NationStates Jolt Archive

The Stern report on the economics of climate change is due out tommorow, and already it is causing quite stir (the report is now available here (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm)). After a one-year review commissioned by the British Treasury, former World Bank Economist David Stern will report his findings to the Royal Society tommorow. He is expected to report that, left unchecked, Global Warming will cause a serious recession, and that we need to start taking serious measures to address it, including more agressive emissions trading schemes. The report will also argue that taking measures to curb climate change will cost a fraction of what it will cost us to try and adapt to climate change if we don't take action.

Here are some of the highlights of the Report:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L28856878.htm

And here is some media coverage:
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article1938250.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/10/29/do2901.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/10/29/ixopinion.html

In a way, the findings should come as no suprise. Obviously, some of us have raised these arguments before But there have definitely been some world leaders, economists and others that have argued the opposite; that we should just pursue a business as usual agenda, and that economic growth would enable us to cope in the long run.

So ... thoughts? Will the report have much of an effect outside of the UK? Does it change the nature of the debate at all? Will it put the lie to the myth that economic growth and saving the environment are mutually exclusive, or can we still expect those kinds of arguments?

Consider the problem taken care of! ^_~

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/australia_protected/

That said, my answers to your questions in order would be, "Probably not", "No", and "In order for there to have been a conflict there would first have to be evidence that measures taken against global warming would be good for the environment in the first place!". @_@

Consider the problem taken care of! ^_~

You are right ... a cold snap in Australia conclusively disproves the existence of global warming! :rolleyes:

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/australia_protected/

"In order for there to have been a conflict there would first have to be evidence that measures taken against global warming would be good for the environment in the first place!". @_@

I would have though the strong evidence that global warming could cause:
- rising ocean levels and flooding
- more extreme weather
- the spread of certain tropical diseases and other threats to human health
- loss of biodiversity and ecosystems
among other things, would be enough.

You are right ... a cold snap in Australia conclusively disproves the existence of global warming! :rolleyes:


Well wouldn't global warming means that the earth is getting warm, and if the earth is getting warm, then how can we have a cold snap?

Well wouldn't global warming means that the earth is getting warm, and if the earth is getting warm, then how can we have a cold snap?
Easy. Because Global Warming means the earth is getting warmer on average. It does not mean that it will be warm in all places at all times.

Global warming cannot destroy the economy because the economy is based on The Market.

The Market is like a science only a really special science where consequences do not exist and the output is completely independent of the characteristics of the input.

Instead of worrying about far-fetched notions such as the silly idea that the earth's resources and capacity to support life while under-going unsustainable extractions and pollution, might be finite (just 'cause silly, less special sciences like physics would have you believe such things), you should bow down and worship the miracles of the Magical Mythical Mystery Market.

The Market is so scientifically magical that the only thing that can possibly hurt any economy in which the market operates is anything that might restrict the operation of market forces with The Market. So when the economy comes crashing down the fact that it coincides with environmental collapses will be mere coincidence, the real damage will have been done by attempts to constrain activities within The Market such as those constraints aimed at lengthening the life-span of the planetary systems that make the market (and indeed life itself) possible.

That's quite enough of your blasphemy Evil Cantadia, remember the first commandment; "Thou shall not question The Market".

snip
:) Yes, some market fundamentalists have definitely played a role in denying that there is a problem. On the other hand, that does not mean that markets cannot play some part in the solution ... Stern, like many others, is advocating putting a price on CO2 emissions through a cap and trade system, which harnesses the markets to find the most cost-effective solutions.

:) Yes, some market fundamentalists have definitely played a role in denying that there is a problem. On the other hand, that does not mean that markets cannot play some part in the solution ... Stern, like many others, is advocating putting a price on CO2 emissions through a cap and trade system, which harnesses the markets to find the most cost-effective solutions.
While I dont disagree that markets have utility and can be a source of solutions as much as problems, when it comes to (market) ideologues (the most rampant supporters of magico-market thinking), what Stern is advocating is a blasphemy, much like suggesting harnessing God to a Christian.

In magico-marketian thinking The Market's magical capacity to operate miraculously is seriously hindered by any interference. CO2 emissions belong to their owners (the folk that generated them) and as such it is an interference with the market and therefore a sin (within magico-market thinking) to charge people for producing them.

In an unbridled market (which is what magico-marketians advocate) anyone has any right to use their property as they will without incurring any cost charged by the 'community at large'. In defence against notions such as 'but they might reck the place in the process' magico-marketians claim that those who own resources will most strive to protect them... if this alone doesnt satisfy they point to Maltheus's 'Tradegy of the Commons' as if this alone ends all further discussion.

In order for markets to be tools of utility and solutions more often than the source of nearly (and getting ever nearer to) insurmountable problems, the magico-market thinking that makes no more sense than Azande witch-craft beliefs, need to be reigned in and replaced with the idea that anything allowed to run rampant will in fact run rampant...

I would have though the strong evidence that global warming could cause:
- rising ocean levels and flooding
- more extreme weather
- the spread of certain tropical diseases and other threats to human health
- loss of biodiversity and ecosystems
among other things, would be enough.

And don't forget the fact that global warming *could* cause acne in kitties and bunnies as well!:eek: Will no one think of the kitties and bunnies? T_T

BTW, whimwhams about "loss of biodiversity and ecosystems" is right where you can tell that the Gaia Cultists are just being silly again. :p If a warmer climate was bad for biodiversity it would be the Artic Circle that had the greatest number of species and the tropics that had the fewest instead of the other way around. :D

:) Yes, some market fundamentalists have definitely played a role in denying that there is a problem.

Ooooo, those evil market fundamentalists! Don't they know that the Cult of Kyoto is preaching that the endtimes are here and that we must toss a virgin into the volcano to appease the wrath of Gaia! Don't be timid Brother Evil Canatadia! You must do your duty as a Kyoto cultist and declare a jihad against all of them! :p

And don't forget the fact that global warming *could* cause acne in kitties and bunnies as well!:eek: Will no one think of the kitties and bunnies? T_T
We have our hands full thinking of the children....;)

BTW, whimwhams about "loss of biodiversity and ecosystems" is right where you can tell that the Gaia Cultists are just being silly again. :p If a warmer climate was bad for biodiversity it would be the Artic Circle that had the greatest number of species and the tropics that had the fewest instead of the other way around. :D
Er....no.....

Loss of biodiversity is the predicted outcome of rapid changes that occur at a rate that out-paces the ability of organisms to adapt to those changes. There is not an optimal temperature that suits all organisms, rather organisms well suited to particular temperatures are not necessarily at all suited to some other temperature....this is the basics of evolutionary theory and not the invention of Gaia Cultists.

This predicted outcome matches the evidence available to us (for instance from comparing rapid climate change as evidenced in soil, ice and sediment cores and through other means) with apparent rapid extinctions of species, either entirely or locally (the latter referring to cases where species cease to be constituents of particular environments).

Loss of biodiversity is the predicted outcome of rapid changes that occur at a rate that out-paces the ability of organisms to adapt to those changes. There is not an optimal temperature that suits *all* organisms, rather organisms well suited to particular temperatures are not necessarily at all suited to some other temperature....this is the basics of evolutionary theory and not the invention of Gaia Cultists.

This predicted outcome matches the evidence available to us (for instance from comparing rapid climate change as evidenced in soil, ice and sediment cores and through other means) with apparent rapid extinctions of species, either entirely or locally (the latter referring to cases where species cease to be constituents of particular environments). (Emphasis to "all" added by me to set up a point).

But is it not true that *most* species find their optimal temprature to be in the upper rather than the lower ranges? And is not true that such species would find the range of their ecosphere extended rather than diminished? Thus the basis of the whimwhams over the malaria mosquito spreading since this is merely putting the worst possible spin upon the fact that such a warming would cause both extended growing seasons and allow a number of currently threatened animals a wider range in which they might roam and therefore survive. I'm sorry, but it does seem to me that the predicted outcome is basically an example of a SWAG that we really shouldn't make policy on.

(Emphasis to "all" added by me to set up a point).

But is it not true that *most* species find their optimal temprature to be in the upper rather than the lower ranges?
No it isnt true, in fact it doesnt even make sense...upper range being the heat of the sun or higher, lower being say non-planet Pluto temps? I think you'll find neither temperature (sun's or Pluto's) is an optimal range for any species.

And is not true that such species would find the range of their ecosphere extended rather than diminished?
No it isnt true.

Thus the basis of the whimwhams over the malaria mosquito spreading since this is merely putting the worst possible spin upon the fact that such a warming would cause both extended growing seasons and allow a number of currently threatened animals a wider range in which they might roam and therefore survive.
Er, no.

I'm sorry, but it does seem to me that the predicted outcome is basically an example of a SWAG that we really shouldn't make policy on.
Which brings us back to the special science of The Market that tells us we should ignore the findings of all other sciences, even though most of that which is produced in and traded on The Market wouldnt exist but for the applications of other sciences....the fact that what is predicted has been demonstrated to have occured previously not-withstanding....

Mmmm, your baseless speculation vs the combined findings drawn from a range of scientific specialisations, said findings being both predictable according to the best understandings we currently have and also physically evidenced...sorry honey, your speculations loose....

Don't they know that the Cult of Kyoto is preaching that the endtimes are here and that we must toss a virgin into the volcano to appease the wrath of Gaia! Don't be timid Brother Evil Canatadia! You must do your duty as a Kyoto cultist and declare a jihad against all of them! :p If arguing that we should invest 1% of our GDP to solve a problem that could cost us 10% of our GDP or more is "tossing a virgin into a volcano" then so be it. It's kind of sad that you have to resort to trying to make my argument into something it's not rather than addressing it head on.

BTW, whimwhams about "loss of biodiversity and ecosystems" is right where you can tell that the Gaia Cultists are just being silly again.

Yes ... those silly scientists with their well-reasoned and tested scientific models.

Zagat has already pointed out a number of reasons why your argument is wrong. I will also point out that biodiversity consists of three things: genetic diversity, species diversity and ecosystem diversity. The arctic may not contain as many species as a tropical rainforest, but it does contain different species and different ecosystems. The loss of these species and ecosystems in and of itself would diminish biodiversity.

Global Warming will shatter world economy

No! Say it ain't so!

No! Say it ain't so!

Sounds crazy ... but it's true! :)

"Probably not" Oh, and it already has been getting media attention in the US, Australia and New Zealand.

In a way, the findings should come as no suprise. Obviously, some of us have raised these arguments before But there have definitely been some world leaders, economists and others that have argued the opposite; that we should just pursue a business as usual agenda, and that economic growth would enable us to cope in the long run.

So ... thoughts? Will the report have much of an effect outside of the UK? Does it change the nature of the debate at all? Will it put the lie to the myth that economic growth and saving the environment are mutually exclusive, or can we still expect those kinds of arguments?

Unfortunatly, I don't think this report will help any. It would require greedy bastards, to all of a sudden, no longer be greedy bastards before any good ever gets done!

Everybody knows what's going on. But oil barrons, factory owners and especially places like China and India (with all that coal usage) don't give a damm about the future. It's all about what is in their vaults TODAY!

The problem with emissions trading is that with no demand and lots of supply the product is worthless. You must create an industry to use the CO2 before you can start trading it. You need to create demand for it.

CO2 lasers won't use up nearly enough of it no matter how fun they are to play with. Pumping it into the ground is throwing it away and it might just come back up through the ground. If you're really concerned about this (I'm not), then here's a real solution.

It has been shown that crop yields inside agricultural greenhouses can be increased by up to 15% when CO2 levels are increased to 700-1000 ppm. The solution here is obvious, build an easy to assemble greenhouse for farmers and sell them the CO2 collected from coal power stations. Greenhouses growing also have the benefit of keeping most pests out so you don't need to spray crops as much if at all. That one's for all you people who think there's a conspiracy to kill us off with pesticides or something even though lifespans have never been longer.

If you think we should be switching to ethanol and other biofuels because it burns cleaner then I have some bad news for you; ethanol doesn't hold as much energy as gas and it has also been estimated that as many as 30 billion acres of land would need to be devoted to corn for ethanol. We currently use less than 10 billion for food. The solution here? Stack the acres. Build towers with 1-4 acres of hydroponic "fields" per level stacked 5 levels high. The whole process (like the watering, the harvesting, etc.) can be automated. Hydroponics eliminates the need for crop rotation. It's got all the benfits of a regular agricultural greenhouse system like no weeds or pests. The only downside is that they'd require power to run but they're taking the CO2 from coal stations so it'd be okay to run power stations on carbon fuels, sunlight could be reflected in during the day with mirrors, and more nuclear power stations together could probably provide enough energy to grow the crops. In a controlled envirnoment where they won't get contaminated with escherichia coli from livestock crap.

See? Not that hard to create demand and make a market for your [retarded voice]"emissions trading"[/retarded voice] and satisfy all your crazy demands for substandard fuels.

The problem with emissions trading is that with no demand and lots of supply the product is worthless. You must create an industry to use the CO2 before you can start trading it. You need to create demand for it.
I find some of your suggestions interesting. But this is not how emissions trading works. Emissions trading does not necessarily seek to create a market for the emissions themselves. Instead, it caps emissions at a certain level, and creates credits which allow the credit-holder to emit a certain amount. The total amount of credits cannot exceed the cap. Companies that are succesful in reducing their emissions below their credit amount can sell their extra credits, while companies that exceed their credit amounts must buy extra credits. The more firms exceed their limits, the higher the price of credits will become. So it creates economic incentives to reduce emissions. Of course, one way to do that might be by finding other uses for CO2, like you suggest. Check the wikipedia article on it here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_Trading)

Emissions trading was used quite succesfully to combat the pollution that created acid rain. It reduced emissions significantly at a minimal cost to business.

The European Union and some of the Northeastern US states each have emissions trading systems for CO2.

Unfortunatly, I don't think this report will help any. It would require greedy bastards, to all of a sudden, no longer be greedy bastards before any good ever gets done!

Or it would just require governments to stop protecting dirty and inefficient industries, and make them pay the costs of their emissions. You are aboslutely right ... greed is a powerful motivator, and most people are not going to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions out of the goodness of their heart. The Canadian Government tried that with their "One Tonne Challenge", and it was a complete failure. The time for voluntary measures is over. It is time to bring in a price on carbon that gives even the greedy an incentive to reduce their emissions.


Everybody knows what's going on. But oil barrons, factory owners and especially places like China and India (with all that coal usage) don't give a damm about the future. It's all about what is in their vaults TODAY!

And the coal lobby was quite succesful in derailing Kyoto in the US. And the coal-dependency of China is problematic. But in fairness to India and China, from their perspective, historically most of the emissions were ours, and they are entitled to the same opportunity to develop economically that we had. And they are right ... they just don't necessarily have to go about it the same way. But this does not let the developed world off the hook ... we have to take the lead and show that carbon-free economic growth is possible in order to get China and India on board.

See now as a regular reader of NSG I already know that it is roo late for global warming to ruin the US economy because the Bush administration has already gone so. Roll on global warming! I hate snow. I talked to a friend in Blighty today who went on a lovely rideout to Brighton beach. It was Tee Shirt weather in waning days of October, so he said he is for global warming too. It might even bring Brighton beach closer to his home.

And the coal lobby was quite succesful in derailing Kyoto in the US. And the coal-dependency of China is problematic. But in fairness to India and China, from their perspective, historically most of the emissions were ours, and they are entitled to the same opportunity to develop economically that we had. And they are right ... they just don't necessarily have to go about it the same way. But this does not let the developed world off the hook ... we have to take the lead and show that carbon-free economic growth is possible in order to get China and India on board.

I have heard that the West is most responsible, but can we trust those reports? Have you heard of pollution worse than this (http://www.dailyreckoning.co.uk/article/280620061.html) anywhere?
One of China's lesser-known exports is a dangerous brew of soot, toxic chemicals, and climate changing gasses from the smokestacks of coal burning power plants.
"The Air was so thick that I thought I was choking. The polution was just unbelievable. All the locals wore surgical masks...
Now I know that the West has done it's share, but c'mon...Surgical masks? That's kind of tantamount to... umm.. overkill! Wouldn't you say?

Traditional emissions trading sucks. It's basically throwing money at the problem and no amount of printed paper or coins are going to make pollution go poof. The cost will also be transferred to the consumers because the companies won't want to settle for thinner profit margins. My idea's are better and they've got about as much chance as anything you'd read in PopSci.

And wet scrubbers are what got rid of sulfur emissions, not emissions trading. The scrubbers turned the sulfur pollution into industrial sulfates that were then sold to pay for the scrubbers. A new source of material for an existing market. Turn to the engineers when you want real solutions, not the politicians or lawyers.

Chinese air is filthy. Why should the US have to sign a treaty so politicians can pat themselves on the back and think they've done something to curb pollution when China gets a free pass?

Not bad,
I hope you were being sarcastic because I thought the Dow was setting new record highs pretty recently.

Garsh, I really hope our world leaders are doing something... :rolleyes:

I have heard that the West is most responsible, but can we trust those reports? Have you heard of pollution worse than this (http://www.dailyreckoning.co.uk/article/280620061.html) anywhere?

I think you might be confusing two different things. Air pollution and climate change are related but seperate issues. The fact that China has more pollution does not mean they are creating more greenhouse gases than we are. It simply means that we have better technology for burning fossil fuels cleanly from an air pollution standpoint (e.g. scrubbers on smokestacks, cleaner burning cars). China has definitely been catching up in terms of CO2 emissions (although their CO2 emissions actually fell between the late 90's and about 2004) but the US is still emits more overall, by far more per capita, and is definitely responsible for a much larger share of historical emissions (as are other western industrial powers).

Garsh, I really hope our world leaders are doing something... :rolleyes:
Well, at least this report gives them one less excuse for not doing anything.

Well, at least this report gives them one less excuse for not doing anything.

You mean... George Bush just might consider global warming as a problem? :eek:

Let's hope!

Traditional emissions trading sucks. It's basically throwing money at the problem and no amount of printed paper or coins are going to make pollution go poof.


Actually, it is designed to reduce pollution at the lowest possible cost. It puts a price on the emissions, and then leaves it up to the emitters to figure out the cheapest way of reducing their emissions.


The cost will also be transferred to the consumers because the companies won't want to settle for thinner profit margins.

Why shouldn't it be? Why should we subsidize the consumption of dirty energy? If consumers had to bear the entire cost of using dirty energy, they would either choose to use less, or use more from cleaner sources. And we would be well on our way to solving the problem.


And wet scrubbers are what got rid of sulfur emissions, not emissions trading. The scrubbers turned the sulfur pollution into industrial sulfates that were then sold to pay for the scrubbers. A new source of material for an existing market. Turn to the engineers when you want real solutions, not the politicians or lawyers.

Yes, but emissions trading is one of the reasons why wet scrubbers came into use. Before that, there was no incentive for firms to use them. They could pollute as much as they wanted, and let someone else incur the costs, and so they fiercely resisted any polllution control measures. Once emissions trading put a price on their pollution, they had a big economic incentive to find ways to reduce their pollution, and wet scrubbers was one of the ways they did it. And like you said, it actually made them more profitable, because they were able to sell some of the byproducts. That is why emissions trading works so well ... it leaves it to the engineers (not the politicians or lawyers) to find the cheapest way of lowering emissions.


Chinese air is filthy. Why should the US have to sign a treaty so politicians can pat themselves on the back and think they've done something to curb pollution when China gets a free pass?

As I pointed out earlier, air pollution and global warming are not the same thing. Any way, China won't get a free pass. They will come under increasing pressure to join the efforts to combat climate change, and once the developed countries start leading the way and showing that carbon-free economic growth is possible, we will be able to apply the right mix of pressure and incentives to bring China and other developing nations on board.


I hope you were being sarcastic because I thought the Dow was setting new record highs pretty recently.

Sarcastic about what? The Dow is pretty disconnected from this reality at the moment.

You mean... George Bush just might consider global warming as a problem? :eek:

Let's hope!

He does consider it a problem ... or at least he says he does. It just doesn't rank particularly high on his priority list, and is not something he is prepared to devote significant resources to.

Lets just hope that this increases the pressure on him to take meaningful action. And if he doesn't, let's hope he gets replaced with someone who does.

The problem is that at the moment the world relies on the Market to solve all our problems, but the market only really takes into account things that have a monetary value attached to them. If things don’t have realistic costs associated with them then the market won’t really help.

Many products, energy production being one of them, don’t have realistic costs associated with them, and as the old saying goes garbage in, garbage out. Carbon trading is an artificial and very subjective way of attaching slightly more realistic costs to some of these industries, without which the market is unable to reliably help.
The other problem with relying on the market for guidance is that in practice it has a remarkably short term outlook, and usually relies on correcting the problem once it has occurred rather than before it occurs.

In the case of drastically accelerating climate change assuming that the problem can be corrected, you have to look at what is being risked. If it does start to go wrong and the market starts to reacte.. what are we gonna lose before it manages to correct the situation? Usually prevention is better than the cure.

Sure the current scientific thinking may well be proved wrong, but what are the risks either way. If we take it seriously then we invest in renewable energy resources. Companies start making money for nothing.. they don’t even have to dig stuff out of the ground to make money.. its money for cake. Traditional energy companies shift their focus from fossil fuels and make money in the newly emerging industries .. all you are looking at is a small short term cost for long term profit benefits. Even if we are wrong about drastically accelerating climate change only short term profits are at risk if we take action.

If current scientific thinking is correct and we ignore it then we could well be in the shit. We may even lose our home..(ie habitable environment) sure its an extreme example but its certainly a possibility.

The market just needs a kick in the right direction.

snip
Absolutely. Use of the markets should always be tempered by a realization that free market theory is based on several assumptions that don't hold true in the real world. It should also be kept in mind that markets are designed to achieve economic efficiency, and that economic efficiency is a means to an end, not an end in itself, and should sometimes be trumped by other goals. In the words of one author, markets are a useful servant but a terrible master and an even worse religion. And obviously market prices are always distorted by imperfections and externalities, which is precisely the problem here.

Carbon trading may be a somewhat artificial way of imposing a price on carbon, but it is better than doing what we do presently, which is assigning it no value at all.

The report is available here. (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm)

I have not had a chance to read it in any detail yet but it should be interesting.

If arguing that we should invest 1% of our GDP to solve a problem that could cost us 10% of our GDP or more is "tossing a virgin into a volcano" then so be it. It's kind of sad that you have to resort to trying to make my argument into something it's not rather than addressing it head on.
Mmm... toasted virgin.

Seriously, though, the report referred to in the OP is all about quantifying this. It's a best-guess analysis.

Mmm... toasted virgin.

Seriously, though, the report referred to in the OP is all about quantifying this. It's a best-guess analysis.

Absolutely. The future is inherently uncertain, so decisions about the future can never be made based on absolute certainty. They can only be made based on the best information we have.

I can see why you havn't read it yet. That's one damm big report. :eek:

Thank you for posting it!

I glanced through part II, chapter 3, and did not like what I saw. We have some tough times heading our way: severe weather, deadly dry spells, malnutrition, heat stress...

I don't think it will take a team of Wall Street experts to figure out that this will cause market problems. And at some point (not too far away) market problems will be the least of our worries!

You know what pisses me off, is that (I betcha) Rush will continue to poision the airways with his lies, that global warming is still a myth. :mad:

You know what pisses me off, is that (I betcha) Rush will continue to poision the airways with his lies, that global warming is still a myth. :mad:

I'm suprised that Rush still has any credibility. The guy thinks that personal attacks constitute effective rebuttals of his opponent's positions.

But seriously, what aspect of global warming does he question? That it is happening at all? That it is caused by humans? And on what basis?

I'm suprised that Rush still has any credibility. The guy thinks that personal attacks constitute effective rebuttals of his opponent's positions.

But seriously, what aspect of global warming does he question? That it is happening at all? That it is caused by humans? And on what basis?

Well to start with. Anyone that thinks there might be a global warming problem is labled an "Environmentalist Wacko." (scientists included)

To him, all environment problems happen naturally (not man made)

He's just a Republican, brown-noser. If Newt Gingrich or Trent Lott had recognized global warming problems, then he would have too.

Well to start with. Anyone that thinks there might be a global warming problem is labled an "Environmentalist Wacko." (scientists included)


I checked his website. The only mention of Climate Change that I could find is "Al Gore's Doomsday Countdown" which is based on some comments that Al Gore made that he belived the projections of some scientists that we may only have 10 years to act to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Apart from the fact that he makes some personal attacks on Gore and misrepresents what Gore said (based on second-hand sources) he also obviously misunderstands what Gore (and these scientists) said.

The comment did not imply that we had 10 years until Doomsday. Just 10 years until the point where it will be impossible to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Even if this was "doomsday", we won't know if we've reached that point 10 years from now anyway. We could easily pass the point of no return without even knowing it. Some scientists think it has already happened.

Classic tactic. Misrepresent your opponent's argument, and then try to hold them to any argument they never made.

Chapter 1 begins:
An overwhelming body of scientific evidence now clearly indicates that climate change is a serious and urgent issue.
That body of evidence completely discounts the possible mitigating effects of cloud cover. The climate models don't model cloud cover, and clouds have significantly higher albedo than the earth's surface does. For example, the albedo of a pine forest is 0.04. The ocean's albedo is nearly as low. Any surface area covered by new cloud dramatically reduces the amount of solar radiation warming the earth, leading to cooling.

Much like the plan to hang a solar shield at L1, increased cloud cover treats the warming problem at its source: sunlight.

I checked his website. The only mention of Climate Change that I could find is "Al Gore's Doomsday Countdown" which is based on some comments that Al Gore made that he belived the projections of some scientists that we may only have 10 years to act to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Apart from the fact that he makes some personal attacks on Gore and misrepresents what Gore said (based on second-hand sources) he also obviously misunderstands what Gore (and these scientists) said.

The comment did not imply that we had 10 years until Doomsday. Just 10 years until the point where it will be impossible to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Even if this was "doomsday", we won't know if we've reached that point 10 years from now anyway. We could easily pass the point of no return without even knowing it. Some scientists think it has already happened.

Classic tactic. Misrepresent your opponent's argument, and then try to hold them to any argument they never made.

Listen to his radio show. That's some no holds bared bullshit there. I'm not supprised that he dosn't post some of the more drastic things he's said on radio, onto his website. His "contact us" page would be overloaded with people calling him an idiot.

I will listen to his show this week, (even though it's sure to piss me off) to see if he even mentions this report and what what he has to say about it. (He's denied the extstance of the global warming problem for, at least 15 years that I can remember. And continued that claim on radio about 10 days ago)

That body of evidence completely discounts the possible mitigating effects of cloud cover.

no it doesn't

Chapter 1 begins:

That body of evidence completely discounts the possible mitigating effects of cloud cover.

Maybe, because, umm, it's a complete and totally moot point at this juncture?

That body of evidence completely discounts the possible mitigating effects of cloud cover.


No it does not. Research has been done on the effect of cloud cover for years, and the climate models are constantly being updated to account for this.


The climate models don't model cloud cover, and clouds have significantly higher albedo than the earth's surface does. For example, the albedo of a pine forest is 0.04. The ocean's albedo is nearly as low. Any surface area covered by new cloud dramatically reduces the amount of solar radiation warming the earth, leading to cooling.

Increased cloud cover would not lead to cooling. It would only partially mitigate the effects of warming. And that mitigation would be offset by the fact that water vapour is also a greenhouse gas.


Much like the plan to hang a solar shield at L1, increased cloud cover treats the warming problem at its source: sunlight.
No. Because the variation in sunlight has played only a minor role in the current warming trend. The real cause of warming is the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not the amount of solar irradiation.

Increased cloud cover would not lead to cooling. It would only partially mitigate the effects of warming. And that mitigation would be offset by the fact that water vapour is also a greenhouse gas.
GHGs can only trap heat that gets in in the first place. Increasing the earth's albedo reduces the amount of heat we receive from the sun.
No. Because the variation in sunlight has played only a minor role in the current warming trend. The real cause of warming is the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not the amount of solar irradiation.
Okay, there you assumed I was an idiot and then interpreted by comments accordingly.

I didn't say the sun was doing anything unusual. But all of the earth's heat comes from the sun. All of it. So the earth's temperature can and will be regulated by adjusting the influx of solar radiation.

Do you even know what albedo is?

edit: for anyone who doesn't - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

GHGs can only trap heat that gets in in the first place. Increasing the earth's albedo reduces the amount of heat we receive from the sun.

Which in this particular situation is tantamount to putting out a forrest fire by pissing on it. Unless the British Treasury made a mistake in this report and forgot to add "omit all of the above if it's cloudy" :rolleyes:

Increasing the earth's albedo reduces the amount of heat we receive from the sun. Not enough to offset the warming caused by the increase in GHG's.


Okay, there you assumed I was an idiot and then interpreted by comments accordingly.

I didn't say the sun was doing anything unusual. But all of the earth's heat comes from the sun. All of it. So the earth's temperature can and will be regulated by adjusting the influx of solar radiation.



I didn't assume anything. I took your comment literally: that sunlight was the cause of the warming problem. It is not. It has been shown to play a minor role, if any, in the current warming trend. The major factor in current warming is the increase in GHG's. Trying to solve global warming by blocking out the sun would not address the root cause of the problem.

And yes, I understand albedo.

*snip*

I think global warming will shatter more than just the economy. More things, like the hopes and dreams of billions, and the lives of countless millions, will probably be shattered.

:rolleyes: Here we go again.

Stop the Rush bashing. This thread is about a report about the potential effects of a possible scenario, not the scenario, its proponents, its opponents, the science or lack thereof. Stick to the topic and stay off the tangents.

And for the wrath of Foamy, don't make 6 or 7 posts in a row agreeing with a previous post or saying the same thing and congratulating one another for your agreement.

And remember that there have been doom prophecies since man started speaking. The one thing they all have in common is that none have come true.

And remember that there have been doom prophecies since man started speaking. The one thing they all have in common is that none have come true.

How many of those prophecies were based on a study, commisioned by the British Treasury?

Global warming "creates" cold snaps by altering the flow of ocean currents (salt water mixing with fresh water reacts differently that pure salt water) and altering the jet stream. Al Gore's book makes this very complicate stuff very understandable to the lay person. I understand also that Gore is going to serve as some ambassador to Great Britian in the global warming fight.

Which in this particular situation is tantamount to putting out a forrest fire by pissing on it. Unless the British Treasury made a mistake in this report and forgot to add "omit all of the above if it's cloudy" :rolleyes:

Or sort of like letting the fire burn in the hopes that a raincloud might come along and put it out. After all, it's not the spark that lit the fire that caused it to burn, but rather the absence of rain.

This thread is about a report about the potential effects of a possible scenario, not the scenario, its proponents, its opponents, the science or lack thereof. Stick to the topic and stay off the tangents.

More accurately ... it is about the likely effects of a probable scenario. Since the scenario is based on a scientific theory and scientific evidence, the science is relevant. I agree that the proponents and opponents and their personalities are irrelevant. The only reason I attacked Rush was not because he opposes the science of climate change, but because he lacks a reasonable basis for doing so. But I will try to avoid commenting on personalities from now on.


And remember that there have been doom prophecies since man started speaking. The one thing they all have in common is that none have come true.

Yes. And none of them were based on a mass of scientific evidence and a well-tested scientific theory.

Well wouldn't global warming means that the earth is getting warm, and if the earth is getting warm, then how can we have a cold snap?

Holy shit. Read something.

And remember that there have been doom prophecies since man started speaking. The one thing they all have in common is that none have come true.
Is there some good evidence that contrary to all other people at all other times the citizens of ancient Rome didnt make doom prophecies about the Roman civilization?

In fact history is fill of the downfall of civilizations, many of whom I suspect included people who had the habit of makinng doom prophesies...the fact that people think the doom of a civilization is far-fetched rather than probably inevitable just goes to show how far removed from reality such people are.

Holy shit. Read something.
Where did that come from?

EC,
Have you ever heard of The Population Bomb? It was book book written by Paul R. Ehrlich. A best-selling work! It predicted disaster for humanity due to overpopulation and the "population explosion". The book predicted that in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people would starve to death, that nothing could be done to avoid mass famine greater than any in the history, and radical action was needed to limit the overpopulation. The author was well educated and the theory seemed sound at the time. Then when decades came and went and the predictions failed to occur the book and what it preached were thrown out by nearly all. Some still cling to it today saying the worst is just around the corner and still demand radical action but few listen to them because the theory was shown to be wrong.

Cry wolf enough and people will get tired of it and stop listening. And when something bad really happens the cries will fall upon deaf ears. There is a real danger in false alarms.

There are those like me who have given serious thought to the issue and come up with real solutions to potential problems like this. You wanted a way to stop CO2 from going into the air? I gave you one. One that would further increase crop yields and allow coal comapnies to profit while making us energy independant. More people are fed, the emissions you hate so much are stopped, and people are allowed to go on with their lives. What was your response? Regulations and taxes to influence and restrict the behavior of the public.

Zagat,
The world and humanity are still here even if governments are not.

Where did that come from?

EC,
Have you ever heard of The Population Bomb? It was book book written by Paul R. Ehrlich. A best-selling work! It predicted disaster for humanity due to overpopulation and the "population explosion". The book predicted that in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people would starve to death, that nothing could be done to avoid mass famine greater than any in the history, and radical action was needed to limit the overpopulation. The author was well educated and the theory seemed sound at the time. Then when decades came and went and the predictions failed to occur the book and what it preached were thrown out by nearly all. Some still cling to it today saying the worst is just around the corner and still demand radical action but few listen to them because the theory was shown to be wrong.

Cry wolf enough and people will get tired of it and stop listening. And when something bad really happens the cries will fall upon deaf ears. There is a real danger in false alarms.

There are those like me who have given serious thought to the issue and come up with real solutions to potential problems like this. You wanted a way to stop CO2 from going into the air? I gave you one. One that would further increase crop yields and allow coal comapnies to profit while making us energy independant. More people are fed, the emissions you hate so much are stopped, and people are allowed to go on with their lives. What was your response? Regulations and taxes to influence and restrict the behavior of the public.

Zagat,
The world and humanity are still here even if governments are not.

I'm sorry, I lost you when you started talking about one book that was written in the seventies and compared it to the massive scientific consensus on Climate Change.

Science is not a democracy. It is fact. Just because something is popular does not make it so.

I brought that up because EC said that no doom prophecy had ever been based on scientific theory. The overpopulation doom prophecy was at the time thought to be real. Then, when we actuall slowed down and bothered to check we found that it wasn't and that radical changes to control the general public were not needed.

Zagat,
The world and humanity are still here even if governments are not.
How about their economies Dosuun since the doom being predicted here is economic devastation, or did you loose that aspect when you morphed the argument 'environmental damage will wreck havoc on economies' to the strawman argument 'doomed, doomed, the world and all humanity are doomed' that you constructed for the sole purpose of delivering a smack down to?

Science is not a democracy. It is fact. Just because something is popular does not make it so.

I brought that up because EC said that no doom prophecy had ever been based on scientific theory. The overpopulation doom prophecy was at the time thought to be real. Then, when we actuall slowed down and bothered to check we found that it wasn't and that radical changes to control the general public were not needed.Yea, you're right. That should have been done back in the 1930s. Too damn late now.

Science is not a democracy. It is fact. Just because something is popular does not make it so.

I brought that up because EC said that no doom prophecy had ever been based on scientific theory. The overpopulation doom prophecy was at the time thought to be real. Then, when we actuall slowed down and bothered to check we found that it wasn't and that radical changes to control the general public were not needed.

I must be in a bad mood and I do agree with you. Scientists have been wrong before. The problem is, I see almost nothing proving this wrong now. This isn't a new science. Its undergone changes especially in the past 20 years and most especially in the past five. I see a problem we could be working towards solving. I also see businesses that might lose money due to Global Warming spend money needlessly on intentionally misinforming the public. Not only is it the wrong direction for companies like Exxon to be heading from a moral standpoint but from a business one as well. An example can be seen by Chevy's refusal in recent years to stop producing so many SUVs and to start looking towards greener fueled cars which the public has become increasingly interested in.

Is there some good evidence that contrary to all other people at all other times the citizens of ancient Rome didnt make doom prophecies about the Roman civilization?


I don't know what kind of prophecies there were, but obviously in human history, several civilizations have fallen, and there is some interesting scholarship being done right now on the role of changes in climate and other environmental factors in those collapses (such as Jared Diamond's "Collapse", Ronald Wright's "Short history of Progress" and Brian Fagan's "Floods, Famines and Emperors").

Where did that come from?
Have you ever heard of The Population Bomb? It was book book written by Paul R. Ehrlich. A best-selling work! It predicted disaster for humanity due to overpopulation and the "population explosion". The book predicted that in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people would starve to death, that nothing could be done to avoid mass famine greater than any in the history, and radical action was needed to limit the overpopulation. The author was well educated and the theory seemed sound at the time. Then when decades came and went and the predictions failed to occur the book and what it preached were thrown out by nearly all. Some still cling to it today saying the worst is just around the corner and still demand radical action but few listen to them because the theory was shown to be wrong.


There is a world of difference between one man's thesis in 1968 that was based on some simplistic assumptions and some bad modelling that happened to be a best-seller (as you said: popularity does not make it correct) and a well-tested scientific theory like climate change.

As I said before, obviously there is no certainty when making decisions about the future. All we can do is make decisions based on the best information we have. The best information we have says we are going to face some serious consequences if we don't take some relatively simple steps.


There are those like me who have given serious thought to the issue and come up with real solutions to potential problems like this. You wanted a way to stop CO2 from going into the air? I gave you one. One that would further increase crop yields and allow coal comapnies to profit while making us energy independant. More people are fed, the emissions you hate so much are stopped, and people are allowed to go on with their lives. What was your response? Regulations and taxes to influence and restrict the behavior of the public.

And I said I was intrigued by your solutions, but that no-one is going to implement them unless they have an economic incentive to do so. Why would they try to find ways to curb their CO2 emissions when they can currently pump them into the air for free and let everyone else pay the cost? That is where emissions trading comes in. It is not a tax ... it is actually a source of revenue to those firms that are efficient and reduce their emissions. It requires a minimum of regulation ... as all properly functioning markets do. It is not designed to restrict anyone's behaviour ... it is merely designed to influence it in the way that the market would if it were not for externalities like pollution.

Not enough to offset the warming caused by the increase in GHG's.

I didn't assume anything. I took your comment literally: that sunlight was the cause of the warming problem. It is not. It has been shown to play a minor role, if any, in the current warming trend. The major factor in current warming is the increase in GHG's. Trying to solve global warming by blocking out the sun would not address the root cause of the problem.
But the GHGs don't cause warming. I repeat, greenhouse gases DON'T CAUSE WARMING.

They prevent cooling. As such, if we reduce the amount of heat being added, we don't need as much cooling. It's a simple formula.

Heat added to earth = x

Heat lost by earth = y

As long as x is greater than y, we get warmer. And while you advocate fixing the problem by increasing y, there's no reason why we couldn't reduce x instead.

Roughly 95% of sunlight that hits the ocean is absorbed and coverted the heat. Roughly 40% of sunlight that hits clouds is absorbed and converted to heat. That's a huge difference. That's an 1100% increase in energy harmlessly radiated into space.

snip

It still totally fails to deal with the root cause of the problem, which is an increase in GHG's in the atmosphere, not an increase in solar irradiation.

It still totally fails to deal with the root cause of the problem, which is an increase in GHG's in the atmosphere, not an increase in solar irradiation.

Llewdor is kinna right (as far as I know) about the atmospheric particles (water droplets in clouds) having a fairly dramatic effect on climate change and Global Warming.

Only problem is that its really exacerbating the problem rather than making it better. Air pollution reflecting sunlight does indeed appear to have been slowing the warming process. In fact paradoxically we would be in an even worse position now climate change wise if we had not been busily filling our atmosphere with industrial pollution, vapour trails from aircraft and smoke from burning our forests as these pollutants have been busily reflecting sunlight and decreasing our rate of warming.

As we try to reduce our air pollution levels (separate issue to GHG) we will be causing extra sunlight to reach the earth and extra warming. So yes, cloud cover is a major contributing factor to climate change, but its more of a catch 22 than a solution. Do we go on polluting our atmosphere with sunlight reducing pollution in order to counter the effects of our heat retaining pollution? Or do we reduce our air pollution levels but then expose ourselves to the extra effects of global climate change?

Infact it means that the need to deal with our heat retaining pollution is even more pressing as unless we deal with that as well as our sunlight reducing airpollution then we are in for even more trouble than before....

It still totally fails to deal with the root cause of the problem, which is an increase in GHG's in the atmosphere, not an increase in solar irradiation.
The cause of the change is the GHGs, but the source of the heat is the sun.

The cause of the change is the GHGs, but the source of the heat is the sun. And the GHG's regulate the temperature nicely, as long as we don't pour excessive amounts of them in the atmosphere.

The bottom line is you don't want to take action on the root cause of the problem, in the hopes that increased cloud cover will save the day. It won't, because a) it will only offset part of the warming effect and b) water vapour itself is a greenhouse gas, so increased cloud cover will increase warming, especially at night.

snip

It depends on the type of pollutant. Some pollutants that cause air pollution also happen to be Greenhouse Gases. So while they are blocking out sunlight, they are also trapping more heat. Their effect may slow warming slightly, be neutral, or increase it slightly.

That is the case for water vapour. Warming is expected to increase the amount of water vapour in the atompshere, which means more cloud cover. Llewdor thinks this will block our more sunlight, thereby offsetting the warming effect. He is wrong, for the reasons I have explained above.

That is the case for water vapour. Warming is expected to increase the amount of water vapour in the atompshere, which means more cloud cover. Llewdor thinks this will block our more sunlight, thereby offsetting the warming effect. He is wrong, for the reasons I have explained above.

My understanding was that extra cloud cover does actually reduce the amount of heat reaching the earth... Its hard to get data on... but I know there was a group looking at the effect of grounding all the planes in the US post 9/11. They found that removing the vapour trails over the US for 3 days resulted in an increased temperature differential of 1 degree... which is massive. And that is simply one component of air pollution.

You have to wonder to what extent air pollution has masked the real effects of GHG warming. How far along the path are we really?

However making out like this is actually helping is completely off. In fact it is simply hiding the extent of the real problem and will make correcting either problem twice as difficult.

So yeah I wasn't saying that cloud cover was going to save us...

I hate confusing the issue.. simple is best.. only problem is that climate is not a simple beast. I guess the simple message is that we have fucked with the delicate balance and if we don't correct it pretty damn quick its going to do what all unbalanced things do..

And the GHG's regulate the temperature nicely, as long as we don't pour excessive amounts of them in the atmosphere.

The bottom line is you don't want to take action on the root cause of the problem, in the hopes that increased cloud cover will save the day. It won't, because a) it will only offset part of the warming effect and b) water vapour itself is a greenhouse gas, so increased cloud cover will increase warming, especially at night.
Hence we supplement that sun-blocking effect ourselves.

Remember nuclear winter? All the debris from nuclear holocaust was suppose to block out the sun and cool us off, but that debris is darker than clouds, so clouds will be even more effective. Through in a man-mad solar shield and we're set.

But more importantly...
It won't, because a) it will only offset part of the warming effect and b) water vapour itself is a greenhouse gas, so increased cloud cover will increase warming, especially at night.
You don't know that. You don't know that because the climate models don't model the cooling effect of increased cloud cover. We're operating completely in the dark, here, using the precautionary principle because it sells.

Hence we supplement that sun-blocking effect ourselves.

Remember nuclear winter? All the debris from nuclear holocaust was suppose to block out the sun and cool us off, but that debris is darker than clouds, so clouds will be even more effective. Through in a man-mad solar shield and we're set.

But more importantly...

You don't know that. You don't know that because the climate models don't model the cooling effect of increased cloud cover. We're operating completely in the dark, here, using the precautionary principle because it sells.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/busy-week-for-water-vapor

The bottom line is you don't want to take action on the root cause of the problem, in the hopes that increased cloud cover will save the day. It won't,

You got that right!
Global warming has only one real enemy: Legislation!
Solar power, windmills, electric cars, more carpooling etc... If we have to spend Western money to to put some of this into China and India then we should. (we need the whole world on the same page)

Everyone should e-mail their elected officials to let them know how they feel about global warming and what they think needs to be done. Be a hero! Your e-mail might indeed be the one that literally, saves that world. And congradulations, way to go, job well done and thank you if it is! :)

You don't know that. You don't know that because the climate models don't model the cooling effect of increased cloud cover. We're operating completely in the dark, here, using the precautionary principle because it sells.

Thats not really true. The cooling effect is indeed taken into account in current climate models... but

(Ray Pierre www.realclimate.org)

"the combined surface IR effect of clouds and water vapor more than offsets any dimming due to cloud changes and other things that reduce solar radiation"

So extra cloud (as in water vapour) has an overall warming effect.

Its not necessarily the same as some other forms of particulate pollution, but I really think that suggesting that we should pump more pollutants into the atmosphere in order to counteract the pollutants we have already put there is a pretty pathetic idea...

Global warming has only one real enemy: Legislation!


As the saying goes ... the laws of congress and the laws of physics (or in this case science) are increasingly coming into conflict ... and the laws of physics will not yield.

Hence we supplement that sun-blocking effect ourselves.
You are going to elaborate lengths here to avoid addressing the real problem. We could reduce emissions fairly cheaply and quite easily with an emissions trading system (which was what Kyoto was designed to achieve ... it's just too bad that so many governments caved to narrow special interests). Instead, you are proposing we tinker even further and try to block out sunlight. Aside from the fact it would probably be more expensive than solving the real problem, it brings into play the law of unintended effects ...


We're operating completely in the dark, here, using the precautionary principle because it sells.
No we are not. We are operating on the basis of a sound scientific theory and a tremendous amount of data. This would have been a case for the application of the precautionary principle 15 or so years ago. The science if no longer uncertain.

In twenty years, when global temperatures begin to plummet and the next Little Ice Age begins, I am going to be laughing at all you doomsayers from inside my parka. :P

In twenty years, when global temperatures begin to plummet and the next Little Ice Age begins, I am going to be laughing at all you doomsayers from inside my parka. :PWhen the project ~50 million environmental refugees start comming out of Africa, seeking refuge in countries like your own, I'll be laughing at you.

Mini Goofballs 1 & 2, on the other hand, will probably slap you silly.

When the project ~50 million environmental refugees start comming out of Africa, seeking refuge in countries like your own, I'll be laughing at you.

Mini Goofballs 1 & 2, on the other hand, will probably slap you silly.

Trust me, we've all earned a slapping or two. :p

In twenty years, when global temperatures begin to plummet and the next Little Ice Age begins, I am going to be laughing at all you doomsayers from inside my parka. :P

I always keep my parka handy ...

When the project ~50 million environmental refugees start comming out of Africa, seeking refuge in countries like your own, I'll be laughing at you.

Mini Goofballs 1 & 2, on the other hand, will probably slap you silly.

Africans will more likely seek refuge in Europe, no? We'll get Latinos. That means better Baseball, better food, and good music to dance to. I can't wait until global warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/busy-week-for-water-vapor
I'd like to point out that your linked article contains the phrase "clouds have a net cooling effect on the present climate".

Which is my point. It does go on to say that we do't know they'll continue to have a net cooling effect, but nor does it insist they won't. We simply don't know.
Thats not really true. The cooling effect is indeed taken into account in current climate models... but

(Ray Pierre www.realclimate.org)


So extra cloud (as in water vapour) has an overall warming effect.

Its not necessarily the same as some other forms of particulate pollution, but I really think that suggesting that we should pump more pollutants into the atmosphere in order to counteract the pollutants we have already put there is a pretty pathetic idea...
That article (it took me some time to find it without a direct link) dealt with cloud cover caused by increased pollutants. Aerosols, specifically. Not water.
You are going to elaborate lengths here to avoid addressing the real problem. We could reduce emissions fairly cheaply and quite easily with an emissions trading system (which was what Kyoto was designed to achieve ... it's just too bad that so many governments caved to narrow special interests).
Incidentally, why did Kyoto only worry about total emissions and not net emissions? Isn't it net emissions that matter? Or was Kyoto instead intended primarily to retard western economies rather than address an actual climate problem?

I'm just asking.
Instead, you are proposing we tinker even further and try to block out sunlight. Aside from the fact it would probably be more expensive than solving the real problem...
The shield itself probably would cost less than $100 million. Remember, Martin-Marietta built a machine that could convert the Martian atmosphere into rocket fuel and their prototype only cost $47,000. We're talking about a single device that pretty much just sits still and gets in the way of sunlight.
...it brings into play the law of unintended effects ...
And your solution doesn't? It's based on theoretical models. Do you honestly believe that they've modeled every possible outcome?
When the project ~50 million environmental refugees start comming out of Africa, seeking refuge in countries like your own, I'll be laughing at you.
We don't have to let them in.

That article (it took me some time to find it without a direct link) dealt with cloud cover caused by increased pollutants. Aerosols, specifically. Not water.
I don't know why it took you so long since the quote comes from the same page the quote you have taken, and the same page as Desperate Measures originally referenced.

And it was not referring to cloud cover caused by pollutants as is pretty obvious from the quote itself as is pretty obvious from the quote itself considering it refers to "WATER VAPOUR" in the quote.

I'd like to point out that your linked article contains the phrase "clouds have a net cooling effect on the present climate".


Yes, but not even nearly sufficient to offset warming, which is what you keep suggesting they will do.


Incidentally, why did Kyoto only worry about total emissions and not net emissions? Isn't it net emissions that matter?

If you are referring to the failure to include "carbon sinks" it is because their benefits are still not adequately proven.


Or was Kyoto instead intended primarily to retard western economies rather than address an actual climate problem?

It's funny, because people like you argue we are trying to retard Western economies, and people in developing countries argue that we are trying to prevent them from enjoying the same growth opportunities that developed nations enjoyed. In reality we are simply trying to get everyone to accept the consequences of their actions. It is to be expected that the developed economies will take the leadership on this issue, prove that carbon-free development is possible, and then bring the developing countries on board through technology transfer and other mechanisms. All of which Kyoto allowed for.


The shield itself probably would cost less than $100 million. Remember, Martin-Marietta built a machine that could convert the Martian atmosphere into rocket fuel and their prototype only cost $47,000. We're talking about a single device that pretty much just sits still and gets in the way of sunlight.


Right. And I can't imagine any unfortunate side effects of that.


And your solution doesn't? It's based on theoretical models. Do you honestly believe that they've modeled every possible outcome?

And the models are based on sound science which agrees with the observational data.

I don't know why it took you so long since the quote comes from the same page the quote you have taken, and the same page as Desperate Measures originally referenced.

And it was not referring to cloud cover caused by pollutants as is pretty obvious from the quote itself as is pretty obvious from the quote itself considering it refers to "WATER VAPOUR" in the quote.

I'm beginning to think he doesn't understand that clouds are made up of water vapour.

Well wouldn't global warming means that the earth is getting warm, and if the earth is getting warm, then how can we have a cold snap?

Misunderstanding of what Global Warming means. Global warming is most prevalent at the poles. Rising water levels screws with alot of things, ocean currents and air streams for instance. This in turn means that the usual climates of certains areas goes out of wack.

That's the basics, really, as I understand it. It doesn't mean that the world becomes an inhospitable wasteland, but the climates will change drastically everywhere.

Yes, but not even nearly sufficient to offset warming, which is what you keep suggesting they will do.
I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting there's considerable uncertainty surrounding them, a statement with which RealClimate agrees.
If you are referring to the failure to include "carbon sinks" it is because their benefits are still not adequately proven.
In what sense can the effects of reducing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere not be proven? You're the one insisting that we know what effect increased GHGs are having. But we don't know what lower GHG levels will do? Explain that one to me.

And I wasn't thinking just about carbon sinks. Carbon extraction is another option for which Kyoto does not allow. Kyoto specifically excludes any possibility of an innovative solution. I the solution doesn't involve retarting industry, Kyoto doesn't support it.
It's funny, because people like you argue we are trying to retard Western economies, and people in developing countries argue that we are trying to prevent them from enjoying the same growth opportunities that developed nations enjoyed. In reality we are simply trying to get everyone to accept the consequences of their actions. It is to be expected that the developed economies will take the leadership on this issue, prove that carbon-free development is possible, and then bring the developing countries on board through technology transfer and other mechanisms. All of which Kyoto allowed for.
And yet somehow eastern Europe is allowed to increase its emissions.

And why isn't there a penalty mechanism built into Kyoto? If it was supposed to be bnding, shouldn't there be some sort of consequence for failing to reach targets?
Right. And I can't imagine any unfortunate side effects of that.

And the models are based on sound science which agrees with the observational data.
Intermittently. Remember stratospheric cooling. And the thickening eastern arctic ice sheet.

Plus, these models are not publically available. Why should we trust them if we're not allowed to see them?
I'm beginning to think he doesn't understand that clouds are made up of water vapour.
Clouds are water vapour, but water vaoupr isn't necessarily clouds.

If clouds have a net cooling effect, then the reflectiveness of the clouds is overcoming the warming effect of the water vapour in the clouds. Other water vapour may well be adding the warming beyond that, but clouds have a net cooling effect. A dramatic increase in cloud cover (which we might be able to induce) could then have a dramatic impact on global temperatures (especially if we could get the clouds to respond to sunlight so they'd disappear at night).

If clouds have a net cooling effect, then the reflectiveness of the clouds is overcoming the warming effect of the water vapour in the clouds. Other water vapour may well be adding the warming beyond that, but clouds have a net cooling effect. A dramatic increase in cloud cover (which we might be able to induce) could then have a dramatic impact on global temperatures (especially if we could get the clouds to respond to sunlight so they'd disappear at night).

There is an article in Rolling Stone about shooting dust particles into the air. It's called Dr. Evil... or something like that. But the problem with things like this, shooting dust particles into the air; inducing cloud cover, is that we wouldn't be able to stop it. It would be a bandaid that would have to be continually replaced without stopping what is causing it.

It just reminds me of this book I recently read called Apex Hides the Hurt. In it, there is a brand of band-aid called Apex. It comes in different skin tones and hides a wound so completely that you can tell the band-aid from the rest of the skin. The main character gets a wound and covers it with an Apex. Without looking he replaces it continually... but underneath it the wound is festering. Eventually his toe has to be amputated. I think that this sort of thing will work... maybe (there are still untold variables in dramatically changing Earth's atmosphere through scientific means). But it doesn't change the fact that the problem still has to be solved. That emissions must be cut. So, I think that something like this can be part of the solution but I do not think it would be wise to make it the solution.

don't know.



Incidentally, why did Kyoto only worry about total emissions and not net emissions? Isn't it net emissions that matter? Or was Kyoto instead intended primarily to retard western economies rather than address an actual climate problem?

I'm just asking.


Kyoto is simply first few steps. It hasn't got the kind of backing the Montreal Protocol (on which it is based) has received and still, the Montreal Protocol hasn't completed all of its goals some 20 years later. I think a mistake is being made when you look at the Kyoto Protocol as a completed plan instead of a work in progress.

There is an article in Rolling Stone about shooting dust particles into the air. It's called Dr. Evil... or something like that. But the problem with things like this, shooting dust particles into the air; inducing cloud cover, is that we wouldn't be able to stop it. It would be a bandaid that would have to be continually replaced without stopping what is causing it.
I don't think anyone thinks we'll be burning fossil fuels ad infinitum. Our band-aid only needs to work as long as it's needed; we're already working on more efficient sources of energy, and at some point producing GHGs won't be economically sound.

Then off comes the band-aid.

But for the most part, the global warming alarmists won't even consider solutions that aren't based entirely on reducing emissions and forcing "the evil corporations" to shoulder all the costs.

I don't think anyone thinks we'll be burning fossil fuels ad infinitum. Our band-aid only needs to work as long as it's needed; we're already working on more efficient sources of energy, and at some point producing GHGs won't be economically sound.

Then off comes the band-aid.

But for the most part, the global warming alarmists won't even consider solutions that aren't based entirely on reducing emissions and forcing "the evil corporations" to shoulder all the costs.

Well... I hope I'm showing I'm not the typical alarmist. I think its wrong to think, though, that money isn't a larger motivator to companies than the social good.

Right. And they want to keep milking the cash cow as long as possible. They can't do that if they kill the cow. There is no vast corporate conspiracy/cover-up to kill the planet. Companies are not evil monsters that need to be slain.

Right. And they want to keep milking the cash cow as long as possible. They can't do that if they kill the cow. There is no vast corporate conspiracy/cover-up to kill the planet. Companies are not evil monsters that need to be slain.

I fail to see where my words led you to believe that I meant such a thing. But companies are there to gain money. You do remember cigarette companies put out study after study showing that cigarette smoke was not harmful. I doubt that they thought that would last. They are not stupid. But they did prolong the good times for as long as possible and people suffered for it. They weren't run by a Dr. Evil rubbing his hands together and thinking of all the death he was causing. They were run by people who like the fact that people have an expensive daily habit.

I do not propose any charging at the windmills on sagging mares. But when companies learn that their practices are unpopular, they tend to change their ways much more quickly then out of any good in their hearts. As can be evidenced by Philip Morris and their onslaught of Truth advertisements.

Well... I hope I'm showing I'm not the typical alarmist. I think its wrong to think, though, that money isn't a larger motivator to companies than the social good.
Well of course it is. They'd be doing their shareholders a tremendous disservive if anything was ever a bigger motivator than money.

But for the most part, the global warming alarmists won't even consider solutions that aren't based entirely on reducing emissions

because there is no other option.

none.

because there is no other option.

none.
If you won't even consider them, then you can't know that.

If you won't even consider them, then you can't know that.

it's not that we won't consider them, its that they don't exist - and worse, can't exist.

the problem is that we are pumping out way more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the system can handle. thus the only possible solution is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases getting into the atmosphere in some way. any 'solution' that doesn't do that is not a solution at all. only the very confused could even think it might be.

Well of course it is. They'd be doing their shareholders a tremendous disservive if anything was ever a bigger motivator than money.

So, why should we trust them to do something socially good if it means less money for their shareholders (lets say, at least short term)?

I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting there's considerable uncertainty surrounding them, a statement with which RealClimate agrees.

Obviously, but not in the way you think. The effect of clouds depends on the type of clouds, their elevation, the time of day in which they occur, and many other factors. This is what makes them tricky to model. But while RealClimate agrees that the precise effect is uncertain, they agree that the effect will vary from mild cooling to mild warming. In other words: they will not significantly offset the overall warming effect, even if you look at the best case scenario.


In what sense can the effects of reducing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere not be proven? You're the one insisting that we know what effect increased GHGs are having. But we don't know what lower GHG levels will do? Explain that one to me.

We have a clearer idea of what less GHG's will do, because historically we have had lower levels of GHG's in the atompsphere. We have not had higgher levels.


And I wasn't thinking just about carbon sinks. Carbon extraction is another option for which Kyoto does not allow. Kyoto specifically excludes any possibility of an innovative solution. I the solution doesn't involve retarting industry, Kyoto doesn't support it.

Incorrect. Kyoto has ample provisions for development of technology, and transfer of said technology. It didn't allow for carbon sequestration because the technologies were not proven at the time it was negotiated (and stll have not been used commercially). But this is a solution that could easily be incorporated into the next round of cuts.


And yet somehow eastern Europe is allowed to increase its emissions.


Only because their emissions have fallen already since the benchmark year.


And why isn't there a penalty mechanism built into Kyoto? If it was supposed to be bnding, shouldn't there be some sort of consequence for failing to reach targets?

That is one of the weaknesses of international law generally. There are rarely any penalties for non-adherence, except for international pressure.


Intermittently. Remember stratospheric cooling. And the thickening eastern arctic ice sheet.

That is not intemittence. That is regional variation. And stratospheric cooling is predicted by the model.


If clouds have a net cooling effect, then the reflectiveness of the clouds is overcoming the warming effect of the water vapour in the clouds. Other water vapour may well be adding the warming beyond that, but clouds have a net cooling effect.

Yes, I understand that they may have a net cooling effect.


A dramatic increase in cloud cover (which we might be able to induce) could then have a dramatic impact on global temperatures (especially if we could get the clouds to respond to sunlight so they'd disappear at night).

And how would we got about inducing this? And what would be the effect do you think of reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the earth? Why do you refuse to address the actual cause of the problem?

I don't think anyone thinks we'll be burning fossil fuels ad infinitum. Our band-aid only needs to work as long as it's needed; we're already working on more efficient sources of energy, and at some point producing GHGs won't be economically sound.

It is already not economically sound. The main reason why burning fossil fuels remains comeptitive with cleaner sources of energy is because it is able to externalize so many of its costs. We already have cleaner, more efficient sources of energy which are viable, but until we internalize the externalities, they will be at a competitive disadvantage. Internalizing the externalities and eliminating the subsidies that dirty energy enjoys are the real band-aid we need to remove.


But for the most part, the global warming alarmists won't even consider solutions that aren't based entirely on reducing emissions and forcing "the evil corporations" to shoulder all the costs.
It has nothing to do with "evil corporations". If we internalize the costs of GHG's, some (inefficient) corporations will lose out, but many others (generally more efficient) corporations will benefit. The inefficient corporations will either have to swallow the increaed costs, or pass them on to their consumers, causing them to lose market share to cleaner, more efficient technologies. The economy as a whole will be better off because the playing field will have been levelled between those corporations that were able to externalize many of their costs, and those that weren't. And society as a whole will benefit because they are no longer forced to bear the costs of someone else's economic choices.

The alternative is to level the playing field to give clean energy the kind of subsidies that oil and gas currently enjoys. Society as a whole would still be stuck with bearing the costs of global warming. It would mean higher taxes all around both to provide the subsidies, and to meet the defensive costs of addressing global warming. It is a far less desirable approach.

But for the most part, the global warming alarmists won't even consider solutions that aren't based entirely on reducing emissions and forcing "the evil corporations" to shoulder all the costs.
I'm willing to consider any possible solutions, but they have to meet the standards of cost effectiveness, economic efficiency, fairness, avoiding undesirable side effects/creating new problems, and ecological soundness. The solutions you have proposed so far do not meet these standards.