Forbes: Global Warming: Hot Sensations versus Cold Facts

[Larry]

Admiring the truly stunning number of people who think that the fact that science constantly learns new things, means that science should always be ignored, and that just making things up is better, or at least equal.

[Hubbs]

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.

Sure. I recently had to do some research into electric vehicles, I know they're pretty limited. I only asked about batteries because I was still trying to figure out your original statement about fossil fuels costing "more in the long run than we're currently paying for them." Well, currently, the East Coast isn't the East Continental Shelf and Greenland still isn't green. I could see how fossil fuels would cost more in the long run past a certain point, but currently? That's the part I don't get.

I'm curious, though - I figured you'd be a big proponent of electric vehicles, even with their current limitations. You seem to be a lot more fatalist about our situation. If global warming predictions are accurate, do you basically believe the projections are inevitable because we won't have the ability to make enough changes before it's too late? (I suppose you might say that we merely don't have the willpower, but depending on how difficult you think the changes would be, they might be so drastic that the economic damage would severely hinder our ability to actually carry them out.)

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.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Let's say that in a given amount of time, glaciers recede from, say, 50,000 square miles of land around the world. (I have no idea if they even cover that much or if that's an absurdly tiny fraction of what they cover, so just humor me with the number.) Of that 50,000, a certain percentage of the land has to qualify as "livable" according to local standards, yes? Are there reasons to expect this percentage to be very small?

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?

I'd expect bodies of water that rivers feed into to rise, but the rivers themselves? I suppose there'd be a one-time surge during any major melting period, but afterwards, I'm not sure why they'd be higher.

[DieselPwr44]

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

Because the climate change people are no different than the prophets that stood in the square or on the corner 500 years ago predicting the world's end.

Everytime they think they see a trend, it starts going the other way then they spin that trend to mean the end is in year X.

Then it comes out a bunch of emails from scientists with monetary interest on the subject are colluding to point the information or stretch it in this direction or that direction: which ever benefits them most.

Nobody truly knows. By the time the group in this thread is 6 ft under, they still won't know.

Do i think that means we should not conserve and look for new energy and technology? Hell no.

But if anyone here thinks that Gore and people of that ilk aren't manipulating this to fatten their bank account....well... I've got some beach front property in Utah to sell you.

[Larry]

Then it comes out a bunch of emails from scientists with monetary interest on the subject are colluding to point the information or stretch it in this direction or that direction: which ever benefits them most.

That's what you get from getting your information from liars.

No such thing has ever happened.

As you would have known, if you'd bothered to read Peter's posts on the subject.

[Predicto]

Because the climate change people are no different than the prophets that stood in the square or on the corner 500 years ago predicting the world's end.

Everytime they think they see a trend, it starts going the other way then they spin that trend to mean the end is in year X.

Then it comes out a bunch of emails from scientists with monetary interest on the subject are colluding to point the information or stretch it in this direction or that direction: which ever benefits them most.

Nobody truly knows. By the time the group in this thread is 6 ft under, they still won't know.

Do i think that means we should not conserve and look for new energy and technology? Hell no.

But if anyone here thinks that Gore and people of that ilk aren't manipulating this to fatten their bank account....well... I've got some beach front property in Utah to sell you.

Your "facts" are nothing but right wing myths. You believe the spin of editorialists and talk radio hosts rather than the scientists on a matter of science.

It's sad, genuinely sad.

[Larry]

I'd expect bodies of water that rivers feed into to rise, but the rivers themselves? I suppose there'd be a one-time surge during any major melting period, but afterwards, I'm not sure why they'd be higher.

Well, to me, if seems logical that if, right now, the Mississippi is 75 feet above sea level in St Louis, then 100 years from now, it'll be 75 feet above sea level. Because that's the "delta-h" that's necessary to move (however many gallons it is) per hour.

[Burgold]

There's something oddly humorous about how paranoid each side thinks the other is. One things for sure, there's an abundance of tin foil in this thread.

[PeterMP]

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?

Ahh, this isn't new. I've repeatedly said over a period of years talking about average sea levels is a bit misleading because sea level changes are local in nature (so is flooding).

But the point is that the average sea level change is misleading in a way the UNDERestimates the true effect because the gravity of the antartica ice sheet minimizes water levels elsewhere globally and if they start to melt, you will lost that gravitational affect.

This isn't anything new in terms of concepts, just a matter of what the exact number is.

**EDIT***

What they are missing though is interactions between wind currents and ocean currents, and the Earth's magnetic field (as oceans are full of ionic substances) and the inner-core of the Earth, which is full of molten metals and has currents of its own, and helps cause the Earth's magnetic field and are affected by gravity.

Though, when you start to try and take those things into account, the picture doesn't get prettier (can anybody say earth quakes?).

---------- Post added December-30th-2010 at 08:49 PM ----------

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Let's say that in a given amount of time, glaciers recede from, say, 50,000 square miles of land around the world. (I have no idea if they even cover that much or if that's an absurdly tiny fraction of what they cover, so just humor me with the number.) Of that 50,000, a certain percentage of the land has to qualify as "livable" according to local standards, yes? Are there reasons to expect this percentage to be very small?

I don't know about very small, but there is no reason to believe it will be close to the same percentage as what you lose.

RIght off the bat, many glaciers are at high elevations, while most of the lost land will be near sea level. Generally, I believe it is considered harder to live on mountains at what is a glaciation elevation in much of the world than it is to live near sea level in most of the world. Then there is also that issue of extended darkness and light based on the season when you get nearer to the poles, where a lot of other glaciers are.

The law of averages is related to taking random samplings from a population. Where glaciers are is not random (e.g. near the poles or at high elevations). The land that will be lost will not be random (e.g. it will be land that is near sea level). There is no a priori reason to believe the percentages of livable land between two non-random sets of land will be the same.

[alexey]

Sure. I recently had to do some research into electric vehicles, I know they're pretty limited. I only asked about batteries because I was still trying to figure out your original statement about fossil fuels costing "more in the long run than we're currently paying for them." Well, currently, the East Coast isn't the East Continental Shelf and Greenland still isn't green. I could see how fossil fuels would cost more in the long run past a certain point, but currently? That's the part I don't get.

The real cost of fossil fuels includes the cost of having all that extra CO2 in the atmosphere. This cost is currently being deferred.

I'm curious, though - I figured you'd be a big proponent of electric vehicles, even with their current limitations. You seem to be a lot more fatalist about our situation. If global warming predictions are accurate, do you basically believe the projections are inevitable because we won't have the ability to make enough changes before it's too late? (I suppose you might say that we merely don't have the willpower, but depending on how difficult you think the changes would be, they might be so drastic that the economic damage would severely hinder our ability to actually carry them out.)

I don't think it will be a matter of BAM, now its too late. I think we are going to keep seeing regular record floods, droughts, snow falls, rain, mudslides, costly hurricanes, increase in diseases (e.g. lyme), and so on. In other words, the strange weather over the last few years will be THE weather from now on. The **** will keep hitting the fan, and at some point the public opinion will begin to sway, and we will start putting some policies in place.

In a way it is already too late... the extreme weather is already here and it's not going anywhere. Don't take this as alarmism, however. Alarimsm is where you scream AAH and if people do something, things are OK. This is not the case with climate change. Meaningful changes will take decades. The earlier we start, the less painful it is going to be.

This issue used to really really bother me. I have now resigned to the fact that public opinion will not sway on this issue until sufficient amount of **** hits the fan. Maybe we'll get lucky and it will happen early. Although I'm not counting on it. We've seen some crazy weather happening rather frequently reecently and nothing is happening. Oh well, let's cross our fingers and hope for the best.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/weather-events.html#billion

[Larry]

Ahh, this isn't new. I've repeatedly said over a period of years talking about average sea levels is a bit misleading because sea level changes are local in nature (so is flooding).

But the point is that the average sea level change is misleading in a way the UNDERestimates the true effect because the gravity of the antartica ice sheet minimizes water levels elsewhere globally and if they start to melt, you will lost that gravitational affect.

I think I understood that.

Either I'm getting smarter, or you're getting better at dumbing down.

[Thiebear]

sea levels are not a measure.

they have been incredibly high and low over the millions of years... isnt that how we got to Virginia 13000 years ago?

Its always been stated you can't use C02 or ice either...

but you can use combinations of them to prove anything you wish.

[Fred Jones]

My only comment to this is that balance must be maintained. Nature must be balanced. Global warming, no global warming doesn't matter. Continue to ruin the Earth and the Earth will eventually restore balance.

Some say that is what happened to Atlantis, if you believe that sort of thing.

[DieselPwr44]

Your "facts" are nothing but right wing myths. You believe the spin of editorialists and talk radio hosts rather than the scientists on a matter of science.

It's sad, genuinely sad.

I recycle.

I try to conserve energy the best I can, whether it be home or auto.

But I don't believe I can change anything that I have absolutely no control over: climate.

You and Peter believe otherwise. Kudos to you guys.

When you finally find the thermostat that controls it all, I'll be happy to heap praise on the both of you.

[Skins24]

Highlighted part is a sure sign of bull****.

LOL!!! :ols:

I literally laughed out loud! I don't know how I missed that post.

You're joking right? That is not even close to being disputed. Please inform the person who studies such things day in and day out what part of that highlighted part is "bull****"

Here is an example of a non-bull**** way of saying something like that:

That has nothing to do with my post....or anything......

[PeterMP]

The 2009 and 2010 hurricane seasons had absolutely nothing to do with global warming for either the Atlantic or Pacific and had everything to do with a strong El Nino last year and strong La Nina this year.

Where do you see that at??

He only states there are theories that those hurricanes were possibly stronger due to GW, and by very little (unlike some of the sensationalist stuff out there)

However, related to warming, some of the same issues apply. Things like water temperature and wind sheer.

Sure. And they are theories that he agrees with.

Landsea doesn't dispute the theories. He disputes that the hurricane record is good enough to see the small changes that theories suggest will already have happened.

And thinks the changes are small enough that they aren't worth discussing with the public.

---------- Post added December-31st-2010 at 06:50 AM ----------

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.

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.

I wanted to come back to this and make a point.

The EPA prediction related to the effectiveness of the cap and trade program in acid rain was also wrong, as well as the cost.

This is because the EPA when doing these predictions assumes that we will be JUST under the cap, and therefore the effect will ONLY be the effect required by law and there will be (economic) pressure to be above the cap, making enforcement of the cap "expensive".

However, when we easily got under the cap, that means it is cheap and more affective than predicted.

The other thing that the EPA assumes with respect to CO2 is that our efforts will have not wider global effect. Again, however, though, we know from experience that if we do lead, others will follow. Even with respect to pretty neutral CFC molecules, once others saw that our economy wasn't devastated, they followed.

And fossil fuels, even ignoring their warming component aren't neutral in terms of other pollution issues, their health effects, and geopolitical concerns. No country outside of the Middle East is happy with depending upon the Middle East for their energy. We aren't the only ones.

[twa]

Ahh, this isn't new. I've repeatedly said over a period of years talking about average sea levels is a bit misleading because sea level changes are local in nature (so is flooding).

But the point is that the average sea level change is misleading in a way the UNDERestimates the true effect because the gravity of the antartica ice sheet minimizes water levels elsewhere globally and if they start to melt, you will lost that gravitational affect.

This isn't anything new in terms of concepts, just a matter of what the exact number is.

**EDIT***

What they are missing though is interactions between wind currents and ocean currents, and the Earth's magnetic field (as oceans are full of ionic substances) and the inner-core of the Earth, which is full of molten metals and has currents of its own, and helps cause the Earth's magnetic field and are affected by gravity.

Though, when you start to try and take those things into account, the picture doesn't get prettier (can anybody say earth quakes?).

What the modelers fail to account for is as important as what they utilize.

Fred...Mother nature is a ***** and will gladly extinct you

[Burgold]

Fred...Mother nature is a ***** and will gladly extinct you

And this is a reason to piss her off? You sure like playing with fire.

As with all things, I just wish we (humans) acted more intelligently. For a creature with such a capacity for reason, we still refuse to be guided by it far too often and are the victims of short term needs, wants, and greed.

[twa]

You are operating on the faulty perception she is on our side

[Burgold]

You are operating on the faulty perception she is on our side

Nope, just that the more things you to do annoy her... the less likely she is to smile at us. For me, GW or GCC, or even environmentalism comes down to this... What's the downside?

If you are right (and there ain't Global warming) the downside is cleaner air, more drinkable water, technological innovations, and a slightly lighter wallet.

If you're wrong (and there is Global warming) the downside is devastating in terms of livable areas, the food supply, and a number of other nasties.

[twa]

Strangely enough I support cleaner air, more drinkable water, technological innovations...just a matter of degree and cost effectiveness in applications

Insanity is crippling yourself for others benefit

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122902899.html

[Burgold]

Strangely enough I support cleaner air, more drinkable water, technological innovations...just a matter of degree and cost effectiveness in applications

Insanity is crippling yourself for others benefit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122902899.html

The definition of other can sometimes be murky. I do, however, believe that things ought to be measured in cost/benefit. We do make compromises and evaluate doing this at the expense of that. Sometimes a small change in behavior creates a ripple that creates a fantastic effect... othertimes, we have to ration our resources (see WWII) for the greater good, and still other times the benefit gained by a huge sacrifice is too miniscule to exert the effort.... or force it.

Still, I wish we were generally smarter, kinder, and more aware.

[alexey]

LOL!!!

I literally laughed out loud! I don't know how I missed that post.

You're joking right? That is not even close to being disputed. Please inform the person who studies such things day in and day out what part of that highlighted part is "bull****"

I'm glad you found it!

I am not joking. First of all, the water is already warmer due to global warming. Warmer water effects hurricanes. That means you are wrong.

But i wanted to go beyond that and highlight that "absolutely nothing" is extremely strong language. Unless used judiciously, it is a sure sign of bull****. Your usage of it was far, far from judicious.

That has nothing to do with my post....or anything......

I transcribed that out of a video. That was an example of language used by people who know what they are talking about.

[PeterMP]

Strangely enough I support cleaner air, more drinkable water, technological innovations...just a matter of degree and cost effectiveness in applications

Insanity is crippling yourself for others benefit

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122902899.html

SO the argument from the "right" is now that we are putting ourself at a disadvantage by not following the "lead" from a country with an autocratic government with a largely state run economy in "investing" in technology that is over 200 years old?

I'm happy to help China invest infrastructural money in old technology.

[twa]

SO the argument from the "right" is now that we are putting ourself at a disadvantage by not following the "lead" from a country with an autocratic government with a largely state run economy in "investing" in technology that is over 200 years old?

I'm happy to help China invest infrastructural money in old technology.

No....handicapping ourselves with unrealistic/not cost effective goals ,when others are exponentially increasing what we limit is foolish in a global environment.

You will simply outsource pollution and likely increase it(something we seem fond of in the US)

I have no wish to follow China's example and support getting off coal as much as possible

[PeterMP]

No....handicapping ourselves with unrealistic/not cost effective goals ,when others are exponentially increasing what we limit is foolish in a global environment.

You will simply outsource pollution and likely increase it(something we seem fond of in the US)

I have no wish to follow China's example and support getting off coal as much as possible

1. Do you want to point out what is a unreasonable/not cost effective goal (keep in mind that coal based energy production methods has other long term costs related to human health and the like when answering this question)?