PDA

View Full Version : Environment We're on pace to warm the planet by 4 degrees by 2100.


Direckshun
11-20-2012, 05:19 PM
Brutal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/19/were-on-pace-for-4c-of-global-warming-heres-why-the-world-bank-is-terrified/

We’re on pace for 4°C of global warming. Here’s why that terrifies the World Bank.
Posted by Brad Plumer
on November 19, 2012 at 11:28 am

Over the years at the U.N. climate talks, the goal has been to keep future global warming below 2°C (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/faq-can-the-durban-climate-talks-avert-catastrophe/2011/12/09/gIQAADqzhO_blog.html). But as those talks have faltered, emissions have kept rising, and that 2°C goal is now looking increasingly out of reach. Lately, the conversation has shifted toward how to deal with 3°C of warming. Or 4°C. Or potentially more.

And that topic has made a lot of people awfully nervous. Case in point: The World Bank just commissioned an analysis (http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf) (pdf) by scientists at the Potsdam Institute looking at the consequences of a 4°C rise in global temperatures above pre-industrial levels by 2100. And the report appears to have unnerved many bank officials. “The latest predictions on climate change should shock us into action,” wrote (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/nov/19/latest-predictions-climate-change-shock-action) World Bank President Jim Yong Kim in an op-ed after the report was released Monday.

So what exactly has got the World Bank so worried? Partly it’s the prospect that a 4°C world could prove difficult—perhaps impossible—for many poorer countries to adapt to. Let’s take a closer look at the report:

1) The world is currently on pace for around 3°C to 4°C of global warming by the end of the century. In recent years, a number of nations have promised to cut their carbon emissions. The United States and Europe are even on pace (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/17/what-we-can-learn-from-europes-cap-and-trade-system/) to meet their goals. But those modest efforts can only do so much, especially as emissions in China and India keep rising. Even if all current pledges get carried out, the report notes, ”the world [is] on a trajectory for a global mean warming of well over 3°C.” And current climate models still suggest a 20 percent chance of 4°C warming in this emissions scenario.

2) The direct consequences of a 4°C rise in global temperatures could be stark. Four degrees may not sound like much. But, the report points out, the world was only about 4°C to 7°C cooler, on average, during the last ice age, when large parts of Europe and the United States was covered by glaciers. Warming the planet up in the opposite direction could bring similarly drastic changes, such as three feet or more of sea-level rise by 2100, more severe heat waves, and regional extinction of coral reef ecosystems.

3) Climate change would likely hit poorer countries hardest. The World Bank focuses on poverty reduction, so its climate report spends most of its time looking at how developing countries could struggle in a warmer world. For instance, a growing (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n3/full/nclimate1356.html) number (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~marshall/papers/Hertel_etal_GEC_2010.pdf) of studies (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/1/014010) suggest that agricultural production could take a big hit under 3°C or 4°C of warming. Countries like Bangladesh, Egypt, Vietnam, and parts of Africa would also see large tracts of farmland made unusable by rising seas. “It seems clear,” the report concludes, “that climate change in a 4°C world could seriously undermine poverty alleviation in many regions.”

4) Yet the effects of 4°C warming haven’t been fully assessed — they could, potentially, be more drastic than expected. Perhaps the most notable bit of the World Bank report is its discussion of the limits of current climate forecasts. Many models, it notes, make predictions in a fairly linear fashion, expecting the impacts of 4°C of warming to be roughly twice as severe as those from 2°C of warming. But this could prove to be wrong. Different effects could combine together in unexpected ways:

For example, nonlinear temperature effects on crops are likely to be extremely relevant as the world warms to 2°C and above. However, most of our current crop models do not yet fully account for this effect, or for the potential increased ranges of variability (for example, extreme temperatures, new invading pests and diseases, abrupt shifts in critical climate factors that have large impacts on yields and/or quality of grains).

What’s more, the report points out that there are large gaps in our understanding of what 4°C of warming might bring: “For instance,” it notes, “there has not been a study published in the scientific literature on the full ecological, human, and economic consequences of a collapse of coral reef ecosystems.”

5) Some countries might not be able to adapt to a 4°C world. At the moment, the World Bank helps many poorer countries build the necessary infrastructure to adapt to a warmer world. That includes dams and seawalls, crop research, freshwater management, and so forth. But, as a recent internal review found (http://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/content/ieg/en/home/reports/climate_change3.html), most of these World Bank efforts are focused on relatively small increases in temperature.

This new World Bank report is less sure how to prepare for a 4°C world. “[G]iven that uncertainty remains about the full nature and scale of impacts, there is also no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible.” That’s why, the report concludes, “The projected 4°C warming simply must not be allowed to occur — the heat must be turned down. Only early, cooperative, international actions can make that happen.”

So what sorts of actions might that entail? The International Energy Agency recently offered its own set of ideas for curbing greenhouse-gas emissions (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/hows-the-world-doing-on-its-climate-goals-not-so-well/2012/04/29/gIQAdkiSpT_blog.html) and keeping future warming below 2°C. That included everything from boosting renewable energy to redesigning the world’s transportation system. But so far, nations have only made small progress on most of these steps.

Direckshun
11-20-2012, 05:19 PM
The World Bank's report.

http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf

BCD
11-20-2012, 05:45 PM
I'll be dead by then.

No fucks given.

BCD
11-20-2012, 05:46 PM
Take a Xanax, D.

go bowe
11-20-2012, 05:51 PM
I'll be dead by then.

No ****s given.

no children who might produce grandchildren?

it's a caring about future generations kinda thing...

Donger
11-20-2012, 06:05 PM
In recent years, a number of nations have promised to cut their carbon emissions. The United States and Europe are even on pace to meet their goals.

Okay. Next?

blaise
11-20-2012, 06:12 PM
In recent years, a number of nations have promised to cut their carbon emissions. The United States and Europe are even on pace to meet their goals.

Okay. Next?

He's going to stop driving his car.

BCD
11-20-2012, 06:14 PM
no children who might produce grandchildren?

it's a caring about future generations kinda thing...

My son will be 100 by then.

It's incredibly arrogant to believe humans can stop the Earth from evolving.

It was here billions of yrs before humans and will be here long after humans are gone.

Deal with it.

HonestChieffan
11-20-2012, 06:33 PM
And in other news the CIA closed its climate change office while President Obama was getting a Jade Idol in Burma.

Direckshun
11-20-2012, 06:59 PM
My son will be 100 by then.

It's incredibly arrogant to believe humans can stop the Earth from evolving.

It was here billions of yrs before humans and will be here long after humans are gone.

Deal with it.

That's entirely irrelevent to the issue of climate change.

Donger
11-20-2012, 07:01 PM
That's entirely irrelevent to the issue of climate change.

Wait, we're on course, right? So, what else would you have us do? Force China and the other folks to do what we've done?

Direckshun
11-20-2012, 07:07 PM
Wait, we're on course, right? So, what else would you have us do? Force China and the other folks to do what we've done?

Landing an international treaty towards energy cooperation would be a great step forward.

HonestChieffan
11-20-2012, 07:15 PM
Landing an international treaty towards energy cooperation would be a great step forward.


Maybe if we had the $6Billion back Obama is pissing away in SEAsia.....

Donger
11-20-2012, 07:17 PM
Landing an international treaty towards energy cooperation would be a great step forward.

Awesome. I look forward to Obama leading the charge on correcting the Chinese people's ways.

Direckshun
11-20-2012, 07:19 PM
Awesome. I look forward to Obama leading the charge on correcting the Chinese people's ways.

I personally hope it's not just him.

HonestChieffan
11-20-2012, 07:31 PM
I personally hope it's not just him.

Burma could weigh in on this. Good Call.

SNR
11-20-2012, 07:59 PM
It certainly doesn't help that a huge percentage of rain forests have been cut down because those countries are fucked up shitholes that force their citizens to cut down trees so they can farm.

Nobody seems to talk about that as a reason why there's an inordinate amount of CO2 in the atmosphere causing the warming. That shit was soooo 1980s. Now it's all the Western nations' faults.

Taco John
11-20-2012, 08:41 PM
Wow. What a surprise! The organization that would benefit the most from a carbon tax system is releasing propaganda about how we need to act QUICK and implement a carbon tax system! BRUTAL!

Xanathol
11-20-2012, 11:31 PM
Have to give it to the liberals for being 'all in' on the bullshit... we are NOT causing global warming (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/) ( sorry Al Gore - you stood to make millions, I know )...

Dick Bull
11-20-2012, 11:34 PM
Have to give it to the liberals for being 'all in' on the bullshit... we are NOT causing global warming (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/) ( sorry Al Gore - you stood to make millions, I know )...

Thank you kind sir for clearing that up

go bowe
11-20-2012, 11:54 PM
Thank you kind sir for clearing that up

cleared up?

oh wait... :bong:















now what was that you were saying?

BWillie
11-20-2012, 11:57 PM
I'm a big fan of global warming and polar ice melting. Worse case scenario, I get skin cancer. Doubtful since I don't hang out at the beach much. Best case scenario, blue states get drowned with water. Land becomes more scarce. Therefore my property value goes up. Instead of balls cold winters, balmy winters w/ no snow. Why did we have to ban CFCs? F*CK

redsurfer11
11-21-2012, 04:17 AM
Some Like it Hot. I Do.

BigCatDaddy
11-21-2012, 08:23 AM
Care to make a wager on it? Loser leaves CP forever.

mikey23545
11-21-2012, 08:53 AM
:ZZZ:

patteeu
11-21-2012, 10:18 AM
It sounds like we already gave at the office. I'll be anxiously observing the dastardly culprits in India and China waiting for their globe saving reforms.

Chocolate Hog
11-21-2012, 10:20 AM
4 degrees puts us at 34 most days during the winter. Too fucking cold.

suzzer99
11-21-2012, 10:25 AM
Have to give it to the liberals for being 'all in' on the bullshit... we are NOT causing global warming (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/) ( sorry Al Gore - you stood to make millions, I know )...

Hooray republicans creating their own math and science reality yet again. How did that work out for you with the un-skewed polls thing?

At some point do you ever start to think mainstream science might have it right (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/04/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404), and you are a random collection of bloggers, propagandists and paid shill scientists running the same playbook the tobacco lobby ran for 40 years, often with even the same scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Tobacco_lobby) might have a wrong? Does that ever creep in your mind?

Amnorix
11-21-2012, 11:24 AM
That's entirely irrelevent to the issue of climate change.


A few points to make:

1. climate change is occurring. That is absolutely indisputable. What I understand to be somewhat in dispute, however, is the degree to which human activity is causing or contributing to the climate change.

2. The US, through a variety of factors (very few of which are attributable to governmental action, actually) is seeing its contribution to the climate change situation shrink year after year. We are, in short, becoming much, MUCH better at not contributing to this problem.

3. The developing world, however, is increasingly contributing to it. The problem is that it's hard for them to keep developing without increasing, rather dramatically, their carbon footprint. As I understand it, OUR carbon footprint is still massive -- probably the largest on earth for any country, but we're getting better. Many countries with very low/non-existent carbon footprints wish (not unreasonably) to have the same wealth etc. that we have, and therefore are dramatically growing their carbon footprint. Dealing with that issue is massively difficult, and not solely within our control.

4. As I said before, climate change IS happening. We are therefore far better off if we take steps NOW to deal with what is inevitable, rather than letting another Sandy wipe out major metropolitan areas. A huge percentage of the wealth, resources, and population of this country are along the two coasts, and we need to devote major attention to getting them ready, to the extent necessary, for a dramaticaly different climate. (I profess ignorance as to whether those along rivers would also need to adjust, but if so, let's do it).

Amnorix
11-21-2012, 11:25 AM
My son will be 100 by then.

It's incredibly arrogant to believe humans can stop the Earth from evolving.

It was here billions of yrs before humans and will be here long after humans are gone.

Deal with it.



The relevant points are (1) to the extent humans are contributing ot the problem, what can we do to reduce/minimize that, and (2) what should we do as a result of this changing world climate to better prepare ourselves to deal with it.

Amnorix
11-21-2012, 11:32 AM
It sounds like we already gave at the office. I'll be anxiously observing the dastardly culprits in India and China waiting for their globe saving reforms.



Well, wait. We're improving our carbon footprint, but we're still the worst polluters in the world, whether you look at it on a gross basis or a per capita basis. It's not like we can go around to the rest of the world talking about how freaking awesome we are in terms of pollution emissions. We're getting BETTER, which is key, but that's because we truly SUCKED before.

This one is carbon emissions per capita:

http://uppergreenside.org/press/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/co2_per_capita_per_country1.png


This one is just carbon emissions:

http://solarserdar.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/ccres-countries-by-carbon-dioxide-emissions-world-map1.png

FishingRod
11-21-2012, 11:42 AM
How have the models compared to what has actually happened so far? I honestly don’t know.
Obviously what we do has an effect on our surrounding environment but, for all our successes in curtailing our negative affects there are many cautionary tales of our attempted cures exacerbating the problem instead of fixing it. Ethanol is a great example of good intentions bringing bad results. I mean it looked good on Paper for Brazil to go to biofuels until you look at the big picture of destroying the rain forest, the addition of millions of tons of fertilizer, pesticides and so forth. This really should be a topic where the big picture of Polluting the planet, climate change and energy production are looked at together and not as separate issues.

LOCOChief
11-21-2012, 11:53 AM
no children who might produce grandchildren?

it's a caring about future generations kinda thing...

A 4 degree change, I think over the course of the next 80 years they'll acclimate. :p

patteeu
11-21-2012, 12:36 PM
Well, wait. We're improving our carbon footprint, but we're still the worst polluters in the world, whether you look at it on a gross basis or a per capita basis. It's not like we can go around to the rest of the world talking about how freaking awesome we are in terms of pollution emissions. We're getting BETTER, which is key, but that's because we truly SUCKED before.



If you're implying that we should impoverish Americans so that people in developing countries can achieve the (revised-downward) American dream, I'm not interested.

Xanathol
11-21-2012, 12:39 PM
Hooray republicans creating their own math and science reality yet again. How did that work out for you with the un-skewed polls thing?

At some point do you ever start to think mainstream science might have it right (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/04/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404), and you are a random collection of bloggers, propagandists and paid shill scientists running the same playbook the tobacco lobby ran for 40 years, often with even the same scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Tobacco_lobby) might have a wrong? Does that ever creep in your mind?
Because Forbes is just some random blogger site?....

Did it ever enter your feeble, crippled mind to notice that all the global warming propagandist have no answer for their so called plight other than to give them money, be it Al Gore's carbon credits, an auto industry's failed attempt at a battery powered car, or a researcher sticking gauges near exhaust vents looking for their next grant? Of course you didn't, because that would take some common sense or God forbid, looking at data & thinking for yourself.

SNR
11-21-2012, 05:39 PM
Well, wait. We're improving our carbon footprint, but we're still the worst polluters in the world, whether you look at it on a gross basis or a per capita basis. It's not like we can go around to the rest of the world talking about how freaking awesome we are in terms of pollution emissions. We're getting BETTER, which is key, but that's because we truly SUCKED before.



This country is a shitmassive first world nation that isn't neatly divided into mega cities and rural areas. There are small, medium, and large-sized cities scattered all over the place in the middle of megalopolises or in the middle of nowhere.

Stuff that the average American can do (like not drive) simply won't happen. Ever. It's going to be damn near impossible to get Americans of all lifestyles and urban/rural environments to be able to use public transportation effectively. Not to mention the cost of building that kind of stuff.

American shouldn't be reasonably expected to reduce our carbon output to that of European countries for a LONG LONG time. It's in no way practical for how the country is able to feasibly operate.

In the meantime, nobody has really remarked about deforestation leading to dramatically higher levels of carbon in the atmosphere. I don't have the stats handy, but that's gotta be one of the leading causes I assume.

cdcox
11-21-2012, 05:50 PM
This country is a shitmassive first world nation that isn't neatly divided into mega cities and rural areas. There are small, medium, and large-sized cities scattered all over the place in the middle of megalopolises or in the middle of nowhere.

Stuff that the average American can do (like not drive) simply won't happen. Ever. It's going to be damn near impossible to get Americans of all lifestyles and urban/rural environments to be able to use public transportation effectively. Not to mention the cost of building that kind of stuff.

American shouldn't be reasonably expected to reduce our carbon output to that of European countries for a LONG LONG time. It's in no way practical for how the country is able to feasibly operate.

In the meantime, nobody has really remarked about deforestation leading to dramatically higher levels of carbon in the atmosphere. I don't have the stats handy, but that's gotta be one of the leading causes I assume.

So would you be in favor of US aid being sent to foreign countries to prevent deforestation as a partial offset of the harm done by US disproportionate emissions if such aid were successful in stopping deforestation?

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 05:51 PM
America has done a better job keeping her environment clean than any of the socialist shit holes.

cdcox
11-21-2012, 05:52 PM
Because Forbes is just some random blogger site?....

Did it ever enter your feeble, crippled mind to notice that all the global warming propagandist have no answer for their so called plight other than to give them money, be it Al Gore's carbon credits, an auto industry's failed attempt at a battery powered car, or a researcher sticking gauges near exhaust vents looking for their next grant? Of course you didn't, because that would take some common sense or God forbid, looking at data & thinking for yourself.

Breaking news... it costs money to solve problems. Need to get to work? Buy a car and gas. Food spoiling? Buy a fridge and pay your electric bill.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 05:54 PM
A warmer climate benefits mankind more than a cooler climate. Longer growing seasons and less fuel to heat homes. I'll take it.

cdcox
11-21-2012, 06:00 PM
America has done a better job keeping her environment clean than any of the socialist shit holes.

Yeah EPA, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Drinking Water Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, Endagered Species Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, US Park Service, publicly owned utilities, etc, etc.

Before these we had raw blood flowing into the Missouri River, the Cuyahoga River caught on fire, Eagles going extinct, Love Canal, Valley of the Drums, and Times Beach, and loss of forests and streams to acid rain.

Still have many many environmental problems, but progress that has been made has been through government regulation and federal agencies. I hope those aren't too much big government for you.

cdcox
11-21-2012, 06:05 PM
A warmer climate benefits mankind more than a cooler climate. Longer growing seasons and less fuel to heat homes. I'll take it.

Precipitation is affected too, so it is very doubtful that agricultural yield will be enhanced and in all likelihood it will suffer greatly. Savings of heating costs are likely to be offset by increased air conditioning costs.

munkey
11-21-2012, 06:32 PM
Some Like it Hot.

But you don't know how hot till you try

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 07:09 PM
Yeah EPA, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Drinking Water Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, Endagered Species Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, US Park Service, publicly owned utilities, etc, etc.

Before these we had raw blood flowing into the Missouri River, the Cuyahoga River caught on fire, Eagles going extinct, Love Canal, Valley of the Drums, and Times Beach, and loss of forests and streams to acid rain.

Still have many many environmental problems, but progress that has been made has been through government regulation and federal agencies. I hope those aren't too much big government for you.

There's more information about some of those incidents, that have been debated here before....extensively at times. That is that some of them were caused by municipalities. I know this was the case with Cuyahoga River and Love Canal. This ties right into those anti-private property socialist shit holes as they were also govts doing the dirtying.

Furthermore, I never said that govt had no role in protecting rights of the people to free from harm such as pollution. It just depends how it's done, such as common law strict liability.Places that don't have natural rights including property rights, in therefore don't have the same kind of legal system suffer from more pollution. What they suffer from is the tragedy of the commons—probably the model you have in mind.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 07:14 PM
Cuyahog revisted
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-cuyahoga-revisited


In some cases Cuyahoga water was too polluted even for industrial use. In 1936, a paper manufacturer on Kingsbury Run, a tributary of the Cuyahoga, sued the city of Cleveland to stop it from dumping raw sewage into the stream.

The city responded by saying that it had used the stream as a sewer since 1860 and that therefore it had a “prescriptive right” to use it that way. The Ohio court agreed with the city. It stated that when part of a stream “being wholly within a municipal corporation, so that none but its residents are thereby affected, is generally devoted to the purposes of an open sewer for more than 21 years . . . it becomes charged with a servitude authorizing its like use by other riparian owners” (City of Cleveland v. Standard Bag & Paper Co.).

It had set fire before too.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 07:16 PM
The Lessons of Love Canal
http://archive.mises.org/1830/the-lessons-of-the-love-canal/

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 07:19 PM
Precipitation is affected too, so it is very doubtful that agricultural yield will be enhanced and in all likelihood it will suffer greatly. Savings of heating costs are likely to be offset by increased air conditioning costs.

Summers are short up North. Not all scientists agree with your claims on the rest. In fact, trees, something environmentalist love to see grow more. I don't recall reading about many trees when glaciers covered us.

cdcox
11-21-2012, 09:25 PM
Summers are short up North. Not all scientists agree with your claims on the rest. In fact, trees, something environmentalist love to see grow more. I don't recall reading about many trees when glaciers covered us.

You are all over the place. I make a point about reciprocation (essential for the better agricultural production) and you bring up

1. short summers
2. some undocumented claims about some scientists without going into their methods (if you want to play that game, I'm more than willing)
3. Trees
4. Glaciers covering us.

Let's focus on precipitation and food crops. Most climate models show shifting patterns of precipitation: longer and more frequent droughts combined with more severe storms. Crops don't do well under these conditions. Do you want to produce references to scholarly articles that dispute this aspect of crop production?

After that we can look at the fact grain crops don't produce as much grain when they grow fast (lower yield). And weeds and pests thrive under warmer conditions. But let's deal with precipitation first.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 09:44 PM
You are all over the place. I make a point about reciprocation (essential for the better agricultural production) and you bring up

Huh! I thought you said precipitation.


Let's focus on precipitation and food crops. Most climate models show shifting patterns of precipitation: longer and more frequent droughts combined with more severe storms. Crops don't do well under these conditions. Do you want to produce references to scholarly articles that dispute this aspect of crop production?
No I don't. I simply looked this up before under climate science showing the warming and cooling periods in Europe where people did better, had more food and suffered less than during a cooling period. I don't remember the source. I did see studies on Oregon Petition institute which your side claims is malarky.


After that we can look at the fact grain crops don't produce as much grain when they grow fast (lower yield). And weeds and pests thrive under warmer conditions. But let's deal with precipitation first.

Uhm, I said trees grow more. That's on the OPI pages somewhere with diagrams.

I take it you didn't read those economic reports on what happened as to who caused what.

SNR
11-21-2012, 10:09 PM
So would you be in favor of US aid being sent to foreign countries to prevent deforestation as a partial offset of the harm done by US disproportionate emissions if such aid were successful in stopping deforestation?

No, because I've never seen any proof that foreign aid does shit to help those countries restore their economies so farming peoples aren't forced to cut down trees to find new land

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 10:20 PM
Deforestation is another govt made thing these days, as this policy study shows.

In Brazil, government policies are encouraging deforestation of the rain-forest through subsidies and tax credits. The biggest effect is that owners of land reaping the rewards of ownership without paying the costs, and thus are encouraged to act irresponsibly. A study by the World Resources Institute (by no means a group committed to private property) concludes that cattle ranching and settlements by small farmers are the major factors behind deforestation. Both of those activities are heavily subsidized by the government. Author Robert Repetto says that the subsidies encourage the livestock industry to cut down trees to promote pastureland and encourage settlers to turn forests into farmland. (In addition, the government subsidizes the forest products industry.) "By supplying virtually free money, the federal government invited investors to acquire and clear large tracts of forested lands," says Repetto.

Foundation for Economic Education (http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/private-property-and-the-environment-two-views/)

Phobia
11-21-2012, 10:31 PM
By 2100 I will have ascended far enough up the political ladder to have some stroke. I will use some of those devices teedubya talks about to order up massive glaciers to cool the planet. I got this.

cdcox
11-21-2012, 10:34 PM
No I don't. I simply looked this up before under climate science showing the warming and cooling periods in Europe where people did better, had more food and suffered less than during a cooling period. I don't remember the source. I did see studies on Oregon Petition institute which your side claims is malarky.



Stay with me here. The climate that we would call "normal" during our life time is near ideal for crops. If it gets colder, such as was recorded for the little ice age period in medieval Europe (I assume that is what your are talking abut when you mention cooling periods), people are going to do worse. That time period included the "year without a summer". That is a pretty strong indication that crops will not do well that year. Now, if things get warmer than the ideal conditions it doesn't mean things are going to get better.

For example I just baked a pumpkin pie. I baked it at 350 F. The pie baked better at 350 F than it would have at 300 F. Does that mean I should bake it at 400F?

It just make no sense to compare conditions when it is colder than normal to conditions when it is hotter than normal.




Uhm, I said trees grow more. That's on the OPI pages somewhere with diagrams.

I take it you didn't read those economic reports on what happened as to who caused what.

You did not say "trees" in your initial post about the "benefits" of climate change:

A warmer climate benefits mankind more than a cooler climate. Longer growing seasons and less fuel to heat homes. I'll take it.

You mentioned a longer growing season and that it would benefit mankind. That points to food crops.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-21-2012, 10:54 PM
2100 will come and go, and nothing unusual will be detected. Rinse and repeat the scare tactics, give me your money and all will be well.

Direckshun
11-22-2012, 08:30 AM
In the meantime, nobody has really remarked about deforestation leading to dramatically higher levels of carbon in the atmosphere. I don't have the stats handy, but that's gotta be one of the leading causes I assume.

I'd like to see any support for this.

Not that I disagree with it, but I'm holding off agreeing before I see more information.

BucEyedPea
11-22-2012, 08:53 AM
You did not say "trees" in your initial post about the "benefits" of climate change:
You're using a straw man argument here. My initial post was #40 which said nothing about anything growing "fast."

Let's retrace the sequence:

Post #40
Me: Longer growing seasons and less fuel to heat homes.

Post #47
Me:In fact, trees, something environmentalist love to see grow more. I don't recall reading about many trees when glaciers covered us.

Post #48
You: After that we can look at the fact grain crops don't produce as much grain when they grow fast (lower yield). And weeds and pests thrive under warmer conditions. But let's deal with precipitation first.

You mentioned a longer growing season and that it would benefit mankind. That points to food crops.
Here's where you're using a strawman argument (a logical fallacy)—I didn't say crops would "grow fast," but that the "growing season was longer." You added in the word "fast." If the growing season is longer, they'd have more time to grow.

You are essentially using strawman arguments. Ya' know erecting another argument I did not make, in order to refute it because a different argument is easier to refute than the one made. I said trees grow more. I said nothing about fast anywhere. Yet, you're asking me to stay with you? You just want to reframe the argument to claim you countered it.

BucEyedPea
11-22-2012, 08:56 AM
cdcox,
FYI you are correct about that warming period being in medieval times. I thought it was, but hadn't read it in a long time and wasn't sure. I don't remember details over time, but the general idea. So I took it out because I didn't have time to check it. I also had seen the counter argument from your side on it before too.

BucEyedPea
11-22-2012, 08:58 AM
Oh and cdox, another benefit is that we can all go swimming at the North Pole. Developers and erect resorts and Santa can wear swimming trunks.

cdcox
11-22-2012, 08:58 AM
In the meantime, nobody has really remarked about deforestation leading to dramatically higher levels of carbon in the atmosphere. I don't have the stats handy, but that's gotta be one of the leading causes I assume.

deforestation: 1.5 Pg of carbon/year

fossil fuels: 6 to 8 Pg of carbon/year

So 1/4 or less.

http://globecarboncycle.unh.edu/CarbonCycleBackground.pdf

BucEyedPea
11-22-2012, 09:01 AM
deforestation: 1.5 Pg of carbon/year

fossil fuels: 6 to 8 Pg of carbon/year

So 1/4 or less.

http://globecarboncycle.unh.edu/CarbonCycleBackground.pdf

You realize that America has more trees now than in the middlish of the 19th century, right?
Don't tell me I am wrong because this is something I have actually studied getting literature from forest societies.

I also noticed you never engage me on the economic policy aspects of environmentalism and ignore the role by municipal govt's in destroying some of it. IMO, this is the area you're weakest on.

cdcox
11-22-2012, 09:05 AM
Environmental economics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

cdcox
11-22-2012, 09:13 AM
Furthermore, I never said that govt had no role in protecting rights of the people to free from harm such as pollution. It just depends how it's done, such as common law strict liability. Places that don't have natural rights including property rights, in therefore don't have the same kind of legal system suffer from more pollution. What they suffer from is the tragedy of the commons—probably the model you have in mind.

So it is a documented fact that that hospital admissions and emergency room visits for respiratory problems increase on days when air pollution is worse.

Contributors to air pollution number in the millions, if you consider individual automobiles.

Are you suggesting that we get rid of all regulations and if I incur a hospital bill for an air pollution related incident that I should file millions of lawsuits for fractions of a penny for each individual that contributed to the problem?

Radar Chief
11-22-2012, 09:21 AM
By 2100 I will have ascended far enough up the political ladder to have some stroke. I will use some of those devices teedubya talks about to order up massive glaciers to cool the planet. I got this.

Dude, don't screw it up for me. I'm waiting for my turn in Margaritaville.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Cretaceous_seaway.png

Direckshun
11-22-2012, 09:27 AM
Stuff that the average American can do (like not drive) simply won't happen. Ever. It's going to be damn near impossible to get Americans of all lifestyles and urban/rural environments to be able to use public transportation effectively. Not to mention the cost of building that kind of stuff.

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/moneybox/2012/11/22/vehicle_miles_per_capita_in_decline/1353600180006.png.CROP.rectangle3-large.png

We actually are driving less, for what it's worth.

redsurfer11
11-22-2012, 10:00 AM
But you don't know how hot till you try

I live in Central Florida. I enjoy the summer here.

Fish
11-22-2012, 03:22 PM
It seems to be a common belief that there is no scientific consensus on the subject of climate change.

This is unequivocally not true. There is debate about how fast the climate is changing, there is debate about how it is changing and how it will change, there is debate about how this will affect the Earth's ecosystems and there is debate about how much of it is caused by human beings.

There is almost complete consensus in the scientific community that the climate is changing, and that at least part of that is anthropogenic.

These numbers are from Dr. James Powell. In his own words, he "searched the Web of Science, an online science publication tool, for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between January first 1991 and November 9th 2012 that have the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.” The search produced 13,950 articles.

You can read his full article, references and methodology here:

http://scienceprogress.org/2012/11/27479/

http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/5127/gwliteraturereview1full.gif

These are peer-reviewed scientific articles too. Not bullshit political spin.

AustinChief
11-22-2012, 04:26 PM
OK, let's pretend for a second that man-made CO2 output has a significant impact on raising the Earth's temperature.

Let's also assume we are "due" for another ice age... (plenty of debate on this but since we are making wild leaps of faith on the first point, let's do the same here)

Would you would rather cut CO2 emissions NOW and have 100-500 years of "perfect" climate but suffer a catastrophic ice age or would you be willing to suffer 100-500 years of global warming and effectively stave off an ice age entirely?

It will be the height of irony if the effect of us curbing global warming is that we lose the opportunity to avoid mass extinction.

Of course, all of this is wild conjecture based on incomplete data and suspect models... which makes it a perfect fit for any discussion about climate change.

(btw we'll just ignore solar activity because , well, that seems to be an ok thing to do in many climate discussions)

Direckshun
11-22-2012, 05:06 PM
Would you would rather cut CO2 emissions NOW and have 100-500 years of "perfect" climate but suffer a catastrophic ice age or would you be willing to suffer 100-500 years of global warming and effectively stave off an ice age entirely?

Those are our choices, are they?

AustinChief
11-22-2012, 05:27 PM
Those are our choices, are they?

In magic make believe theory land, yes.

If we want to instead ONLY use empirical data than we should instead just admit that we don't know crap right now and we need to do a lot more research before we use our jump to conclusions mats.

Dick Bull
11-22-2012, 05:30 PM
In magic make believe theory land, yes.

If we want to instead ONLY use empirical data than we should instead just admit that we don't know crap right now and we need to do a lot more research before we use our jump to conclusions mats.

To what extent do you wish to research? Do you wish to wait until the end of the earth as we know it for acceptable confirmation or is there another plateau you would find acceptable?

Happy Thanksgiving.

stevieray
11-22-2012, 05:36 PM
the earth is millions of years old!

it only a took a century of industrialization to bring it to it knees!


:shake:

patteeu
11-22-2012, 05:39 PM
It seems to be a common belief that there is no scientific consensus on the subject of climate change.

This is unequivocally not true. There is debate about how fast the climate is changing, there is debate about how it is changing and how it will change, there is debate about how this will affect the Earth's ecosystems and there is debate about how much of it is caused by human beings.

There is almost complete consensus in the scientific community that the climate is changing, and that at least part of that is anthropogenic.

These numbers are from Dr. James Powell. In his own words, he "searched the Web of Science, an online science publication tool, for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between January first 1991 and November 9th 2012 that have the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.” The search produced 13,950 articles.

You can read his full article, references and methodology here:

http://scienceprogress.org/2012/11/27479/

http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/5127/gwliteraturereview1full.gif

These are peer-reviewed scientific articles too. Not bullshit political spin.

First of all, I don't think that's a common belief at all. The people who don't understand that climate is always changing aren't really relevant to this debate.

Your argument kind of eats itself into nothing. OK, there might be a few people out there who think the climate is fixed and they're clearly wrong. Very few climate change skeptics have ever tried to argue that. Winning the argument over whether the climate is changing is nothing if you don't know how much it's changing, what the implications of that change are, what we can do to control it, or how much it would cost us.

Pitt Gorilla
11-22-2012, 05:39 PM
In magic make believe theory land, yes.

If we want to instead ONLY use empirical data than we should instead just admit that we don't know crap right now and we need to do a lot more research before we use our jump to conclusions mats.Good to see you back with your "nobody knows anything", "empirical analyses are merely entertainment" bent.

AustinChief
11-22-2012, 05:43 PM
To what extent do you wish to research? Do you wish to wait until the end of the earth as we know it for acceptable confirmation or is there another plateau you would find acceptable?

Happy Thanksgiving.

Happy Thanksgiving to you too!

I want a ton of research, I'm all for spending the money on getting to a more complete understanding of the climate and all factors involved. As to your Henny Penny statement... I can show far far far far more accepted theories regarding a coming ice age .. so do YOU want to just ignore global cooling and enjoy the next few centuries without addressing it? Seems awfully short sighted of you!

Fact is... an ice age would be far and away more catastrophic to human life than a warm period of even 10C warmer. If we are all concerned about theoretical futures... why is this so conveniently ignored?

AustinChief
11-22-2012, 05:50 PM
Good to see you back with your "nobody knows anything", "empirical analyses are merely entertainment" bent.

No, I am all about accurate empirical analysis. When you conveniently leave out or minimize things like solar activity and cherry pick data sets and rely on shortcuts in your models... you aren't engaged in proper empirical analysis of any kind.

In engineering and science, we aren't allowed to make assumptions or guesses and pass them off as facts. I would wager that most respected climatologists don't. (I have read many reports that said one thing and then read "summaries" that completely lie about them, unfortunately it happens all the fucking time these days and not just in regards to climate science.) The media and people like Direckshun misinterpret and misrepresent their work to push their own agendas. That is what bothers me the most.

patteeu
11-22-2012, 06:03 PM
To what extent do you wish to research? Do you wish to wait until the end of the earth as we know it for acceptable confirmation or is there another plateau you would find acceptable?

Happy Thanksgiving.

It depends on what people are trying to get us to do. If someone argues that we should each be more conscientious about our own personal footprints and do what we can to avoid unnecessarily impacting the environment around us, we don't need any more research. If they're arguing that we ban the use of fossil fuels completely even if it drives us back into a pre-industrial lifestyle, it's going to take a lot more research to make the case.

Hope you enjoyed your Thanksgiving. Happy Black Friday.

cdcox
11-22-2012, 06:39 PM
Under the best case reduction scenarios of greenhouse gases, we've already delayed the onset of the next ice age for a long, long time. Under current continental positions and earth's orbital patterns, it is projected the CO2 levels would need to be well below 300 ppm for an ice age to occur.

So if the goal is to prolong our interglacial period through altering the earth's atmosphere, we can declare mission accomplished. Under no greenhouse gas reduction scenario advocated by anyone are we going to have an ice age any time soon (tens of thousands of years).

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/the-next-ice-age-and-the-anthropocene/

AustinChief
11-22-2012, 06:56 PM
Under the best case reduction scenarios of greenhouse gases, we've already delayed the onset of the next ice age for a long, long time. Under current continental positions and earth's orbital patterns, it is projected the CO2 levels would need to be well below 300 ppm for an ice age to occur.

So if the goal is to prolong our interglacial period through altering the earth's atmosphere, we can declare mission accomplished. Under no greenhouse gas reduction scenario advocated by anyone are we going to have an ice age any time soon (tens of thousands of years).

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/the-next-ice-age-and-the-anthropocene/

I have seen a ton of conflicting studies on this. I'm not seriously advocating this just trying to illustrate a point. BUT there are also a fair amount of climatologists that think CO2 is a trailing indicator of warming/cooling not a leading factor... so it could all be pissing in the wind on either side.

In a real debate on the science I am in the solar camp.. but I'll freely admit that is a BELIEF because we simply don't have near enough data to come close to an inkling of an understanding.

Another belief of mine is that we won't come close to accurate modeling until we solve one major major issue. Raw computational power. We simply don't have the ability to process the equations without taking shortcuts. In theory, quantum computers can solve this problem and help us take some giant leaps forward.

In the meantime, I have little problem with being "green" and I definitely think we should spend the money on the research BUT I take massive issue with the constant barrage of guesswork being passed off as scientific certainty. This politicization/media influence over science is disgusting. I am also disappointed in those who simply swallow it than spit it back out as they KNOW it without doing one fucking iota of their own research deeper into the matter. (To be clear, that statement is definitely NOT directed toward cdcox)

BucEyedPea
11-22-2012, 10:44 PM
So it is a documented fact that that hospital admissions and emergency room visits for respiratory problems increase on days when air pollution is worse.

Contributors to air pollution number in the millions, if you consider individual automobiles.

Are you suggesting that we get rid of all regulations and if I incur a hospital bill for an air pollution related incident that I should file millions of lawsuits for fractions of a penny for each individual that contributed to the problem?

Your bolded common law strict liability but your post doesn't show that you address it.

go bowe
11-22-2012, 11:00 PM
point.over.head...

cdcox
11-23-2012, 09:03 AM
Your bolded common law strict liability but your post doesn't show that you address it.

Well then enlighten me about how you propose I be protected from the adverse effects of air pollution under your strict liability plan. I can't read your mind.

Stewie
11-23-2012, 10:03 AM
Apparently if you buy enough airplanes your huge carbon footprint is forgiven.

Airbus Wins 60-Plane China Order After EU Retreat on CO2 Charges

DrunkBassGuitar
11-23-2012, 10:12 AM
The only way to prevent and walk back global warming is for humans to do something that no species has ever done: intentionally limit its own growth.

We're not going to do that. Global warming is a reality we will have to face. Hopefully it will not cause a complete ecological collapse, but there's an excellent chance that humans are going to make their planet very very inhospitable, at least for themselves.

suzzer99
11-23-2012, 10:27 AM
But one thing humans are good at is coming together in times of crisis to fix the problem. I have a lot more hope for drastic mitigation efforts, like shooting tiny mirrors in the atmosphere, than I do for any sort of growth-curtailing preventative measures. Sadly mitigation will probably cost 10 times more. But that's just what we do.

BucEyedPea
11-23-2012, 10:48 AM
Well then enlighten me about how you propose I be protected from the adverse effects of air pollution under your strict liability plan. I can't read your mind.

Can start here:

Did the govt, via the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service prevent the BP oil spill? Nope.

That Department has a spotty record as well as had other ethics issues.
Yet BP has to pay a fine to the govt. LOL! I'm sure it will go to good use.

Has BP paid out 16 billion in compensation and claims to others? Yes.
They paid a class-action settlement to resolve litigation brought with private plaintiffs
that is over 100,000 individuals and businesses who claimed economic and medical damages from the spill.

The former is your model—bureaucracy. The latter is strict liability.

As I said before, these two models were debated extensively in past threads. IIRC Taco John, myself, banyon and a few others took part in it. It’s all here somewhere with links and cases, including some of the cases you listed earlier. I don’t feel like re-doing by re-typing and searching for previous links again. If you want to know more you can use the search here or go to sites that support strict liability like CATO, FEE, Mises and Independent Institute. I'm just going to be making the same case as them and they will be more thorough. That is if you really want to be enlightened.

However, when I’ve received responses like the following, I am not sure it’s worth it.
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=6326020&highlight=Pollution+%2B+Liability#post6326020

Direckshun
11-23-2012, 11:11 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49921584/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Climate scientists applaud dire World Bank report
They say view of entity committed to free market capitalism defuses nay-sayers' argument
By Stephanie Pappas
updated 11/21/2012 4:26:20 PM ET

Climate scientists who have been warning of the dangerous effects of global warming now have the World Bank on their side, after a new report from that organization calling for action to prevent climate catastrophe.

"The World Bank did a great service to society by issuing this report," said Michael Mann, a climate researcher at Pennsylvania State University and the author of " The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars " (Columbia University Press, 2012).

Climate deniers often claim that solutions to global warming are part of a "global socialist agenda," Mann told LiveScience.

"The fact that the World Bank — an entity committed to free market capitalism — has weighed in on the threat of climate change and the urgency of acting to combat it, puts the nail in the coffin of that claim," he said.

A changing world

The report, issued by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics for the World Bank, urges nations to work to prevent the Earth from warming 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius) past pre-industrial averages. Already, global mean temperatures are running about 1.3 degrees F (0.8 degrees C) hotter than before the onset of the industrial revolution.

Likewise, carbon-dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is high and rising. As of September, the concentration was 391 parts per million, a record high, up from a pre-industrial 278. That number is now rising by about 1.8 parts per million each year.

All of these changes are accompanied by ice loss, including accelerating melting in Greenland, according to research published this week. As a result, average sea level has risen between 6 and 8 inches (15 and 20 centimeters) or so on average around the world.

Dire warnings

But what the World Bank warns of is an even bleaker future. Even if the world's nations deliver on their promises of emission limits and global warming mitigation, there is a 20 percent chance that the world will hit the 4 degrees C mark by 2100, according to the report. If emissions continue as is, the planet may reach that point by the 2060s.

International negotiators have agreed that warming should be limited to just half that, or 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C), in that time. A world that is 2 degrees warmer would have its own consequences, but it is crucial to hold that line, the World Bank report argues. A 4-degree warming would mean a sea-level rise of 1.6 to 3.2 feet (0.5 to 1 meter) on average, with the tropics catching the brunt of the change.

Climate research also suggests tropical storms would strengthen and drought would increase across much of the tropical and subtropical world.

"A world in which warming reaches 4 degrees C above pre-industrial levels (hereafter referred to as a 4 degree C world), would be one of unprecedented heat waves, severe drought, and major floods in many regions, with serious impacts on human systems, ecosystems, and associated services," the authors wrote in the World Bank report.

Climate scientists agree.

"I am inclined to think that things will break before we get there," Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said of a 4-degree-C world. Ecosystems would change so much and agriculture would be so disrupted that the result would likely be "major strife, conflicts and loss of population," Trenberth told LiveScience.

Among the flashpoints, according to the World Bank report, would be sparse water availability, food insecurity and loss of resources such as coral reefs, which are threatened by acidification as more carbon dioxide is dissolved in the oceans. Coral reefs provide not only food to many local economies, but also tourism dollars. Areas becoming unsustainable would likely lead to mass exodus, creating environmental refugees, Mann said.

Avoiding the 4-degree world

Avoiding the 4-degree-warmer world is a matter of political will, said Mann, who sees signs of optimism, including increased awareness and more calls to transition away from fossil fuels.

"The alternative energies (wind, solar, geothermal, etc) are there," Mann wrote in an email to LiveScience. "We just need to deploy and scale them up by investing immediately in the necessary infrastructure."

Slowing the warming may be as useful as stopping it, Trenberth said.

"It is not just the absolute amount of warming, but also the rate at which
we change things to get there," he said. "Two degrees warming in 50 years is extremely stressful, but 2 degrees warming in 500 years is perhaps manageable through adaptation."

If the world fails to act, the world will become a more disrupted, damaged place, the World Bank concluded — and the poor will suffer most.

"The projected 4°C warming simply must not be allowed to occur — the heat must be turned down," the authors wrote. "Only early, cooperative, international actions can make that happen."

cdcox
11-23-2012, 11:16 AM
Can start here:

Did the govt, via the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service prevent the BP oil spill? Nope.

That Department has a spotty record as well as had other ethics issues.
Yet BP has to pay a fine to the govt. LOL! I'm sure it will go to good use.

Has BP paid out 16 billion in compensation and claims to others? Yes.
They paid a class-action settlement to resolve litigation brought with private plaintiffs
that is over 100,000 individuals and businesses who claimed economic and medical damages from the spill.

The former is your model—bureaucracy. The latter is strict liability.

As I said before, these two models were debated extensively in past threads. IIRC Taco John, myself, banyon and a few others took part in it. It’s all here somewhere with links and cases, including some of the cases you listed earlier. I don’t feel like re-doing by re-typing and searching for previous links again. If you want to know more you can use the search here or go to sites that support strict liability like CATO, FEE, Mises and Independent Institute. I'm just going to be making the same case as them and they will be more thorough. That is if you really want to be enlightened.

However, when I’ve received responses like the following, I am not sure it’s worth it.
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=6326020&highlight=Pollution+%2B+Liability#post6326020

Sure, this model can work for a one off event with a single clearly identifiable polluter. And it was used in the BP case.

How do you apply strict liability to my air pollution case, where polluting is a normal part of every day business or activity of individuals and there is no single easily identifiable culprit? How go I go after those liable for my health problems and decrease in quality of life?

HonestChieffan
11-23-2012, 06:03 PM
Taxes will fix it

BucEyedPea
11-23-2012, 06:28 PM
Sure, this model can work for a one off event with a single clearly identifiable polluter. And it was used in the BP case.
Nope. I was used before that. It can be used for many more than one event too.

How do you apply strict liability to my air pollution case, where polluting is a normal part of every day business or activity of individuals and there is no single easily identifiable culprit? How go I go after those liable for my health problems and decrease in quality of life?

Read the references I gave you.

listopencil
11-23-2012, 06:52 PM
That's four degrees Canadian. Doesn't count.

cdcox
11-23-2012, 09:03 PM
Read the references I gave you.

C'mon, give me a paragraph outlining how it can work. If you've already put it on ChiefsPlanet you can link to a specific post where you've spelled it all out. I've been more than generous with my time writing out my thoughts. Surely you can articulate your position on this.

Psyko Tek
11-23-2012, 09:25 PM
This country is a shitmassive first world nation that isn't neatly divided into mega cities and rural areas. There are small, medium, and large-sized cities scattered all over the place in the middle of megalopolises or in the middle of nowhere.

Stuff that the average American can do (like not drive) simply won't happen. Ever. It's going to be damn near impossible to get Americans of all lifestyles and urban/rural environments to be able to use public transportation effectively. Not to mention the cost of building that kind of stuff.

American shouldn't be reasonably expected to reduce our carbon output to that of European countries for a LONG LONG time. It's in no way practical for how the country is able to feasibly operate.

In the meantime, nobody has really remarked about deforestation leading to dramatically higher levels of carbon in the atmosphere. I don't have the stats handy, but that's gotta be one of the leading causes I assume.

truth
you will pull my car away from my cold dead hands

Fish
11-23-2012, 11:03 PM
truth
you will pull my car away from my cold dead hands

Yes... Because climate change regulation means the government taking your car away from you.....

Come on dummy.....

BucEyedPea
11-24-2012, 06:26 AM
C'mon, give me a paragraph outlining how it can work. If you've already put it on ChiefsPlanet you can link to a specific post where you've spelled it all out. I've been more than generous with my time writing out my thoughts. Surely you can articulate your position on this.

I gave you my example already as well. It'd be a long drawn out bit of work to cover numerous examples, especially when it has already been done here as I stated. I am not going to re-do it and put in the time all over again. Nope sorry, not when I have to multi-task other things away from my desk.

cdcox
11-24-2012, 09:10 AM
OK BEP I found an article on Mises:

http://mises.org/daily/2120

He suggests applying the homestead provision to air pollution. This shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of air pollution. The most extreme environmentalist would be happy to invoke this clause because air pollution problems such as acid rain and photochemical smog (which causes increased hospital admissions) are regional problems and climate change is global problem. So the homestead provision would not allow any one to increase their air pollution any where, because there is always someone who was there first. In truth, I don't see any value of the homestead provision as applied to air pollution.

A bigger problem with his article is that he advocates exactly the kind of one-to-one connection between polluter and effected individual that formed the basis of my objection to strict liability. To reiterate, my objection:

So it is a documented fact that that hospital admissions and emergency room visits for respiratory problems increase on days when air pollution is worse.

Contributors to air pollution number in the millions, if you consider individual automobiles.

Are you suggesting that we get rid of all regulations and if I incur a hospital bill for an air pollution related incident that I should file millions of lawsuits for fractions of a penny for each individual that contributed to the problem?

And borrowing a quote from the linked article:

Air pollution, however, of gases or particles that are invisible or undetectable by the senses should not constitute aggression per se, because being insensible they do not interfere with the owner's possession or use. They take on the status of invisible radio waves or radiation, unless they are proven to be harmful, and until this proof and the causal connection from aggressor to victim can be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since all of us contribute to the air pollution situation, and some people will be admitted to the hospital for respiratory problems even on the best air quality days, how is one to make a connection between aggressor and victim and demonstrate that the pollution was the cause of that individual's illness?

Under such an onerous test of liability enforcement, any kind of limitation on air pollution would be removed. I'll stick with the Clean Air Act, which recognizes the need to control air pollution broadly across corporate and individual activities.

This is my problems with libertarians. They are so wrapped up in their dogma that they've lost their critical thinking skills in how their no regulation policies will play out in the real world.

To recap, you indicated that I didn't understand strict liability, but would not explain why. You would not provide any direct links or writing supporting your position, then when I researched it for myself, it turns out that my objection was exactly the position of the strict liability camp.

suzzer99
11-24-2012, 11:07 AM
Case in point why libertarians desperately need to believe global warming is a hoax. And so they do! Humans are impressive like that.

cdcox
11-24-2012, 11:52 AM
It goes beyond global warming to air pollution types that are impossible to deny such as photochemical smog.

|Zach|
11-24-2012, 11:55 AM
To recap, you indicated that I didn't understand strict liability, but would not explain why. You would not provide any direct links or writing supporting your position, then when I researched it for myself, it turns out that my objection was exactly the position of the strict liability camp.

This is pretty much an average conversation with BEP.

Fish
11-27-2012, 11:31 AM
If you’re 27 or younger, you’ve never experienced a colder-than-average month (http://grist.org/news/if-youre-27-or-younger-youve-never-experienced-a-colder-than-average-month/) (EDIT: Title misleading)
By Philip Bump

This image sums up 2012, temperature-wise.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/1791/201201201210.gif

Nowhere on the surface of the planet have we seen any record cold temperatures over the course of the year so far. Every land surface in the world saw warmer-than-average temperatures except Alaska and the eastern tip of Russia. The continental United States has been blanketed with record warmth — and the seas just off the East Coast have been much warmer than average, for which Sandy sends her thanks.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration summarizes October 2012 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/10):

The average temperature across land and ocean surfaces during October was 14.63°C (58.23°F). This is 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average and ties with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record. The record warmest October occurred in 2003 and the record coldest October occurred in 1912. This is the 332nd consecutive month with an above-average temperature.

Emphasis added. If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing.

(EDIT: Misleading)

The year has also been remarkably dry, particularly in the United States.

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/9119/2012012012101.gif

And as Weather Underground’s Jeff Masters notes, that means drought — which can be far more damaging than a superstorm.

[S]hockingly, Sandy is probably not even the deadliest or most expensive weather disaster this year in the United States — Sandy’s damages of perhaps $50 billion will likely be overshadowed by the huge costs of the great drought of 2012. While it will be several months before the costs of America’s worst drought since 1954 are known, the 2012 drought is expected to cut America’s GDP by 0.5 – 1 percentage points, said Deutsche Bank Securities this week. …

While Sandy’s death toll of 113 in the U.S. is the second highest death toll from a U.S. hurricane since 1972, it is likely to be exceeded by the death toll from the heat waves that accompanied this year’s drought. The heat waves associated with the U.S. droughts of 1980 and 1988 had death tolls of 10,000 and 7,500 respectively, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, and the heat wave associated with the $12 billion 2011 Texas drought killed 95 Americans.

There’s not much else to say. At this point, we’re just doctors taking a fading pulse. Or, I suppose, tracking a rising fever.

Direckshun
11-27-2012, 11:43 AM
REALLY good read.

Rep.

FishingRod
11-27-2012, 02:02 PM
"Emphasis added. If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing."

It is also a stupid thing to say. Just check the weather around the country the winter before last.

tiptap
11-27-2012, 02:09 PM
"Emphasis added. If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing."

It is also a stupid thing to say. Just check the weather around the country the winter before last.


US is what 2% of the world's area. So it isn't surprising that the average over an area that small could have fluctuations that could go colder over that area. But the whole of the world average temperature. Include the other 98% and you get the truth of the article.

tiptap
11-27-2012, 02:14 PM
I spent about half a year going with month after month detailing the COUNT of record average lows and highs divided among the 48 lower states. And the distribution showed twice to four times the number of record highs as lows over the last two decades. Quite indicative of a movement of the mean temperatures up. That is if you understand statistics. Shall we do this by Bayesian statistics?

Fish
11-27-2012, 02:24 PM
"Emphasis added. If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing."

It is also a stupid thing to say. Just check the weather around the country the winter before last.

Would you care to expand on that?

Here's what I found on 2010 from NOAA:

Extreme warmth continued in much of the Northeast during the spring, contributing to the region’s warmest March–May on record. The regional temperature average was more than 3.0°C above the LTA.

Eight northeastern states experienced their warmest spring on record, as did Michigan. Cool anomalies were present in several western states and in Florida.
Nationally, it was the 19th warmest spring on record.

Warmer-than-average conditions prevailed throughout much of the contiguous U.S. during the summer. Induced by a combination of a persistently
strong Bermuda High that extended abnormally westward and a strengthening La Niña episode, the Southeast had its warmest summer on record.

Demonstrative of this irregularity, there were several other climate regions that were abnormally warm: Central (3rd warmest), Northeast (4th warmest), and the South (7th warmest). It was the warmest summer in 116-years of record keeping for every state in the Southeast climate region. A total of 12 states were record warm, while only two (Montana and Oregon) experienced an average temperature that was below the LTA. Overall, it was the fourth warmest summer on record for the contiguous U.S., with an average temperature of 1.0°C above the LTA.

Abnormal warmth continued into the fall season. While spatial temperature averages were variable across climate divisions, nearly every state averaged
a temperature that was above the LTA. Rhode Island (6th warmest), Delaware (7th), and New Jersey (11th) each experienced the warmest anomalies, while
Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Montana, and Washington were the only states with average temperatures near the LTA.

Source: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2010/bams-sotc-2010-chapter7-regional-climates-lo-rez.pdf

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/416/screenshot20121127at322.jpg

Do you have information that refutes that? Why is that a stupid thing to say?

mlyonsd
11-27-2012, 02:28 PM
US is what 2% of the world's area. So it isn't surprising that the average over an area that small could have fluctuations that could go colder over that area. But the whole of the world average temperature. Include the other 98% and you get the truth of the article. What isn't surprising is the claim was written in an alarmist context.

Fish
11-27-2012, 02:36 PM
What isn't surprising is the claim was written in an alarmist context.

Alarmist context? LMAO... really?

Did the report include recommendations for you to euthanize your pets and start saving your toilet water for drinking? I must have missed all those alarming details...

As a matter of fact, I'm not seeing anything alarming in that report at all. Just information about record temps.

Which part caused you to be "Alarmed"?

mlyonsd
11-27-2012, 02:41 PM
Alarmist context? LMAO... really?

Did the report include recommendations for you to euthanize your pets and start saving your toilet water for drinking? I must have missed all those alarming details...

As a matter of fact, I'm not seeing anything alarming in that report at all. Just information about record temps.

Which part caused you to be "Alarmed"?
Because i have experienced months since 1985 where our average temp was cooler than normal .

Fish
11-27-2012, 02:47 PM
Because i have experienced months since 1985 where our average temp was cooler than normal .

Is this just your personal opinion on your local temps, or do you have some record of this?

There's been a few months where I would have sworn it was a colder than average month. But looking at the actual data shows me that my perception isn't always accurate.

Do you remember which months? We might be able to find data on a month by month scale...

mlyonsd
11-27-2012, 02:52 PM
Is this just your personal opinion on your local temps, or do you have some record of this?

There's been a few months where I would have sworn it was a colder than average month. But looking at the actual data shows me that my perception isn't always accurate.

Do you remember which months? We might be able to find data on a month by month scale... Yes I'm talking local.

Fish
11-27-2012, 02:56 PM
Yes I'm talking local.

Where? When? Let's look into it..

FishingRod
11-27-2012, 03:07 PM
Last year was not

Fish
11-27-2012, 03:24 PM
Last year was not

Well, alrighty then. It looks like you have a legitimate point. I'll edit the article.

Fish
11-27-2012, 03:52 PM
The Berkeley Earth report is pretty fascinating...

250 YEARS OF GLOBAL WARMING (http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/)
Berkeley Earth Releases New Analysis

According to a new Berkeley Earth study released today, the average temperature of the Earth’s land has risen by 1.5 °C over the past 250 years. The good match between the new temperature record and historical carbon dioxide records suggests that the most straightforward explanation for this warming is human greenhouse gas emissions.

The new analysis from Berkeley Earth goes all the way back to 1753, about 100 years earlier than previous groups’ analyses. The limited land coverage prior to 1850 results in larger uncertainties in the behavior of the record; despite these, the behavior is significant. Robert Rohde, Lead Scientist for Berkeley Earth and the person who carried out most of the analysis, noted that “Sudden drops in the early temperature record (1753 to 1850) correspond to known volcanic events.” Volcanoes spew particles into the air, which then reflect sunlight and cool the earth for a few years. In the Berkeley Earth temperature plot (see figure below), sudden dips in temperature caused by large volcanic explosions are evident back to the late 1700s.

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/5482/berkeleyearthresultstem.jpg

Figure: The temperature of the Earth’s land surface, as determined from over 36,000 temperature stations around the globe. The data is well fit by a simple model containing only known volcanic eruptions and carbon dioxide (dark line). No contribution from solar variability was necessary to make a good match. The rapid but short (decadal) variations are believed to be due to changes in ocean flows, such as El Nino and the Gulf Stream.

Berkeley Earth compared the shape of the gradual rise over 250 years to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials) and to solar activity (known through historical records of sunspot numbers), and even to rising functions such as world population.

Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director of Berkeley Earth, notes “Much to my surprise, by far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.” He emphasizes that the match between the data and the theory doesn’t prove that carbon dioxide is responsible for the warming, but the good fit makes it the strongest contender. “To be considered seriously, any alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does carbon dioxide.”

In its 2007 report the IPCC concluded only that “most” of the warming of the past 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the IPCC, that increased solar activity could have contributed to warming prior to 1956. Berkeley Earth analyzed about 5 times more station records than were used in previous analyses, and this expanded data base along with its new statistical approach allowed Berkeley Earth to go about 100 years farther back in time than previous studies. By doing so, the Berkeley Earth team was able to conclude that over 250 years, the contribution of solar activity to global warming is negligible.

Some of the scientists on the Berkeley Earth team admit surprise that the new analysis has shown such clear agreement between global land-*‐temperature rise and human-*‐caused greenhouse gases. “I was not expecting this,” says Richard Muller, “but as a scientist, I feel it is my duty to let the evidence change my mind.”

Elizabeth Muller, co-*‐Founder and Executive Director of Berkeley Earth, says that “One of our goals at Berkeley Earth is complete transparency – we believe that everyone should be able to access raw climate data and do their own analysis. Scientists have a duty to be ‘properly skeptical’, and we are trying to lower the barriers to entry into the field.”

Robert Rohde created an online feature that allows people to look up temperature records by location. “If you want to know what the temperature change has been in your city, your state, or even your country, you can now find this online at BerkeleyEarth.org” says Rohde. He adds, “We hope people will have a lot of fun interacting with the data.” This feature should be available to the public by Monday July 30.

A previous Berkeley Earth study, released in October 2011, found that the land-*‐surface temperature had risen by about 0.9 °C over the past 50 years (which was consistent with previous analyses) and directly addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics, including the urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias.

The Berkeley Earth team values the simplicity of its analysis, which does not depend on the large complex global climate models that have been criticized by climate skeptics for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. The conclusion that the warming is due to humans is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.

Elizabeth adds, “The current data does not include ocean temperatures; these will be added in the next phase of the Berkeley Earth studies. Another next step for our team is to think about the implications of our findings.”

More information about Berkeley Earth is available at www.BerkeleyEarth.org.

This shows that while scientists cannot prove with certainty how much of this is anthropogenic, the correlation between human CO2 output and global temp is pretty damning...

http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/2207/annualwithforcingsmall.png

The annual and decadal land surface temperature from the BerkeleyEarth average, compared to a linear combination of volcanic sulfate emissions and the natural logarithm of CO2. It is observed that the large negative excursions in the early temperature records are likely to be explained by exceptional volcanic activity at this time. Similarly, the upward trend is likely to be an indication of anthropogenic changes. The grey area is the 95% confidence interval.

mlyonsd
11-27-2012, 04:18 PM
Well, alrighty then. It looks like you have a legitimate point. I'll edit the article.
Mind you my comment was geared toward the article, not you. I think it was written that way with a specific purpose in mind even though it's only partially true.

I believe the world is warming. How long, how much, and if we can really change it is my sticking points.