposals that make use of market incentives to control air pollution caused by sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions and the causes of acid rain.

Reagan left the White House before the idea could be implemented, but Gray continued to work on the idea, and in 1990, the first Bush Administration successfully pushed through legislation establishing a cap-and-trade program to reduce acid rain. Cap and trade was a great success, reducing sulfur dioxide emissions faster and at a much lower cost than had been anticipated."

http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp

"DuPont, which made 1/4 of the world's CFCs, spent millions of dollars running full-page newspaper advertisements defending CFCs in 1975, claiming there was no proof that CFCs were harming the ozone layer. Chairman Shapiro of DuPont commented that the ozone depletion theory was "a science fiction tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense." (Chemical Week, 16 July 1975)."

"The CEO of Pennwalt, the third largest CFC manufacturer in the U.S., talked of "economic chaos" if CFC use was to be phased out (Cogan, 1988). DuPont, the largest CFC manufacturer, warned that the costs in the U.S. alone could exceed $135 billion, and that "entire industries could fold" (Glas, 1989). The Association of European Chemical Companies warned that CFC regulation might lead to "redesign and re-equipping of large sectors of vital industry..., smaller firms going out of business... and an effect on inflation and unemployment, nationally and internationally" (Stockholm Environment Institute, 1999).

However, the economic reality has been less dire. As the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Economic Options Committee stated in 1994: "Ozone-depleting substance replacement has been more rapid, less expensive, and more innovative than had been anticipated at the beginning of the substitution process. The alternative technologies already adopted have been effective and inexpensive enough that consumers have not yet felt any noticeable impacts (except for an increase in automobile air conditioning service costs)" (UNEP, 1994). A group of over two dozen industry experts estimated the total CFC phase-out cost in industrialized counties at $37 billion to business and industry, and $3 billion to consumers (Vogelsberg, 1997). A study done for Environment Canada presented to a UN meeting in 1997, estimated a total CFC phase-out cost of $235 billion through the year 2060, but economic benefits totaling $459 billion. These savings came from decreased UV light exposure to aquatic ecosystems, plants, forests, crops, plastics, paints and other outdoor building materials, and did not include the savings due to decreased health care costs. The report concluded that because of the Montreal Protocol, there would be 19.1 million fewer cases of non-melanoma skin cancer, 1.5 million fewer cases of melanoma, 129 million fewer cases of cataracts, and 330,000 fewer skin cancer deaths worldwide."

And yes, I'm quoting form an extreme liberal site, but the information is properly referenced. If you want to go to a libraray and pull out the relevant books, paper copies, and microfiche be my guess.

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085

"On the eve of legislation" (cap and trade for acid rain) ", the EPA estimated that the program would cost $6 billion annually once it was fully implemented (in 2000 dollars). The Office of Management and Budget has estimated actual costs to be $1.1 to $1.8 billion -- just 20 to 30 percent of the forecasts. "

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE4DE153CF93BA2575BC0A96F948260

"The nation's largest user of coal said yesterday that President Bush's acid rain proposal could wreck the American economy, and contended that it was ''one of the harshest, least flexible and most costly bills ever introduced in the Congress.''

The statement, by the American Electric Power Company, which serves seven million people in seven states, was the first by a major company on the President's acid rain plan. It may signal rough going for the proposal in Congress, where the utilities have a track record of successful lobbying. ""

Most scientists that are writing and getting grants make most of their money off of a salary not from government grants. Grants are mostly used to buy supplies and pay other people to help do the research. Most of the jobs that mosts of these scientists have that are writing grants have jobs that are protected by tenure so it is very difficult to fire them. One of the few things they could do to get themselves fired would be to commit large scale fraud.

Essentially the same is true for most government researchers (e.g. NASA employees). They have a pretty good and safe job. One of the few things that they could do to lose their jobs is be found to be committing fraud.

The ENTIRE NSF budget is $6.87 billion. Only a some of that is used to fund external research and of that only a portion of that will fund climate change research. The DOE gets less than a $1 billion to fund external research.

There isn't trillions of dollars out there for research to study climate change.

[Madison Redskin]

Wrong Direction:

I certainly agree that the government has a lot of power and can abuse that power. I also agree that government officials and CEOs tend to engage in activities that will reap short-term gain and long-term pain.

However, with regard to the issue of global warming, who do you think is more motivated to distort the truth, the government or CEOs? IMO, the incentive for our government to lie to the public with respect to global warming is dwarfed by the inventive for CEOs to lie to the public. Do you really believe that liberal government officials and the vast majority of climatologists are conspiring to needlessly heap billions of dollars of expenses onto the private sector? I think it is far more plausible that many companies in the private sector are lobbying to convince the public that, notwithstanding the opinion of the vast majority of climatologists, man-made global warming is a myth and they don't need to take (costly) steps to address the issue.

I don't pretend to know a lot about the science behind this issue, so I won't claim that I know that man is warming the earth's climate. That said, I tend to defer to the scientific community on matters that I know little about, particularly when almost the entire scientific community is in agreement. Moreover, when a group (e.g., CEOs of Fortune 500 companies) make claims that conflicts with the opinion of the scientific community, and they have a very strong financial interest in doing so, I tend to give their claims little weight.

Finally, while many on the right think of liberals who believe in man-made global warming as lemmings, what do you think about those on the right who disregard man-made global warming as a hoax? It's not like most of those people are basing their opinions on their own research; I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of them are basing their opinions on what their party says or their general distrust of government and the scientific community.

[Thiebear]

Going to be the coldest in 1000 years in Europe. Thats an incredible number and still a tiny one considering.

[Wrong Direction]

Models don't show temperature increases of tenth of degree over many decades.

What I was saying is that even the EPA is suggesting that Cap and Trade will only reduce temperatures by .1 degree celcius relative to the 3 or 4 degree celcius gains expected by 2100. So, instead of 3 or 4 degrees, we'd get 2.9 or 3.9 degree temperature increases.

The proposed cap and trade law is likely to have very minimal costs.

I don't know what you think of Jim Manzi, but I find him to be a very reasonable and articulate voice on the economics of the issue. Needless to day, he'd strongly disagree with your stateent above. For those who don't want to read this article, he's making a very strong economic (READ: NOT POLITICAL) case that the assumptions behind the costs of cap and trade are terribly wrong, and the bill would result in much higher costs than the government is predicting.

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=ZDU1OGMyZjkwYWM1ZTBkZTVmMTA3MzVhZTE4ZjcxYTE=

He had previously (before Obama's cap and trade) written another great piece about what to do about global warming, here:

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/08/11/jim-manzi/keeping-our-cool-what-to-do-about-global-warming/.

Note that some portions of the articles are duplicative, but each is worth reading on their own.

And cap and trade was originally a Reagan idea for dealing with acid rain.

I know this seems like Republican blasphemy, but not every old Reagan and/or conservative idea is a good one, and not all programs with the same name are projected to have the same effects. Healthcare is a great example. As conservative economic thinkers have focused on the issue over the years, conservative politicians have been directed into better solution-oriented economic models. So, just because certain options were supported by R's during the HillaryCare time frame doesn't mean they're legit conservative positions now. Immigration is another great example.

With respect to Cap and Trade, as your articles state, the effect on acid rain was very positive. However, as I stated above, even the Obama EPA isn't claiming such dramatic positive effects from cap and trade for carbon. It's apples and oranges.

Industry has badly over estimated the costs of environmental regulations in the past. Even the EPA over estimated the costs for acid rain related cap and trade.

And government has serially underestimated the costs of government programs in the past too, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars per year for many programs. Again, just because the same name is used doesn't mean the specifics are the same.

Most scientists that are writing and getting grants make most of their money off of a salary not from government grants. Grants are mostly used to buy supplies and pay other people to help do the research. Most of the jobs that mosts of these scientists have that are writing grants have jobs that are protected by tenure so it is very difficult to fire them. One of the few things they could do to get themselves fired would be to commit large scale fraud.

Essentially the same is true for most government researchers (e.g. NASA employees). They have a pretty good and safe job. One of the few things that they could do to lose their jobs is be found to be committing fraud.

The ENTIRE NSF budget is $6.87 billion. Only a some of that is used to fund external research and of that only a portion of that will fund climate change research. The DOE gets less than a $1 billion to fund external research.

There isn't trillions of dollars out there for research to study climate change.

I'm not calling out legit scientists, and I do agree that funding for research and incentives for certain things (as mentioned in the articles I posted above) are the far better way to go. To me, this issue is less about scientific fraud than it is about the danger of a political party implementing huge programs that have little or no benefit. It's like Ethanol, only on a much larger scale.

---------- Post added December-30th-2010 at 12:21 PM ----------

Wrong Direction:

However, with regard to the issue of global warming, who do you think is more motivated to distort the truth, the government or CEOs? IMO, the incentive for our government to lie to the public with respect to global warming is dwarfed by the inventive for CEOs to lie to the public. Do you really believe that liberal government officials and the vast majority of climatologists are conspiring to needlessly heap billions of dollars of expenses onto the private sector? I think it is far more plausible that many companies in the private sector are lobbying to convince the public that, notwithstanding the opinion of the vast majority of climatologists, man-made global warming is a myth and they don't need to take (costly) steps to address the issue.

No, I don't think they're conspiring to needlessly heap billions of expenses on the private sector. I don't think they think it's needless, but I REALLY don't trust that they've considered the minimial positive projections by their own agencies and elites. To put it simply, if Cap & Trade is passed, based on liberal projections, we'll still need very many costly additional programs to begin to address the issue of climate change. What I'm saying is their approach to the problem is badly flawed.

I certainly agree that the government has a lot of power and can abuse that power. I also agree that government officials and CEOs tend to engage in activities that will reap short-term gain and long-term pain.

...

Moreover, when a group (e.g., CEOs of Fortune 500 companies) make claims that conflicts with the opinion of the scientific community, and they have a very strong financial interest in doing so, I tend to give their claims little weight.

I'm not discounting the financial incentive of industry, but I think it's folly to discount the financial incentives of green industry or of the politicians who support them. People who lobby for big government action are almost always set to gain financially in very big ways. To act like one side of the lobby is significantly more nefarious than the other side is, to me, foolish.

Finally, while many on the right think of liberals who believe in man-made global warming as lemmings, what do you think about those on the right who disregard man-made global warming as a hoax?

I'd wager that if you put Rush Limbaugh into a room, presented him with findings, let him counter with words from skeptics, and at the end of a cordial conversation you asked him whether AGW was possible and man-made, he'd agree that it was possible. Then he'd counter with an argument about probabilities and uncertainties and about the "solutions" from the left, and finish by saying that the left is scaring people into believing that outlier scenarios are the expectation...in other words, a hoax.

Personally, I don't put a lot of faith in the models. I think they're best guesses based on the information in hand, but unvalidated with real-world results to date. I think that if you created two glass boxes, one with oxygen and the other with CO2, and submitted a heat source into both, that the CO2 would likely heat up faster, so yes, I do believe it can cause temperature increases. Beyond that, I think scientists are in the process of figuring out what this all means, and I know that takes time. In the meantime, I sure wish people could come together to find much better solutions.

[Popeman38]

Wrong Direction:

I certainly agree that the government has a lot of power and can abuse that power. I also agree that government officials and CEOs tend to engage in activities that will reap short-term gain and long-term pain.

However, with regard to the issue of global warming, who do you think is more motivated to distort the truth, the government or CEOs? IMO, the incentive for our government to lie to the public with respect to global warming is dwarfed by the inventive for CEOs to lie to the public. Do you really believe that liberal government officials and the vast majority of climatologists are conspiring to needlessly heap billions of dollars of expenses onto the private sector? I think it is far more plausible that many companies in the private sector are lobbying to convince the public that, notwithstanding the opinion of the vast majority of climatologists, man-made global warming is a myth and they don't need to take (costly) steps to address the issue.

I don't pretend to know a lot about the science behind this issue, so I won't claim that I know that man is warming the earth's climate. That said, I tend to defer to the scientific community on matters that I know little about, particularly when almost the entire scientific community is in agreement. Moreover, when a group (e.g., CEOs of Fortune 500 companies) make claims that conflicts with the opinion of the scientific community, and they have a very strong financial interest in doing so, I tend to give their claims little weight.

Finally, while many on the right think of liberals who believe in man-made global warming as lemmings, what do you think about those on the right who disregard man-made global warming as a hoax? It's not like most of those people are basing their opinions on their own research; I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of them are basing their opinions on what their party says or their general distrust of government and the scientific community.

Herein lies the problem. Al Gore produces a "documentary" on global warming showing the worst case scenarios. He uses this documentary to push for cap & trade legislation. Guess who owns the countries largest cap & trade business and stands to make the most $$ ff this legislation? Al Gore. So wouldn't it only be fair to to accuse both CEOs of Fortune 500s and Al Gore of looking to profit short term at the long term cost?

[Wrong Direction]

Herein lies the problem. Al Gore produces a "documentary" on global warming showing the worst case scenarios. He uses this documentary to push for cap & trade legislation. Guess who owns the countries largest cap & trade business and stands to make the most $$ ff this legislation? Al Gore. So wouldn't it only be fair to to accuse both CEOs of Fortune 500s and Al Gore of looking to profit short term at the long term cost?

Absolutely fair.

[alexey]

Fossil fuels are awesome. They are inexpensive, portable, have high energy content, and so on.

The problem is, fossil fuels actually cost more in the long run than we're currently paying for them. We are essentially shifting that cost to future generations.

We are currently subsidizing fossil fuels, which makes them extremely competitive.

[Hubbs]

Peter, one question I've always had about the "Long Island scenario" playing out on a worldwide basis: Why does it seem like nobody ever addresses the fact that it would happen in slow motion?

I should emphasize that I'm truly not trying to ask this in a pointed manner; like I've said before, you've actually been directly responsible for making me weigh the ramifications of global warming much more than I did a couple years ago. But one thing about the sea level projections that's always bothered me is that we're told where the sea level is now, where they're projected to be if the current trend continues for 100 years, what low-lying land would be flooded if those projections hold up, and how many people live on that land. The inherent assumption in each of the warnings that I've seen is that humans won't adapt to water moving inland a few feet at a time over the span of centuries, even though we obviously do that very thing where that very thing is already happening. Venice, for example, is sinking a little bit every year - buildings are reinforced, new floatation support is created, a few people are forced to move further inland. Life moves on.

I've heard some people argue that we'll have less land to live on, but again, I've never seen anybody address the fact that if a significant-enough percentage of land-borne glaciers melt to raise sea levels by a seriously consequential amount over the span of decades, there will be a simultaneous slow-motion expansion of reasonably habitable land to the north. Greenland could actually be green.

In other words, while I have no doubt that the planet would be different if the serious global warming projections are correct, I've never seen anyone explain why different automatically equals worse. This applies to the weather stuff, too, and that actually bothers me a lot more than the sea level stuff. The descriptions of global warming-generated weather changes strike me as extremely intellectually dishonest, because I'm not at all using hyperbole when I say that every single description of "different" weather caused by global warming has been of the extremely negative variety. I understand the desire to emphasize the negative when attempting to convince the masses that global warming is a problem we need to deal with, but the warnings border on the absurd. If I were to take them at face value, I would believe that some places would get more rain, and that's "bad" because in every single instance more rain automatically equals more devastating floods, but I would also believe that some places would get less rain, and that's also "bad" because in every single instance less rain automatically equals more devastating droughts. Never is it mentioned that it rain patterns shift dramatically, some places would experience fewer droughts and some places would experience fewer floods. Now, I'm perfectly willing to believe that the negatives would outweigh the positives, that they even outweigh the positives by an extraordinary amount, but I can only do so when I'm honestly given a full picture. It's pretty hard for me to accept that nobody, in any region, would benefit from different weather patterns.

(Another thing I should emphasize is that the anti-global warming crowd is often just as guilty of this error. I don't enjoy being told that nothing bad will happen if the planet keeps heating up, or that burning fossil fuels couldn't possibly harm the environment. I enjoy even less the constant bit-chomping when it comes to seizing any error made in global warming studies, however minor, and holding it up to proclaim, "See? See?! A minor statistical faux pax was made in one study about one factor in global warming! It's all lies! Lies, I tell you!")

Anyway, my general point is that I'd like to examine the issue without feeling as though I should piss my pants if the status quo isn't maintained forever and ever, world without end, Amen. All of this isn't to say that my questions haven't been studied. I'm sure they have been. I'm just saying that, as a layman, I've had these questions for a long time, and have yet to find serious answers. I'd guess that you're aware of a few, and while I'd want to go beyond the answers that any one person would show me, I'd be interested in anything you think I should check out.

---------- Post added December-30th-2010 at 02:46 PM ----------

Fossil fuels are awesome. They are inexpensive, portable, have high energy content, and so on.

The problem is, fossil fuels actually cost more in the long run than we're currently paying for them. We are essentially shifting that cost to future generations.

How so? If a method of cold fusion was invented tomorrow, what would be the cost of what we've burned so far? What would go wrong with leaving the planet as-is? Do you think we're already in some sort of feedback loop?

[DjTj]

In other words, while I have no doubt that the planet would be different if the serious global warming projections are correct, I've never seen anyone explain why different automatically equals worse. This applies to the weather stuff, too, and that actually bothers me a lot more than the sea level stuff. The descriptions of global warming-generated weather changes strike me as extremely intellectually dishonest, because I'm not at all using hyperbole when I say that every single description of "different" weather caused by global warming has been of the extremely negative variety. I understand the desire to emphasize the negative when attempting to convince the masses that global warming is a problem we need to deal with, but the warnings border on the absurd. If I were to take them at face value, I would believe that some places would get more rain, and that's "bad" because in every single instance more rain automatically equals more devastating floods, but I would also believe that some places would get less rain, and that's also "bad" because in every single instance less rain automatically equals more devastating droughts. Never is it mentioned that it rain patterns shift dramatically, some places would experience fewer droughts and some places would experience fewer floods. Now, I'm perfectly willing to believe that the negatives would outweigh the positives, that they even outweigh the positives by an extraordinary amount, but I can only do so when I'm honestly given a full picture. It's pretty hard for me to accept that nobody, in any region, would benefit from different weather patterns.

Why do we build dams? Why are we rebuilding New Orleans? Why do we have cities along fault lines or in tornado alleys?

Some of it is just sentimentality, but there are also significant costs associated with moving whole cities and populations. We should probably weigh those costs against the costs of reducing greenhouse gases, but I think that people would generally come out in favor of leaving our cities where they are.

When you live in the richest and most powerful country in some of the greatest cities on the planet, change is generally bad ... we don't want more agricultural production moving into Canada and Russia, and we like our beaches where they are. From where we stand, the status quo is probably worth preserving.

[alexey]

How so? If a method of cold fusion was invented tomorrow, what would be the cost of what we've burned so far? What would go wrong with leaving the planet as-is? Do you think we're already in some sort of feedback loop?

Two basic issues that face new technologies are scalability and, to a lesser degree, portability.

Portability is easy - fossil fuels carry a lot of energy in a small, easily transportable package. There is no such thing for electricity.

Scalability issues are different for different technologies, but they are significant. This summer Science News did an excellent special edition on scaling up alternative energies... I was in the "tech will save us all" camp before that. After that I realized just how naive I was. It takes decades, literally, to take something from a demo project to a kind of thing that actually makes an impact. Earlier we start, less pain the whole experience will take. This transition will be MUCH more difficult than going to the moon. That is why it would have been so nice if Al Gore had gotten elected... Yeah he is a silly alarmist with the drowning polar bears and all, but at least he would have tried to do something. We lost a lot of time.

Here is the online portal for that special... I get the paper version... not sure if they have the same stuff online... http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/energy/

To address your other question about weather changes... One very bad supposed outcome of climate change is more extreme weather. More or stronger droughts, floods, heat waves, and so on. Very damaging and very expensive stuff.

[PeterMP]

Peter, one question I've always had about the "Long Island scenario" playing out on a worldwide basis: Why does it seem like nobody ever addresses the fact that it would happen in slow motion?

I should emphasize that I'm truly not trying to ask this in a pointed manner; like I've said before, you've actually been directly responsible for making me weigh the ramifications of global warming much more than I did a couple years ago. But one thing about the sea level projections that's always bothered me is that we're told where the sea level is now, where they're projected to be if the current trend continues for 100 years, what low-lying land would be flooded if those projections hold up, and how many people live on that land. The inherent assumption in each of the warnings that I've seen is that humans won't adapt to water moving inland a few feet at a time over the span of centuries, even though we obviously do that very thing where that very thing is already happening. Venice, for example, is sinking a little bit every year - buildings are reinforced, new floatation support is created, a few people are forced to move further inland. Life moves on.

I believe the problem is that you don't understand what a few inches of sea level mean in terms of current living land as most people live on land that is near sea level.

Note, the person I quoted above is a "skeptic" in that he is predicting CO2 to only have a 1/3 of the effect as most scientists, and with that 1/3 he's talking about a 3-8 inch sea level.

But what is he talking about MILES in terms of livable land. He's talking about losing miles of land. And not in centuries but a century.

Sea levels changes of FEET mean you lost most ever major east coast city. Do you really think the costs of decreasing CO2 can be off set by moving everybody (and replacing infrastructure) of the east coast cities.

The other issue becomes "livable" land. As I've pointed out before, all land is not equal.

What is under the ice caps in Green land? I don't honestly know, but is it really "livable" land?

This is a bigger concern for agriculture. If precipitation shifts, then you have larger issues. Adding rain to the Sarah or the Australian out back isn't going to make them farmable land. You still have sand there (which would then just erode if you get lots of rain). To turn that into agriculturally productive land, is going to be very expensive.

Lastly, I'll even concede that very very long term, I think it is very likely that for humanity climate change will be coin flip, but I'm not an just a human, but I'm an American.

If you are Russian, Candaian, Greenlandian, Ice Landic, Australilan, or whatever country makes up the majority of the Sarah fostering climate change might be even long term be an advantage, but for the US, the idea that climate change is not likely to be a negative isn't very likely.

---------- Post added December-30th-2010 at 04:13 PM ----------

I don't know what you think of Jim Manzi, but I find him to be a very reasonable and articulate voice on the economics of the issue. Needless to day, he'd strongly disagree with your stateent above. For those who don't want to read this article, he's making a very strong economic (READ: NOT POLITICAL) case that the assumptions behind the costs of cap and trade are terribly wrong, and the bill would result in much higher costs than the government is predicting.

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=ZDU1OGMyZjkwYWM1ZTBkZTVmMTA3MzVhZTE4ZjcxYTE=

He had previously (before Obama's cap and trade) written another great piece about what to do about global warming, here:

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/08/11/jim-manzi/keeping-our-cool-what-to-do-about-global-warming/.

The problem with both of these pieces is they very simply ignore our previous experience with environmental policy.

We know the "lead by example" case works because it did for CFCs. We banned CFCs even before Europe. That forced US companies, like DuPount, to develop new molecules. This gave them a lead in technology that they still haven't given up today. At the time, they had several European competitors that were essentially producing the same non-patent protected CFCs. The predicted global costs of CFC reduction were greatly over played. The negative effect of CFC reduction to the US economy were greatly over played.

Samething with acid rain. New technology to capture acid rain producing molecules was easily produced (much of it already existed and just needed some improvements just like alt energy). The net effect was not disasterous with respect to the US economy.

He's biggest issue is that there is absolutely no evidence to support his most basic point. There is no evidence that we need to a create a large artificial shortage of carbon. What history shows us with respect to cap and trade in the US and around the world (and analysis of many complex systems) is that small changes can have larger affects. Even in any technology changes are incremental, but industry doesn't ignore those incremental changes. That is the WHOLE objective of cap and trade. If you started a cap and trade program with the argument that you must to create an economically dibilitating artificial shortage in something, nobody would ever use a cap and trade approach. The concept behind cap and trade is that sometimes all you need is a small shift in what is favorable to get things going. Practical experience and theortical studies in many different systems, including the US economy, support those conclusions.

Just to give a general example. Let's imagine that there is some large company (or maybe an industry) that is looking at cost/benefit ratio and currently with the supply/demand of C, it doesn't make sense for them to shift their technology. However, a small shift like a moderate cap and trade program will produce causes them to deciede to implement that technology. Their implementation actually changes things in terms of the producers of the technology where they have to scale up or something else about their production methods related to the technology they use (my dad owns a small manfacturing business. Due to the economics and technology of the situation, it makes sense for him to employee about 12 people or about 30 people. He started at time with about 12, and then jumped to 30. Now that he's gotten older, he's scaled back and now has 11. However, scaling to about 20 doesn't make much economic sense). When they do, it actually lowers the costs of them to produce the technology. This then makes it reasonable for other companies then to implement the same technology, which drives another round of changes in production and etc.

If he wants to convince me that he's right, he has to DIRECTLY look at these historical precedents where these things have happened in general and in terms of environmental regulation (starting with cap and trade for acid rain producing molecules and the ban on CFCs), and then put forward solid arguments why carbon is different. If we start with his assumption (that we must create a large artificial demand in CO2), he is right, but history and a little knowledge of capitialism and market economies tell me there is a large chance that he is wrong, and he makes no argument as to why CO2 is different.

[Predicto]

A one meter change in sea levels will displace hundreds of millions of people in South Asia and China alone, not to mention what it will do to the fresh water supply in such places.

As a species, we have adapted to and settled in areas that are good for people to live in. Moving rain from current agricultural land to arid land will not create new topsoil, not for eons.

There is absolutely no way that massive worldwide changes of this type could be a zero sum game.

[Larry]

I've heard the "but global warming might be good" argument, before. And I can see some validity. I don't think anybody knows what will happen is Man makes the kinds of changes to the earth that we're talking about. (Lord knows I don't. And I seriously doubt anybody else does, either. Too complex a system.)

(I also think there's a different point I've heard, that I think is similar: The possibility that nature might evolve to deal with the new environment. I think everybody will agree that it's certainly possible that increased levels of CO2 will cause plants to grow faster, resulting in nature "eating" more CO2 than it used to. And some of the life forms we're talking about are things like single-celled marine life: 100 years is a boatload of generations for them. Lots of time for them to evolve.)

It might happen.

It's also possible that they won't adapt, and they'll all die off, too.

I'm not willing to roll those dice.

I mean, to continue dumping half a billion tons of waste chemicals into the atmosphere, every year? And to keep increasing that number? Just because we like making a bunch of third-world bandits who hate us, rich?

Seriously, if "The Middle East" isn't enough of a reason to get off of oil, then nothing else will ever be a good enough reason.

And we want to gamble on things like "Well, maybe altering the climate of the entire Earth wouldn't be all bad"?

[McD5]

Gore's pockets straight.

[Hubbs]

Why do we build dams? Why are we rebuilding New Orleans? Why do we have cities along fault lines or in tornado alleys?

Some of it is just sentimentality, but there are also significant costs associated with moving whole cities and populations. We should probably weigh those costs against the costs of reducing greenhouse gases, but I think that people would generally come out in favor of leaving our cities where they are.

When you live in the richest and most powerful country in some of the greatest cities on the planet, change is generally bad ... we don't want more agricultural production moving into Canada and Russia, and we like our beaches where they are. From where we stand, the status quo is probably worth preserving.

Oh sure, there would be major costs. I just get irritated by the fact that I legitimately can't name a single global warming-created change that's been described to me in any way other than near-apocalyptic terms. To make an analogy in terms that I'm more comfortable using, I feel like it's 2005 and I'm being told that if housing crashes, everyone will lose money. Everyone. That there's no possible way to benefit. Well, that's not true at all. It was possible to make billions off of the bubble bursting. And I think this analogy fits pretty well because it's similar to my view of global warming - I think it would come with way more bad than good. The small percentage of the population that benefitted from the housing collapse is vastly outweighed by the damage it's done. I fully expect the harm that would be done by the serious global warming projections would be much worse than the small number of changes that would be considered positive. I'm not at all trying to say that I think there would be any sort of balance. I'm just saying that if given a choice between the guy who says that the housing bubble is pure doom, and the guy who says, "I'm short your house," I know which one is giving me a more complete picture.

Two basic issues that face new technologies are scalability and, to a lesser degree, portability.

Portability is easy - fossil fuels carry a lot of energy in a small, easily transportable package. There is no such thing for electricity.

Erm... why do batteries not count?

I'll check out that energy thing.

I believe the problem is that you don't understand what a few inches of sea level mean in terms of current living land as most people live on land that is near sea level.

Note, the person I quoted above is a "skeptic" in that he is predicting CO2 to only have a 1/3 of the effect as most scientists, and with that 1/3 he's talking about a 3-8 inch sea level.

But what is he talking about MILES in terms of livable land. He's talking about losing miles of land. And not in centuries but a century.

Sea levels changes of FEET mean you lost most ever major east coast city. Do you really think the costs of decreasing CO2 can be off set by moving everybody (and replacing infrastructure) of the east coast cities.

I thought the changes of feet only happened in the extreme projections. Is that wrong?

The other issue becomes "livable" land. As I've pointed out before, all land is not equal.

What is under the ice caps in Green land? I don't honestly know, but is it really "livable" land?

I'm just playing the averages when it comes to new glacier-free land. Assuming worldwide glacier reduction, a large percentage of the land will have to be "livable," going by whatever definition makes the most sense. Greenland was a random location I threw out there.

This is a bigger concern for agriculture. If precipitation shifts, then you have larger issues. Adding rain to the Sarah or the Australian out back isn't going to make them farmable land. You still have sand there (which would then just erode if you get lots of rain). To turn that into agriculturally productive land, is going to be very expensive.

I was thinking more along the lines of, say, savannas in Africa.

Lastly, I'll even concede that very very long term, I think it is very likely that for humanity climate change will be coin flip, but I'm not an just a human, but I'm an American.

If you are Russian, Candaian, Greenlandian, Ice Landic, Australilan, or whatever country makes up the majority of the Sarah fostering climate change might be even long term be an advantage, but for the US, the idea that climate change is not likely to be a negative isn't very likely.

True.

By the way, assuming the evidence continues to mount for AGW, I agree that cap and trade would be a good way to deal with it.

---------- Post added December-30th-2010 at 06:42 PM ----------

I've heard the "but global warming might be good" argument, before. And I can see some validity. I don't think anybody knows what will happen is Man makes the kinds of changes to the earth that we're talking about. (Lord knows I don't. And I seriously doubt anybody else does, either. Too complex a system.)

(I also think there's a different point I've heard, that I think is similar: The possibility that nature might evolve to deal with the new environment. I think everybody will agree that it's certainly possible that increased levels of CO2 will cause plants to grow faster, resulting in nature "eating" more CO2 than it used to. And some of the life forms we're talking about are things like single-celled marine life: 100 years is a boatload of generations for them. Lots of time for them to evolve.)

It might happen.

It's also possible that they won't adapt, and they'll all die off, too.

I'm not willing to roll those dice.

I mean, to continue dumping half a billion tons of waste chemicals into the atmosphere, every year? And to keep increasing that number? Just because we like making a bunch of third-world bandits who hate us, rich?

Seriously, if "The Middle East" isn't enough of a reason to get off of oil, then nothing else will ever be a good enough reason.

And we want to gamble on things like "Well, maybe altering the climate of the entire Earth wouldn't be all bad"?

Didn't say I wanted to gamble. Just want as much info as possible. (See above housing bubble analogy.)

[DieselPwr44]

blank check to blame anything that happens in weather on Global Warming.

That's pretty much the bottom line on the whole subject.

[Predicto]

It sounds like a blank check to blame anything that happens in weather on Global Warming.

That's pretty much the bottom line on the whole subject.

How can you guys read PeterMP's posts and still say things like this? Are you deliberately refusing to read them?

[alexey]

Erm... why do batteries not count?

Batteries have a number of problems - efficiency, capacity, cost, limited lifecycle, and so on.

Look at it this way - batteries on the Volt probably take up more space than several gas tanks would... and they give a nice 35 mile range.

[PeterMP]

I thought the changes of feet only happened in the extreme projections. Is that wrong?

I'm just playing the averages when it comes to new glacier-free land. Assuming worldwide glacier reduction, a large percentage of the land will have to be "livable," going by whatever definition makes the most sense. Greenland was a random location I threw out there

The extreme projections lie in the area of about 10 feet.

The law averages likely fails in this case because the land that you will gain and the land you will lose are not randomly distributed through the total land masses on Earth.

[Larry]

I'd also point out that I'm not an engineer or anything on this subject, but it seems likely to me that if you raise sea levels by X feet, then you also raise the levels of all the rivers by X feet.

What are the economic damages if the Mississippi River rises 10 feet? The entire river? What's the effect on New Orleans? Memphis? St Louis?

How many major cities aren't built around rivers?

[twa]

The more they learn the less they know

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_secret_of_sea_level_rise_it_will_vary_greatly_by_region/2255/

What else are they overlooking?