I have a problem with your C option. Heating may indeed occur. However, what does not follow from heating is "out of control" and "catastrophes". There is a probability that global catastrophes will occur, but it is not a guarantee.
And your logic for why warming is bad still leaves out the potential good effects of warming... Do you deny that large parts of Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Northern Europe, and Russia would benefit from warmer temperatures? Heck if things get warm enough and the ice caps melts, Antarctica might even be decent to live in. These land areas are MASSIVE. Much more significant than removing even a mile of coastland around the world and making the entire equatorial region unlivable. The IPC suggests that within the next century sealevels can rise at the high end of 590mm. That's less than 2' and I seriously think the low end of 190mm is more likely. This is hardly catastrophic especially since this will occur over 100 years. Cities can and will adapt or people will relocate (maybe the the large new landmasses available. Heck New Orleans is more than 590mm below sea level as it is. I liked you comment about the ease of moving a billion people though. Lets do some math:
The current world usage of oil is about 85 million barrels of oil per day. If we assume that all of this goes to road fuel (not a good assumption, it's typically only about 80%, but the volume of a barrel does increase when it is cracked) let's assume we get 85 million barrels of gasoline out of that. There are 42 gallons in a barrel, so that's about 3.5 billion gallons of gas per day. If we assume a modest 10 miles/gallon vehicles, and we assume people at least attempt to carpool and travel 2 people per vehicle So divide the world population by 2 and figure out how far everyone on earth can go every day on current production. It conveniently comes out to about 10 miles a day (1 gallon for every 2 people on earth). So the distance from the equator to the south pole (where there is land) is about 6000 miles. Worst case scenario, it would only take 2 years to move everyone in the world by car (I know there might need to be some ferries involved) from the equator to the south pole.
Now this experiment wasn't completely useful, but it does tell you something. Oil is an incredible source of energy. In just 6 lbs of weight, you can move a 2 1/2 ton block of steel (a prius) about 50 miles. That's pretty incredible when you think about it. Even then a Prius is probably only about 40% efficient. The moral of the story is, if we move to alternative fuel sources, moving a billion people gets much harder. Electric cars go about 100 miles and then you might as well wait a day before going out again. Or you can go 400 and fill up in 2 minutes at a gas station.
To your final point, there are a lot of diseases associated with heat. Look at malaria and yellow fever. When we were building the panama canal, it devastated the workers... Until we introduced medicine and proper sanitation, and it went away. Cold on the other hand weakens the immune system, and as a result many more people are subjected to diseases. In addition, statically, there are more cold related deaths that heat related deaths. There are simply more dangers associated with cold than hot to humans. Most cities shut down with a foot of snow, but the effect of an inch of rain is not nearly as severe.
If the best way for a scientist to get ahead is by proving his colleagues wrong, how can they do that if there is a debate about the accuracy and reliability of the data? Consistency is meaningless if everyone is working on the same datasets. Of course if everyone has the same numbers and the same models they are going to get the same answers. The real question is, does somebody have independent data that corroborates the theory? The reality is, we have one data set, maybe a few theories, and a bunch of analysts. What we don't have is any data from experiments. Where has this hypothesis been tested? Would your 6th grade teacher have allowed you to run a bunch of simulations on one set of data and then use that to examine your hypothesis?
I agree it will stop. But how many people currently benefit from inexpensive fuel and electricity? I agree it isn't good in the long term, but in the short term, the reason we have such a high standard of living and a long life expectancy is DIRECTLY attributable to fossil fuels. Take that away, and more people will be worse off.
But sure, if you think you can live better without gasoline, coal, natural gas, plastics, and all other fossil fuel derived products... Go right ahead. Oh, and that includes buying anything shipped using those fuels. Might want to start building a garden in your back yard with your fingernails and hope fruits start growing naturally without having to ship in seeds. It's about the only fossil-fuel-free way to live.
PS, Herbert Stein would not get along well Sir Issac Newton. He said if an external force is not acting on something, it will keep going... PPS, that was a joke, but seriously Herbert Stein's quote means nothing, everything will stop at the heat death of the universe. Nothing is truly renewable given a long enough time scale.
I agree we will need to be able to store more fresh water. Those glaciers are formed due to snowfall, which in a warmer environment would be rainfall. The added benefit of storage of the liquid water would be hydroelectric power.
Perhaps current plants do not have increased food production, but with genetic engineering, they have the potential to (ok, maybe that's a stretch). You may have gotten me on that one, but it does not change the fact that more land area will be available for farming. I don't think food shortages will happen with global warming.
And this may be off topic a bit, but ethanol was widely touted as being a potential solution to global warming, but ethanol production uses far more fresh water and decreases the food supply more than a few degrees of warming ever could.
You ever heard of a cold? I know colds aren't caused by cold, but colder weather weakens immune systems and as such, there are more sicknesses in the winter than in the summer. Most tropical diseases can be solved with proper sanitation and antibiotics.
I question his conclusions. And based on the article, there is quite a lot of dissent in the economic community. From the wikipedia article:
Climate change threatens the basic elements of life for people around the world — access to water, food production, health, and use of land and the environment.
If the world gets warmer: Access to fresh water should INCREASE as most of the world's current fresh water is locked up in ice. Food production should INCREASE due to more efficient production of plants with more CO2, more freshwater as stated before, and because more land area will be available for farming. There is debate on health, but I believe it should increase overall, as more people die each year from cold related than to heat related deaths. Finally, use of land should be improved as the majority of the landmass on earth is currently too cold to live on, whereas there are far smaller areas that are too hot to survive in.
The impacts of climate change are not evenly distributed — the poorest countries and people will suffer earliest and most. And if and when the damages appear it will be too late to reverse the process. Thus we are forced to look a long way ahead.
The poorest countries will also suffer the most from climate change regulations and trying to switch to renewable energy. The best way we can help the poor is to make them less poor.
I somehow question their ability to predict the effects on global temperatures on the economy since they can't predict the economy at all. More to the point, are they basing that assumption on what the economy currently is? I'm sure people will be able to take advantage of the warmer climate. It is entirely possible that the economy will do better with more land area to use.
I'm not bothering to cite any evidence, because I made no claim either way on the science. I made a point about human nature. My point about human nature is valid. People generally do what generates profit for them... It's called capitalism.
You just said I was wrong about climate change (did I say anything one way or another?) and you provided a link to a presumably scientific article. I applaud you. The AC above didn't cite anything, but called into question the "deniers" because they stood to lose if global warming is true. See the difference? You assumed just because I disagreed with the AC's logic, I disagreed with their premise... Which admittedly is true, but that is based on my premise that people tend to do what has profit in it for them. And I am not afraid to disclose that I work for an energy company. That fact has NOTHING TO DO with the science though.
I don't think there is a massive conspiracy... Just a massive case of groupthink. Not to mention a lack of understanding of the effects of the warming. Fearmongering policies like claiming Florida will be flooded, and billions will die because of it does not support the science. If anything they should clearly present both bad and GOOD effects of global warming. Claiming that there are only negative effects shows a definite bias.
Notice how many of the pro groups are funded by industries that stand to profit if we make a shift away from fossil fuels or even strengthen pollution regulations.
Your statement has no valid argument in science. People will always fund what is in their interest. It has nothing to do with which side is right.
The real question is, in 1000 years, who was right? I see the global warming situation to be the same as the recession. It is a complex system with many variables. Politicians and some scientists (economists) see a potential cause, and suggest a course of action. If they buy in to enact a change, they win either way. Outcome 1: The climate continues to warm (the economy gets worse), their excuse is, we didn't do enough. Outcome 2: Things didn't change or got better, and they claim success. There is no outcome where we can prove they just wasted everybody's time and money, which has far reaching repercussions.
I want some real evidence that the steps we are taking will do something about the problem if there is one. Maybe the earth is warming, maybe we caused it, but there are still some unanswered questions in my book:
1) Can we do anything about it? 2) If we can do something about it, SHOULD WE? 3) Is the cost of doing something about it less than the cost of mitigating the effects?
Does anyone have good answers for these questions? From my perspective, the world looks like it can support more life at the warm end of the spectrum... In the long term, we are better off with a warmer climate. In the short term, it may hurt, but isn't that the same situation with rapidly trying to change how we move and use energy?
Also, I think 95% confidence is rather low for climate change. I can give you a 100% confidence that climate is changing, because it always has, and it always will. The variables that go into climate are not constant, so there is no justification for believing that climate can be constant. That being said, which way would we rather it goes?
No, I'm more concerned about the stupid laws on the books. For example, I work on petroleum storage tanks, and if there is even a pinhole in the seal, the EPA says we have to clean the tank and replace it. Cleaning a tank releases more vapors than about a century of that pinhole. You might ask why we don't manage those vapors. Well the only way to get rid of gasoline vapors is to burn them off. Which would you prefer, some gassy smell, or a giant flare?
Yes, but if you cooled the entire earth by 1 degree... Where would that heat go? GLOBAL WARMING!!! The atmosphere would have to be a few thousand degrees when you are done extracting all that energy! It might even get hot enough that you couldn't extract any more energy from the magma. Thus geothermal is worse than oil and coal for the environment. (P.S. on a more serious note, what about all the trapped greenhouse gases in the magma? Where do they go?)
Quit yer whinin! When I was in school, we had nuns for teachers, and they'd tell you worse shit than this TO YOUR FACE. And then the rest of the class would laugh at you while the nun basked in your ridicule. It made you stronger, or at least work hard enough to not be below average.
Oh snap... You just pointed out the hilarity of people complaining about things being made in poor countries. Idiots don't want them to be poor, but don't want them to have jobs either.
Boston is a fairly old city and likely still has a combined sewer system. That being said, the main advantage is the vast majority of melted snow is absorbed into the ground instead of turning to runoff. If you throw it in the river, it all contributes to runoff. In addition, much of the snow melt gets filtered through the ground or through the sewer system itself even if it doesn't get treated.
Jimmy Carter... Given a peace prize in 2002 left office in 1981. Barack Obama... Given a peace prize in 2009, took office in 2009.
Jimmy Carter was actually given the award for what he did which was well known 20 years after his term. Barack was given the award for the promises he made (and has not yet fulfilled) during his campaign. Has the war in Iraq ended? What about Afghanistan? If and when he ends at least one war, than I would say the prize was justified. I don't call getting elected president any more of an extraordinary effort for international diplomacy or cooperation than it was for Bush, Clinton, the other Bush, or Reagan after Carter.
Shift does have several camera options. You can do 3rd person, but it is extremely awkward if you have actual pedals and wheels. I built a racing simulator setup with a vehicle seat, a 40" LCD, and some speakers right behind your head, and it feels pretty realistic. However, I use the hood cam because it sucks staring through my broken windshield the whole race in the driver seat... Of course in real life you don't have to pass 16 other vehicles in 3 laps, so there is no need to ram through the crowd.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a problem with your C option. Heating may indeed occur. However, what does not follow from heating is "out of control" and "catastrophes". There is a probability that global catastrophes will occur, but it is not a guarantee.
And your logic for why warming is bad still leaves out the potential good effects of warming... Do you deny that large parts of Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Northern Europe, and Russia would benefit from warmer temperatures? Heck if things get warm enough and the ice caps melts, Antarctica might even be decent to live in. These land areas are MASSIVE. Much more significant than removing even a mile of coastland around the world and making the entire equatorial region unlivable. The IPC suggests that within the next century sealevels can rise at the high end of 590mm. That's less than 2' and I seriously think the low end of 190mm is more likely. This is hardly catastrophic especially since this will occur over 100 years. Cities can and will adapt or people will relocate (maybe the the large new landmasses available. Heck New Orleans is more than 590mm below sea level as it is. I liked you comment about the ease of moving a billion people though. Lets do some math:
The current world usage of oil is about 85 million barrels of oil per day. If we assume that all of this goes to road fuel (not a good assumption, it's typically only about 80%, but the volume of a barrel does increase when it is cracked) let's assume we get 85 million barrels of gasoline out of that. There are 42 gallons in a barrel, so that's about 3.5 billion gallons of gas per day. If we assume a modest 10 miles/gallon vehicles, and we assume people at least attempt to carpool and travel 2 people per vehicle So divide the world population by 2 and figure out how far everyone on earth can go every day on current production. It conveniently comes out to about 10 miles a day (1 gallon for every 2 people on earth). So the distance from the equator to the south pole (where there is land) is about 6000 miles. Worst case scenario, it would only take 2 years to move everyone in the world by car (I know there might need to be some ferries involved) from the equator to the south pole.
Now this experiment wasn't completely useful, but it does tell you something. Oil is an incredible source of energy. In just 6 lbs of weight, you can move a 2 1/2 ton block of steel (a prius) about 50 miles. That's pretty incredible when you think about it. Even then a Prius is probably only about 40% efficient. The moral of the story is, if we move to alternative fuel sources, moving a billion people gets much harder. Electric cars go about 100 miles and then you might as well wait a day before going out again. Or you can go 400 and fill up in 2 minutes at a gas station.
To your final point, there are a lot of diseases associated with heat. Look at malaria and yellow fever. When we were building the panama canal, it devastated the workers... Until we introduced medicine and proper sanitation, and it went away. Cold on the other hand weakens the immune system, and as a result many more people are subjected to diseases. In addition, statically, there are more cold related deaths that heat related deaths. There are simply more dangers associated with cold than hot to humans. Most cities shut down with a foot of snow, but the effect of an inch of rain is not nearly as severe.
If the best way for a scientist to get ahead is by proving his colleagues wrong, how can they do that if there is a debate about the accuracy and reliability of the data? Consistency is meaningless if everyone is working on the same datasets. Of course if everyone has the same numbers and the same models they are going to get the same answers. The real question is, does somebody have independent data that corroborates the theory? The reality is, we have one data set, maybe a few theories, and a bunch of analysts. What we don't have is any data from experiments. Where has this hypothesis been tested? Would your 6th grade teacher have allowed you to run a bunch of simulations on one set of data and then use that to examine your hypothesis?
I agree it will stop. But how many people currently benefit from inexpensive fuel and electricity? I agree it isn't good in the long term, but in the short term, the reason we have such a high standard of living and a long life expectancy is DIRECTLY attributable to fossil fuels. Take that away, and more people will be worse off.
But sure, if you think you can live better without gasoline, coal, natural gas, plastics, and all other fossil fuel derived products... Go right ahead. Oh, and that includes buying anything shipped using those fuels. Might want to start building a garden in your back yard with your fingernails and hope fruits start growing naturally without having to ship in seeds. It's about the only fossil-fuel-free way to live.
PS, Herbert Stein would not get along well Sir Issac Newton. He said if an external force is not acting on something, it will keep going...
PPS, that was a joke, but seriously Herbert Stein's quote means nothing, everything will stop at the heat death of the universe. Nothing is truly renewable given a long enough time scale.
I agree we will need to be able to store more fresh water. Those glaciers are formed due to snowfall, which in a warmer environment would be rainfall. The added benefit of storage of the liquid water would be hydroelectric power.
Perhaps current plants do not have increased food production, but with genetic engineering, they have the potential to (ok, maybe that's a stretch). You may have gotten me on that one, but it does not change the fact that more land area will be available for farming. I don't think food shortages will happen with global warming.
And this may be off topic a bit, but ethanol was widely touted as being a potential solution to global warming, but ethanol production uses far more fresh water and decreases the food supply more than a few degrees of warming ever could.
You ever heard of a cold? I know colds aren't caused by cold, but colder weather weakens immune systems and as such, there are more sicknesses in the winter than in the summer. Most tropical diseases can be solved with proper sanitation and antibiotics.
I question his conclusions. And based on the article, there is quite a lot of dissent in the economic community. From the wikipedia article:
Climate change threatens the basic elements of life for people around the world — access to water, food production, health, and use of land and the environment.
If the world gets warmer: Access to fresh water should INCREASE as most of the world's current fresh water is locked up in ice. Food production should INCREASE due to more efficient production of plants with more CO2, more freshwater as stated before, and because more land area will be available for farming. There is debate on health, but I believe it should increase overall, as more people die each year from cold related than to heat related deaths. Finally, use of land should be improved as the majority of the landmass on earth is currently too cold to live on, whereas there are far smaller areas that are too hot to survive in.
The impacts of climate change are not evenly distributed — the poorest countries and people will suffer earliest and most. And if and when the damages appear it will be too late to reverse the process. Thus we are forced to look a long way ahead.
The poorest countries will also suffer the most from climate change regulations and trying to switch to renewable energy. The best way we can help the poor is to make them less poor.
I somehow question their ability to predict the effects on global temperatures on the economy since they can't predict the economy at all. More to the point, are they basing that assumption on what the economy currently is? I'm sure people will be able to take advantage of the warmer climate. It is entirely possible that the economy will do better with more land area to use.
I'm not bothering to cite any evidence, because I made no claim either way on the science. I made a point about human nature. My point about human nature is valid. People generally do what generates profit for them... It's called capitalism.
You just said I was wrong about climate change (did I say anything one way or another?) and you provided a link to a presumably scientific article. I applaud you. The AC above didn't cite anything, but called into question the "deniers" because they stood to lose if global warming is true. See the difference? You assumed just because I disagreed with the AC's logic, I disagreed with their premise... Which admittedly is true, but that is based on my premise that people tend to do what has profit in it for them. And I am not afraid to disclose that I work for an energy company. That fact has NOTHING TO DO with the science though.
But their research labs aren't...
I don't think there is a massive conspiracy... Just a massive case of groupthink. Not to mention a lack of understanding of the effects of the warming. Fearmongering policies like claiming Florida will be flooded, and billions will die because of it does not support the science. If anything they should clearly present both bad and GOOD effects of global warming. Claiming that there are only negative effects shows a definite bias.
Notice how many of the pro groups are funded by industries that stand to profit if we make a shift away from fossil fuels or even strengthen pollution regulations.
Your statement has no valid argument in science. People will always fund what is in their interest. It has nothing to do with which side is right.
Yeah, don't you hate people who just attack their opponents instead of providing data?
The real question is, in 1000 years, who was right? I see the global warming situation to be the same as the recession. It is a complex system with many variables. Politicians and some scientists (economists) see a potential cause, and suggest a course of action. If they buy in to enact a change, they win either way. Outcome 1: The climate continues to warm (the economy gets worse), their excuse is, we didn't do enough. Outcome 2: Things didn't change or got better, and they claim success. There is no outcome where we can prove they just wasted everybody's time and money, which has far reaching repercussions.
I want some real evidence that the steps we are taking will do something about the problem if there is one. Maybe the earth is warming, maybe we caused it, but there are still some unanswered questions in my book:
1) Can we do anything about it?
2) If we can do something about it, SHOULD WE?
3) Is the cost of doing something about it less than the cost of mitigating the effects?
Does anyone have good answers for these questions? From my perspective, the world looks like it can support more life at the warm end of the spectrum... In the long term, we are better off with a warmer climate. In the short term, it may hurt, but isn't that the same situation with rapidly trying to change how we move and use energy?
Also, I think 95% confidence is rather low for climate change. I can give you a 100% confidence that climate is changing, because it always has, and it always will. The variables that go into climate are not constant, so there is no justification for believing that climate can be constant. That being said, which way would we rather it goes?
No, I'm more concerned about the stupid laws on the books. For example, I work on petroleum storage tanks, and if there is even a pinhole in the seal, the EPA says we have to clean the tank and replace it. Cleaning a tank releases more vapors than about a century of that pinhole. You might ask why we don't manage those vapors. Well the only way to get rid of gasoline vapors is to burn them off. Which would you prefer, some gassy smell, or a giant flare?
The EPA does more damage than anyone else. If you knew half of their ass backwards requirements, you'd see how much of a waste they really are.
Yes, but if you cooled the entire earth by 1 degree... Where would that heat go? GLOBAL WARMING!!! The atmosphere would have to be a few thousand degrees when you are done extracting all that energy! It might even get hot enough that you couldn't extract any more energy from the magma. Thus geothermal is worse than oil and coal for the environment. (P.S. on a more serious note, what about all the trapped greenhouse gases in the magma? Where do they go?)
About 1 Calorie (1 kilocalorie) per fluid oz... Not a whole bunch there.
Quit yer whinin! When I was in school, we had nuns for teachers, and they'd tell you worse shit than this TO YOUR FACE. And then the rest of the class would laugh at you while the nun basked in your ridicule. It made you stronger, or at least work hard enough to not be below average.
Oh snap... You just pointed out the hilarity of people complaining about things being made in poor countries. Idiots don't want them to be poor, but don't want them to have jobs either.
Yeah, the government doesn't have totally open books, and they are losing money hand over fist!
Is that what they were wearing on their heads during the halftime show?
That post makes your name ironic. Not an onlooker anymore are you?
Boston is a fairly old city and likely still has a combined sewer system. That being said, the main advantage is the vast majority of melted snow is absorbed into the ground instead of turning to runoff. If you throw it in the river, it all contributes to runoff. In addition, much of the snow melt gets filtered through the ground or through the sewer system itself even if it doesn't get treated.
Jimmy Carter... Given a peace prize in 2002 left office in 1981.
Barack Obama... Given a peace prize in 2009, took office in 2009.
Jimmy Carter was actually given the award for what he did which was well known 20 years after his term. Barack was given the award for the promises he made (and has not yet fulfilled) during his campaign. Has the war in Iraq ended? What about Afghanistan? If and when he ends at least one war, than I would say the prize was justified. I don't call getting elected president any more of an extraordinary effort for international diplomacy or cooperation than it was for Bush, Clinton, the other Bush, or Reagan after Carter.
Shift does have several camera options. You can do 3rd person, but it is extremely awkward if you have actual pedals and wheels. I built a racing simulator setup with a vehicle seat, a 40" LCD, and some speakers right behind your head, and it feels pretty realistic. However, I use the hood cam because it sucks staring through my broken windshield the whole race in the driver seat... Of course in real life you don't have to pass 16 other vehicles in 3 laps, so there is no need to ram through the crowd.