Freaking Out over Global Warming
Levitt and Dubner raise an interesting possibility that deserves careful scrutiny, not ridicule. An immediate and drastic reductions in carbon emissions is not the only way to address climate change. FULL ARTICLE by Robert Murphy
Comments (47)
Dennis
Just two observations, neither of which I will discuss, but whose implications should be apparent:
(1) The altering of the terminology from global warming to climate change; and,
(2) Economists, in addition to scientists and engineers, are increasingly joining in the climate change debate as technical experts, with the prospects of lucrative funding ultimately paid for through coercive taxation. The evolution of the climate change debate mirrors the almost universal support of economists as expert technical advisors for central banking and Keynesian policy prescriptions.
Published: November 6, 2009 7:53 AM
fundamentalist
Good points, Dennis. Mainstream economists are nothing but whores for socialism.
"Levitt and Dubner raise an interesting possibility that deserves careful scrutiny, not ridicule:"
Ridicule is all the left knows. They seriously don't want a debate on substance laced with reason: they will fail every time. That's why consensus is the word for the day. The GW hysteria crowd can't persuade many people with their "science" so they round up a herd of socialist "scientists" and "economists", declare them to be a consensus and ridicule anyone who disagrees. They can't win on evidence or reason, so they have enthroned consensus as the the only epistemology. Do their methods remind anyone of middle school tactics?
Published: November 6, 2009 8:13 AM
Daniel Glowinski
Has anyone seen "Inconvenient truth"?
Al Gore shows there that when Arctic melts down level of the see will rise and Florida, Holland and bunch of small islands will be under water.
The weird thing is that everyone who has ever had physics at school knows that ice has smaller density than water. That means that if it melts down sea level will not rise even one inch. In fact it will slightly decrease, because water occupies less space than ice.
It is so obvious and yet nobody points it out
Published: November 6, 2009 9:15 AM
Chris Pauschenwein
What does it matter what WE have to do to "solve" the global warming if the developing world ie. China or India does not have to conform to the changes?!
Corporations and gov't will force us to pay extra and just allow themselves to get rich while polluting in another country! Again, we get screwed while the corporations and gov't get richer on our sweat.
Published: November 6, 2009 9:29 AM
Michael A. Clem
Murphy closes with "It's surprising that some of the people who warn that the fate of the planet itself is it stake are so dismissive of what could be a crucial component of humanity's response to the very dangers of which they're warning."
It's not surprising at all--these people want to create panic and hysteria in order to control people--"saving the planet" is just the cover or excuse they use in order to do so. Any truly reasonable plan that does not included taking marching orders from government won't work for their purposes.
Published: November 6, 2009 9:40 AM
Mike
Daniel,
I've never heard the argument that the Arctic Ocean melting will cause sea levels to rise. What I always heard was the melting of Greenland and Antarctica, which would increase the volume of water in the oceans.
Published: November 6, 2009 9:56 AM
Arend
If for the sake of argument the science of climatology with their fancy models with fantastic predictive power is settled, this would all be a nice debating issue. I, however, think there is no sake in such an argument.
Published: November 6, 2009 10:23 AM
Mike
In any case, if humanity must depend on the state for its survival, then humanity is doomed. Period.
Published: November 6, 2009 10:26 AM
Eric
If it ain't worth doing at all, it ain't worth doing right!
That would be my argument with an economic solution to the "global warming" problem. I am reminded of the damage caused by Milton Friedman, who thought that making government more efficient was the answer.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2716078.htm#transcript
This is a transcript of a response by Ian Plimer on his book Heaven and Earth. This book covers a lot of ground, and concludes that co2 is not a threat at all. If references are a measure of a scientific book, then this is it. I, like most, can only go by what I've read. But this book apparently has been read by some critics, so at least the information in it is getting some press. It contains details I can't really judge, with the exception of computer modeling, one of my professional qualifications. And I am personally convinced that anything projected by the climate models is worthless. From what I've read, none of them predicted the cooling that has occurred since 1998, and most all of them predicted much warming that clearly has not happened.
What I find really disturbing is that, similar to how glaciers move, the mainstream now accepts co2 as a harmful gas and is mentioned in such things as why we should be looking to fund fusion research. That may or may not be a good idea, but when everyone excepts that co2 is dangerous to the planet, I fear that turning around this massive movement is going to take quite some more time. It really is more of a religious movement than a scientific one.
Let us pray that nobody comes up with a cheap working solution to global warming or we could suffer with a global cooling that would surely kill many millions of us.
Published: November 6, 2009 10:32 AM
George
"The weird thing is that everyone who has ever had physics at school knows that ice has smaller density than water. That means that if it melts down sea level will not rise even one inch. In fact it will slightly decrease, because water occupies less space than ice."
However, there is a significant amount of ice above the sea and on land, and this ice melting WOULD increase sea level.
Has anyone done any studies on what the increase in water vapor would be if CO2 increased by the projected amount? And then, what the increase in temperatures and the beneficial/negative effects of that would be? Since plants use CO2, what would be the combined effects of the sea level rise, increased vegetation, and water vapor be?
This would mostly be hypothetical BS, but no more than any climate model done today if done in the same manner.
Published: November 6, 2009 11:24 AM
Walt D.
If the Climate "Scientists" had a model for predicting the results of the World Series, 6 months ago they would have claimed that their model was infallible and predicted that the Philly's would win the World Series . Today they would be arguing that would should ignore the actual result, and that the majority of baseball pundits believe that their model is still infallible.
Published: November 6, 2009 11:35 AM
czelaya
As a chemical physicist, I'm dumbfounded by the assertions of the weather alarmist. In a nutshell, what the IPCC is stating is that they understand the end result of the weather (which is chaotic in nature and falls under the study of chaos theory). Chaos theory involves using equations called complex partial differential equations. These equations are very difficult to solve. Matter of fact, we can only approximate the multitude of solutions these equations entail. Anyone familiar with quantum mechanics (Schrodinger equation, Dirac Equation), physical chemistry (Flick's law of diffusion, Brusselator) or any other physical science dealing with equations of this nature would quickly realize what the IPCC is putting forth is complete and for a lack of better world "garbage". The twenty models the IPCC currently using have not been able to predict with any level of confidence the current state of the weather. You can’t. It just to difficult of a process because it involves interacting, multidemensional, multivariable(trillions of trillions)-systems that are far to large in scope.
I just don't know any other way to state this... but current mainstream climatology (global warming) is not pure scientific thought bc government is filtering research via grants. Science must take into account all possible avenues and what the IPCC is stating is only small snippet of possible outcomes. Science must take into account all possible realms and explanations. Any good scientist who reviews the data and theories stemming from the alarmist can only come to one sensible conclusion. We just don't know. The outcomes of the weather are almost infinite. Furthermore, an analysis of historical data puts a serious damper of what the alarmist are proposing. CO2 levels have been much higher in Earth's past (due to Volcanic activity); Earth's temp. has been much higher than presently; and the most alarming of all is what I learned from Roy Spencer (lead climatologist at NASA) that the core date supports just the opposite cause & effect hypothesis of “Carbon dioxide leads to warming”… this is simply not true. Warming of the weather releases CO2 (primarily from the oceans). This is one factor that Al Gore misrepresents on “An Inconvenient Truth”. The more I research, the more apparent it becomes on how government institutions are being single sided about the issue.
Then again government intrusion into scientific conclusions is like anything else... it manipulates the truth... thus, any sound conclusions are coerced.
Published: November 6, 2009 11:40 AM
DixieFlatline
Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul
Published: November 6, 2009 11:40 AM
George
"http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2716078.htm#transcript
This is a transcript of a response by Ian Plimer on his book Heaven and Earth. This book covers a lot of ground, and concludes that co2 is not a threat at all. If references are a measure of a scientific book, then this is it."
Here is one review of the book that criticizes its claims :
http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91
Published: November 6, 2009 11:43 AM
TheSloth
The whole point of "engineering" panic over climate change and global warming appears to be to get investments now for developments in newer technologies that will create wealth in the future. The whole propaganda (maybe a wrong word to use here) could well be a social engineering exercise to get us all to think about what is happening around us in a fresh light and to raise awareness.
Some of the biggest wealth generators (IT and mobile technology) will eventually run their course (the glory days are ending???), and urgent replacements are necessary to sustain ourselves in the long term. In addition to climate and weather management, newer fields of science & engineering like biotechnology and nano-technology will (hopefully) have the potential to sustain our lives (and lifestyles).
Certainly, the proposed solutions may work, and do the job too. But then what?
Published: November 6, 2009 12:42 PM
Mike
TheSloth,
What do you mean by, "and urgent replacements are necessary to sustain ourselves in the long term"?
This sounds like the common belief that we exist to serve "The Economy".
Humans act to relieve discomfort. If we get to a (hypothetical, unrealistic) point where everybody is well-fed and nobody works because they don't have to, why is this some sort of "urgent" problem?
Why do the wheels have to keep spinning? What is the deal with The Economy for The Economy's sake?
Published: November 6, 2009 12:58 PM
DixieFlatline
Carbon Credits = New derivative trade.
This time, the derivative trade won't be backed by debt, but by taxation. It's brilliant and evil.
Published: November 6, 2009 12:58 PM
DixieFlatline
Carbon credits = new derivative trade
Instead of the derivative market being backed by debt, it will now be backed by taxation. It is a brilliant scheme. Brilliant and evil.
Published: November 6, 2009 1:00 PM
Eric
George:
Thanks for that link.
Well, he's going to defend his thesis in the next week or so. But that certainly appears to be a critical report on his book.
Do you also happen to have a critique of another book I've read, "The chilling stars" which seemed to me to be quite similar to this one, at least in the conclusions.
The one area that I do feel competent to judge, however, is in the modeling. The critique you linked didn't actually dispute that the models were unable to model various effects, but rather seemed to pick at his statement that they "didn't" model things, like El Nino events. However, even this critique says that "El Nino is recognized as part of the chaotic behaviour...is unpredictable". So if something is not predictable, then I would think it qualifies as being un-modeled.
In another case, they complain about his claim that they don't model clouds, yet everything I've read claims that clouds are simply too complex to model.
Given they don't even know yet if the cosmic ray theory of clouds is true, it is possible that if they ARE modeling clouds, that whatever results they get are possibly completely wrong. And as Pilmer says, everyone knows that clouds affect temperature to a great extent. And even personal experience shows how often weather in the next 24 hours gets cloud cover wrong.
And my 40 years of computer experience (20 in modeling) tell me they are using approximations and probably don't even have any valid testing methods. But then that's not a truly scientific conclusion on my part, just a very educated guess - especially when funding depends on politics. I could give you horror stories on this topic, but that too isn't real proof.
So, like religion, it all boils down to whose holy book is more believable.
Published: November 6, 2009 1:10 PM
Individualist
Wouldn't an increase in sea level mean more water available to suck heat through evaporation and formation of clouds that irradiate that heat back to the universe ?
Wouldn't more CO2 means more and bigger plants and vegetation which would then suck even more CO2 ?
Therefore, decreasing sunlight in an atmosphere richer of CO2 would prevent plants from sucking the excess CO2 through photosynthesis.
Those who are alarmed at global warming think that the earth's ecosystems and climate systems are a standstill that can't react.
Published: November 6, 2009 1:22 PM
George
Haven't seen any reviews of "The Chilling Stars", but I completely agree with your closing paragraph:
"And my 40 years of computer experience (20 in modeling) tell me they are using approximations and probably don't even have any valid testing methods. But then that's not a truly scientific conclusion on my part, just a very educated guess - especially when funding depends on politics. I could give you horror stories on this topic, but that too isn't real proof.
So, like religion, it all boils down to whose holy book is more believable. "
On one hand you get "The science is settled" or "We are two degrees from the point of no return.", and on the other hand you get "humans have absolutely zero impact on climate change".
I personally can't stand either view as both smack of religious fundamentalism to me (no offense fundamentalist).
The only tenable way I see forward through this mess is to reject any solutions that place ever more power in the hands of the bureaucracy, to get rid of distorting subsidies in the economy and to return power to the people (and not to the bureaucrat who claims that he is doing such a thing).
Unfortunately, I don't hold too much hope for the people of these countries where the ideological fervor is at its greatest, for the conflict of self-interest between people and their rulers means that people will bend for whatever scraps they can get, even if the scrap means bare survival or not being shot, and their rulers will convince them that it is in their best interest to do so. How else were the communists able to build the Berlin wall using the labour of East Germans? Did they not know what the wall represented? Yet build it they did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Berlin_Wall_1961-11-20.jpg
Today new walls, physical or virtual, are going up all over the place and the people unwittingly help participate in their own demise just like they have in the past.
Published: November 6, 2009 1:25 PM
Thomas McGovern
The link to the final chapter of Superfreakonomics, "http://delong.typepad.com/files/superfreakonomics-chapter-5.pdf," is to a PDF that was made by photocopying the physical book. Isn't this a violation of the authors' copyright? Isn't it a violation of their property rights? I thought that the LvMI supported property rights. Why is the LvMI violating property rights now? None of the other commenters have mentioned this. Am I missing something here or are they?
Published: November 6, 2009 1:41 PM
Michael A. Clem
Thomas, I won't speak for the MIses site (or Robert Murphy), except to note the numerous anti-IP articles that have been posted to the blog. But the url linked to is on Brad DeLong's blog site, not LvMI. So if anyone is violating copyright laws, it would be Delong.
Published: November 6, 2009 1:54 PM
Thomas Talionis
Does anyone remember the old global warming?
CFC's were going to destroy the ozone so they had to be banned. But did anyone mention that Dupont owned the patent on CFC's?
It was expiring which meant that it could be produced in third world countries for a severe fraction of the price. Then the Warmists had it banned worldwide. We now use Dupont's patented alternative.
But I'm sure it was all a coincidence. And it's a coincidence Al Gore's net worth went from under a million to over $100 million since leaving office.
Another coincidence: he owns half of Generation Investment Management which sells carbon credits. Which he will make mandatory by law. Coincidences abound.
Published: November 6, 2009 2:27 PM
fundamentalist
George: "I personally can't stand either view as both smack of religious fundamentalism to me (no offense fundamentalist)."
None taken. I started following the global warming debate in the late 1980's when it was still a science and very interesting. The fall of communism in Eastern Europe and the USSR 1989-1991, devastated the socialists and killed their economic argument for socialism as the poverty of former socialist states became clear. But socialists never give up. They switched to anti-globalization for a while, then they spotted the global warming argument and latched onto it. That's when the science died and socialist ideology, not religious fundamentalism took over.
Religious fundamentalism is actually quite rational for the most part. Socialist ideology is not. As Mises wrote many times, socialist polylogism denies the existence of objective truth, knowledge or reason. Only socialists can be trusted and they never debate non-socialists; they merely ridicule opponents. Consensus replaces evidence and reason.
That's the mud the global warming debate has descended into. It hasn't been science in over two decades; it's a mud wrestling contest. The Al Gores of the world hope to silence critics with ridicule and ostracism. And they will succeed if people aren't willing to listen to evidence and reason that men like Dr. Hayden offer.
Published: November 6, 2009 2:36 PM
Ribald
"For an analogy, consider people who contract a terminal illness and then elect to have their bodies cryonically frozen so that they can be resuscitated and cured in the future. Now maybe that's a good idea or maybe it's not, but it wouldn't really make sense for someone to say, "That's just bad economics! Why go to the trouble of having your cancer cured in the future? Just do it now." Yet that is exactly the argument DeLong has deployed against Levitt."
I think this paragraph demonstrates most directly what I would disagree with here: the idea that waiting will lower costs (via technological innovation) faster than it raises costs (through warming effects and the growth of civilization).
Large-scale adoption of low-carbon emission technology also lowers costs. Allowing carbon-emitting infrastructure to expand also raises costs (it will have to be torn down and replaced. The bigger it is, the higher the opportunity costs that result). Most geo-engineering ideas, apart from being unstudied or dangerous, would present gigantic problems independent of their technical implementation. For example, one can imagine that it would take quite a while for the entire world to agree to let anyone engineer the planet. Such ideas beg for powerful states to literally control the global environment and, by extension, the global economy.
It's possible that technology will advance to the point that the issue is moot. If that happens, it won't make much of a difference to have addressed the problem earlier rather than later anyway, will it? The cost of our efforts would pale in comparison to the value of that technology.
Published: November 6, 2009 3:36 PM
Walt D.
"Wouldn't more CO2 means more and bigger plants and vegetation which would then suck even more CO2 ?"
More CO2 means more and bigger government which would then suck even more! :-)
Published: November 6, 2009 3:36 PM
TokyoTom
I commend you for relatively balanced post. However ...
1. You left out/toned down this part from your shorter MasterResource piece (emphasis added):
"The problem with a book like Superfreakonomics–and I said as much of their first book in this review–is that Levitt and Dubner try to (a) synthesize a huge amount of information to challenge the conventional wisdom on some point, be it parental influence on children’s success, the effects of abortion on crime rates, or the feasibility of geoengineering; and (b) write in a snappy, cutesy way that doesn’t tax the average reader’s attention span.
"The result is pretty predictable: If the reader agrees with the unorthodox view that Levitt and Dubner are pushing, then their analysis seems wonderful (if incomplete). On the other hand, if the reader happens to endorse the “conventional wisdom” that is subject to their irreverent attack, then Levitt and Dubner will come off as sloppy amateurs, dabbling in an area better left to true experts.
"So when it comes to the issue of climate alarmism, I would simply caution fans of limited government to tread lightly in their support for our bestselling authors: Let’s not forget how Levitt dealt with John Lott and his arguments against gun control. Even though Joe Romm et al. are certainly over-the-top in their denunciations, it’s still possible that Levitt and Dubner really did do a slipshod job summarizing the climate science in their new book. I would argue that it’s happened before.
"As an economist, I’m not qualified to judge whether they have fairly summarized the state of the climate science per se."
Well, not only did it happen before, it has CLEARLY happened again this time, since Levitt and Dubner don`t spend much time summarizing the climate at all. They`ve got some useful passages about climate risk and the need to consider geo-engineering, which - in light of the expected large ramp-up in CO2 emissions as China, India and others start to grow (and us too) - has been on the scientists and enviros` agenda for some time. (I`ve been mentioning here for several years now.)
While the Levitt and Dubner chapter would probably surprise true-blue "skeptics" and seem "alarmist", there`s simply way too many important science aspects missing, and too much that is junk that panders gratuitously to skeptics in a manner that seem intended to engender precisely the type of attention they have won, in order to sell more books..
2. It seems pretty clear that people are steamed not merely because of the mistakes by Dubner and Levitt, but because they are concerned that geoengineering will be no deus ex machina, and that the chapter will derailthe legislative process (as Michael Clem noted). Because they
view climate change as a serious threat, they also want geoengineering to be seriously considered.
3. Irrespective of your quibbles with DeLong about what is economics vs. history, clearly Levitt and Dubner do a naive and poor job with any economic (or scientific risk) analysis of geoengineering.
After painting a picture of the possible risks of climate change, they note that one "good reason" for waiting before starting any effort now is that there may be a cheap solution later, without even considering the risks of waiting, the risks that geoengineering won`t work or will itself create serious problems, or the costs, who will bear them, and the reaction of other countries. They, and the guru they talk to, seem to naturally assume that geo-engineering is somethat governments ought to finance. This kind of basic economic and science analysis is simply missing.
On the science front, they completely fail to address the problem of ocean acidifcation. Ken Caldeira, the concerned climate scientist who has decided it`s NECESSARY (funny how Dubner and Levitt call a quite reluctant Caldeira a "convert" to geo-engineering!) to spend time looking at geo-engineering options, gave a speech on it in March 2007 at the Smithsonian, reprinted in the June 2007 Oceanography: "What Corals are Dying to Tell Us About CO and Ocean Acidification",
http://bit.ly/45wsGp
4. Your argument over what`s history and what`s economics misses that (a) all technological changes were of course tied to behavior changes, involving the adoption of the new technology, and (b) DeLong and everyone else in the economics profession is expecting that pricing carbon will lead to BOTH behavioral changes and new technology. Your whole discussion seems to be a distraction and an effort to do a gotcha! with DeLong.
5. It seems that you are conceding that if climate change IS a problem, then our governments ought to do something about it, such as mionkeying with the atmosphere Is this your position?
6. I note the UK Royal Academy just published fairly comprehensive (98 pages) study, "Geoengineering the Climate", for all of you who are interested in delving into all of this, and evaluating various proposals. http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=35217
7. Ron Bailey also has a post up on this at Reason, with a little bit more of the blow-by-blow; but he also thinks that Dubner and Levitt did a poor job and the science and on Weisman:
http://reason.com/archives/2009/11/03/superfreaking-out-over-climate.
Ron thinks they`ve done a public service in breaking what seems to me a non-existent "taboo"; though it`s ironic that the fact that climate scientists are starting to think that the problem is of such a serious scale that CO2 reduction alone won`t really budge the climate ship in time to avoid major climate damage is now being taken by the "skeptics" as a sign that .... the problem can`t be serious!
Bob, shame on you for stirring up alarm!
Published: November 6, 2009 3:45 PM
Dick Fox
Robert Murphy wrote:
Another possibility is to buy a few decades' worth of "breathing room" (Myhrvold's phrase in the book) through pumping SO2 into the stratosphere, for example, and then make the transition to carbon-free energy production when it will not be so terribly costly.
This is stupid.
I have heard environmentalists talk about salting the atmosphere to prevent global warming, but do you realize that if there is no global warming and we do such a stupid thing we could cause global cooling that could kill thousands?
Global warming has never been a problem with the earth. During warm periods life has flourished. The greater threat is always global cooling. During an ice age growing seasons are restricted and move toward the equator meaning smaller harvests. People who lived in climates that were temporate suddenly are faced with cold that can freeze people to death.
If we were to do such a thing and miscalculate we could actually kill every living thing on the earth. I can't believe that Robert Murphy would even remotely consider such a thing.
Published: November 6, 2009 3:53 PM
TokyoTom
Bob, here`s some more info and another take on Superfreak that may be useful:
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/the-freakonomics-solution-to-finding-yourself-in-a-hole/
It is replete with links to all of the workthat has been done on geo-engineering, and to plenty of news stories discussing it.
Dubner & Levitt have done nothing heroic, and they`ve done it quite poorly.
Published: November 6, 2009 4:00 PM
Sonic Ninja Kitty
Has anybody here seen the BBC documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle"? It's on DVD or you can see it in 9 part on YouTube.
If you are pressed for time, just watch part 3 from 1:23 to 6:05: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzFL6Ixe_bo
This alone should give climate changers pause, if not stop them dead in their tracks. I agree with Dennis and Fundamentalist. It's now a political issue, and unless we focus on the science that debunks global warming theory, we will be subject to some form of legislation down the road.
The SuperFreakanomics debate is superfluous and distracting.
Published: November 6, 2009 4:45 PM
matt
why is it any wonder that the same people who have told us for years that they KNOW a better way and whose decisions have led to catastrophe are now telling us they KNOW a better way? whether politics, economics or climate change, we've got two groups. those who think they know more than the rest of us and have to save us from ourselves. and those of us who understand that we can control only ourselves and property and leave others to their own devices.
Published: November 6, 2009 4:48 PM
Phil H
The climate alarmists claim that if "carbon" (by which they mean the tiny trace gas CO2) goes from 4 parts in ten thousand to 5 parts in ten thousand, the result will be runaway global warming and climate catastrophe!
I have my doubts, especially since the rent-seeking alarmists are positively salivating at the thought of trillions of dollars in play.
And the planet itself is being uncooperative. As CO2 has risen, the global temperature has steadily fallen. Alarmists say this is only temporary, because there is some mysterious, hidden 'heat in the pipeline', which has never been shown to exist. But it's there, trust them.
And Al Gore absolutely runs and hides out from any real debate. He refuses to answer any questions, and he lives a grossly profligate lifestyle, with his own personal jet, five mansions, and millions in CO2 generating Occidental Oil stock. But he buys carbon credits from a company that he happens to own, so it's OK.
If Elmer Gantry were here today, he would know exactly what's going on: the biggest swindle in history. And guess who's going to pay for it?
Published: November 6, 2009 5:34 PM
Phil H
Dang! My graph didn't link. I hate when that happens! It's here:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ALL_SINCE_2002.jpg
Published: November 6, 2009 6:27 PM
Walt D.
"Dang! My graph didn't link. I hate when that happens! It's here:"
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ALL_SINCE_2002.jpg,
Wow - we can actually measure the temperature of the ocean using thermometers! You mean we don't have to guess or run stupid computer models?
What do you do if you don't like the temperatures you get? Ignore them and keep guessing and running stupid computer models?
Published: November 6, 2009 8:59 PM
Walt D.
Guess what? We are about to sign a climate treaty where we give away up to $300 billion. (OK now we're used to stimulus packages, and budget deficits that does not sound so bad any more.).
Listen to what Lord Monckton has to say:,
http://www.breitbart.tv/the-b-cast-interview-lord-monckton-defends-his-warning-for-america/
Published: November 6, 2009 9:04 PM
Gil
The Superfreakonomics view on global warming gets a hammering here.
Published: November 6, 2009 9:53 PM
Andrew
Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (PDF) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)
Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories (PDF) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology)
Book Recommendations:
Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology ; Robert C. Balling, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, 2009)
The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy (Peter Huber, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, MIT, 2005)
Hard Science:
450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming
Climate Change Reconsidered (PDF) (NIPCC)
Published: November 6, 2009 11:04 PM
Mike D.
Phil H.
When I go diving in Monterey, the water temperature is a bone-chilling 50 degrees. I was waiting for Global Warming to heat it up to 80 degrees, like Hawaii, so I don't have to wear a wet suit. Also I was waiting for ocean levels to rise so I don't have to cart my gear down to the beach. Now you're telling me that this is not going to happen and it is going to get even colder?
Published: November 7, 2009 12:40 AM
TheSloth
Mike,
What I meant was that a significant percentage of wealth created in the recent past can be attributed to IT and some of it to mobile technology. These areas have had a positive impact on all other areas of business and manufacturing. We can never go back.
This has resulted in new and more diverse means of livelihood and improvement in standards of living all over the world. This is more evident in third world countries like India (I'm from India).
Published: November 7, 2009 3:08 AM
Aaron
But wouldn't the sulfur dioxide react with other compounds and end up forming sulfuric acid(acid rain)
Published: November 8, 2009 10:38 AM
Bala
Aaron,
Sulphur Dioxide can only become Sulphurous Acid (H2SO3), a far weaker and far less corrosive acid than Sulphuric Acid (H2SO4). It is corrosive, all the same, but far more mildly so.
Published: November 8, 2009 11:04 AM
Bala
Aaron,
Sulphur Dioxide can only become Sulphurous Acid (H2SO3), a far weaker and far less corrosive acid than Sulphuric Acid (H2SO4). It is corrosive, all the same, but far more mildly so.
Published: November 8, 2009 11:06 AM
TokyoTomt
Andrew, did you miss that much of the controversy over the book is how poorly it addresses geo-engineering, which is all about more statist schemes to deliberately manipulate climate, and that it ignores ocean acidification?
Published: November 8, 2009 11:11 AM
Andrew
Geoengineering is a waste of time on a non-problem, as is ocean acidification...
Modern-age buildup of CO2 and its effects on seawater acidity and salinity
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Number 10, May 2006)
- Hugo A. Loáiciga
"This paper's results concerning average seawater salinity and acidity show that, on a global scale and over the time scales considered (hundreds of years), there would not be accentuated changes in either seawater salinity or acidity from the observed or hypothesized rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations."
Published: November 9, 2009 2:38 AM
fundamentalist
Andrew: "Geoengineering is a waste of time on a non-problem, "
Well, if GW does become a problem, we have a solution ready to go. Last year I saw a program on NOVA about how pollution affects the amount of energy from the sun reaching the earth. One scientist claimed that condensation trail from airliners over the US reduce average temps in the US by three degrees. And over the Indian Ocean, a cloud of pollution from the continent extends for miles over the water. The temps on the ocean under the pollution cloud are 10 degrees cooler than without the cloud. So the simple answer to GW is to pollute more.
Published: November 9, 2009 7:59 AM
VangelV
"I think this paragraph demonstrates most directly what I would disagree with here: the idea that waiting will lower costs (via technological innovation) faster than it raises costs (through warming effects and the growth of civilization)."
History shows that warming periods have been good for the growth of civilization so this notion of people suffering if growing seasons lengthen and there is more moisture in the atmosphere cannot be justified. On the other hand, it is very clear that wealthier and more advanced civilizations can handle adversity better than poorer civilizations with a lower level of technology.
This is a very important debate and before we do something stupid it makes a lot of sense to take a look at all of the evidence. When we do, we find that there is no empirical data that can support the claim that CO2 is a driver of temperature change and note that the evidence shows that the relationship runs the other way. The solubility curves tell us that warm water holds less CO2 than cold water. This explains why the ice core data shows that in the past the temperature trend changed first and that CO2 concentrations followed about 800 years later. As increases in solar activity slowly warm the oceans they begin to release CO2 into the atmosphere. As decreases in solar activity slowly cool the oceans they begin to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Clearly the past warming and cooling periods had nothing to do with human emissions so it makes a great deal of sense not to make false assumptions that things are different this time around.
Published: November 11, 2009 9:07 AM