Global Warming Debate - Friendly

[Dom274]

Please, if you cannot have a constructive debate without getting upset, attacking others, or considering other viewpoints please move along.

I do look at the world through an economist's lense, with a heavy dose of psychology. This is only my opinion, I am of course open to many others. Just be careful what data you use when making arguments. Follow the money, notice who funds them. This transcends most debates and debacles - not just this one.

These 2 sentences are in complete conflict of each other. Yes, you are absolutely entitled to your own opinion, and I am impressed that you recognize and admit to your own bias on the subject. The issue I see, and I'm putting this as nicely as I can without typing a book here, is that an economist's (Or psychologist's for that matter) opinion on the issue of global warming/climate change is completely worthless. There will be no economy when we are reduced to the barter system due to complete anarchy. It may sound like I am exaggerating, but it's never been about the small changes we think we see around us that believers use as proof. The issue of climate change is about asking the hypothetical question of "What would happen if the entire country of Mexico was rendered uninhabitable due to drought and heat?". Do you think 120 million people aren't going to do everything they can to survive? How much do we help them out, if any? It's not about some "The Day After Tomorrow" ice age that is the issue - it's the massive humanitarian crisis, the inevitable civil wars and the complete breakdown of modern society that's to worry about. Look at what happened to New Orleans after Katrina for a small scale example. I'm not attacking you personally - My point is that an economist's opinion on climate change, is the equivalent of re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

[Dom274]

I took a course in school last fall (Mechanical Engineering grad school) which covered energy solutions for the global society. It covered the energy demands of society and several ways to meet those demands. The first half of the course covered fossil fuel energy generation, while the second half of the course covered non-fossil fuel based sources.

Global warming, or human induced climate change, was covered over a few lectures as well. Human induced climate change is a more accurate term, as global earth temperatures have always fluctuated over time.

To understand global warming you need to understand energy balance. In a system if energy in is not equal to energy out then one of the possibilities is that it heats up. In this case the system is earth, there's a human induced energy imbalance, and it's heating up.

Here's a simplified version.
1. The sun's energy hits the earth (energy in) and the earth radiates that energy back out into space (energy out).
2. The suns energy passes through the atmosphere primarily at short wavelengths.
3. The earth radiates that energy back into space at primarily longer wavelengths.
4. CO2 absorbs longer wavelengths of light. It blocks the energy out and retains it at earth.
5. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are increasing due to humans burning fossil fuels.
6. As CO2 increases in the atmosphere the energy out is less while energy in remains the same. The result is a buildup of energy at earth in the form of heat/higher temperatures.

Each one of these statements are relatively easy to prove and well documented, and this is essentially what scientists are stating when they say human induced climate change is real, and why so many of them agree with the science.

One way to observe this phenomenon is to monitor temperatures in outer space. If more energy is being retained at earths surface then the temperatures in outer space would be reducing in addition to earth warming. This has actually been observed.

Very well put sir. The topic of human induced climate change is a fact - We are changing the environment by increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This has been proven by studying ice cores and analyzing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over hundreds of thousands of years. What everyone wants to debate here seems to be the microeconomic affects of climate change, not the overall big picture.

 

[DLHDesign]

...an economist's (Or psychologist's for that matter) opinion on the issue of global warming/climate change is completely worthless.

I, respectfully, disagree. Global warming/climate change (and it's effects) are a global-scale concern (thus the grandioseness of the terms). That is; the impacts (or lack thereof) that mankind is having on this planet's ecosystems are of concern to every living thing on this planet. The financial ramifications involved can potentially impact any person who participates in the global economy (which is nearly every living human).

As such, I disagree that any opinion on the topic could ever be "completely worthless". If dolphins could suddenly begin communicating with us on this topic, then - IMHO - their opinions would also matter (though I would be heavily suspect of interpretation bias, of course).

 

[Nemguy123]

Well if you look at it this way it is only nature for a species to change the environment around them back when the first plants started producing on this earth o2 was toxic to most life and as plants starting flourishing and releasing more and more o2 the first mass extinction started to happen when all the bacteria and other organisms that could not handle the presence of o2 started dying off. Now is has humans are most definitely changing the environment around us but there's no way to tell how much. But oceanic acidification is a also a real thing that is being caused my excess co2 in the atmosphere. The ocean acts a large sink for co2 there is a natural co2 cycle in the ocean where this co2 is broken down and used as a nutrient but too much is being absorbed and not all of it is being used up so this in turn is making the ocean more acidic. And one thing us reefers know, is that once our ph gets low our corals start to die. Soon the rate of dissolving skeletons from a low ph will exceed the growth rate and the corals will not survive in the ocean this plus the alarming global increase in temps coral reefs are not going to be able to take much more. This has all been proven facts but we are all unaware of humans are the cause as said above climate change is natural it's just too late to save the ocean so all the amazing reef aquaria we have here might be the only way we can replenish are reefs when we can figure out a way to get the ocean ph and temperatures back to normal :) so keep on reefing!

 

[ReeferBob]

I think people are really getting tired of paying for the elites' pet projects. What does the fight against Global Whatever (GW) get the average citizen? Bupkiss. Americans pay the price for it. Always Americans. Every time this becomes a hot top again, we all pay more money and lose more rights. suspect 1/2 the people do not believe in it. Bottom line is even if it was true, there is nothing that can be done on a global scale to stop it. It is what it is. Balance will come. If GW wipes out 90% of the globe, then so be it. Meanwhile I'd like to enjoy the minuscule piece of time that I am allotted without being a slave to someone's ideology.

 

[jgvergo]

I didn't say it didn't have down sides at all but we were talking about money not the negative effects wars have. FYI I am sitting in Afghanistan typing this so i don't need to be lectured on wars and the casualties...

Thank you for your service. What you are doing is the antithesis of "silly".

 

[jgvergo]

I have studied global warming very carefully over the years. I've read 100's of scientific papers. Here are my conclusions:

1. There is almost a 100% chance that man is affecting the climate
2. The magnitude of the impact of human activity on the climate is very uncertain. For example, most scientists agree that the surface temperature records of the last year are due to "a combination of AGW and the El Nino". But they can't give numbers (e.g. it is 80% due to one vs. the other_.
3. Climate models have failed to accurately predict temperatures, total ice and a variety of other planet-scale phenomena.
4. There is an obvious bias to emphasize the negative impacts of warmer temperatures. There are enormous benefits to higher temperatures and to increased CO2 (more efficient photosynthsis leading to much higher biological production of plant matter). In fact, the total bioload of the earth has steadily increased over the last few decades.
5.IF AGM is real and IF it will result in big temperature increases and IF its negative affects far outweigh the positive ones, it is very unlikely we have the ability to change it. The US could completely eliminate CO2 emissions and we would have no discernible impact on AGM.

 

[jgvergo]

I'm sorry; I don't understand this point of view? How does putting money into a business sector pull money out of the economy? It's not like we have methods to turn money directly into solar panels; someone has to make those panels (jobs created), and they have to be knowledgeable enough to do so (education), and someone else is working to make them better (innovation). Beyond this, companies exist that transport the panels (which supports the infrastructure by creating demand), and places exist where solar power is helping those in need (social obligation). I'm not saying that solar (or other such things) are some kind of technological savior to all our woes (they are not), but I don't understand the opinion that they result in money being "mostly wasted". Could you (or someone else in agreement with this position) please explain the thinking behind this opinion so that I might better understand it?

Note that I can't make an argument that investments in renewable energy (or other things that might be labeled as tools to "fight global warming") are always a good trade off. That's too big of a statement. But I'd be willing to bet that they are no more or less viable than other similar investments - be they in the public or private sector.

I love this question! The first thing to consider is the scale of the investment. We are talking about 100's of billions or trillions of dollars. When the sums of money are that large, the efficiency of ow the money is used is critical. Investors are VERY careful about where they put their money. They are not always right, but collectively they tend to make good bets. That basic free market capitalist approach has resulted in building the greatest economy (and, IMHO, country) the world has ever seen. The alternative you propose, taking tax dollars and moving them into green technologies, has little chance of achieving similar results.

I do believe that government can play a role here. They could focus on the basic research that might yield a breakthrough in green technology. However, the expense for that would be a couple of orders of magnitude less than what we are doing now. The bottom line is that the government should not be investing in companies with our tax dollars.

 

[ReeferBob]

I have studied global warming very carefully over the years. I've read 100's of scientific papers. Here are my conclusions:

1. There is almost a 100% chance that man is affecting the climate
2. The magnitude of the impact of human activity on the climate is very uncertain. For example, most scientists agree that the surface temperature records of the last year are due to "a combination of AGW and the El Nino". But they can't give numbers (e.g. it is 80% due to one vs. the other_.
3. Climate models have failed to accurately predict temperatures, total ice and a variety of other planet-scale phenomena.
4. There is an obvious bias to emphasize the negative impacts of warmer temperatures. There are enormous benefits to higher temperatures and to increased CO2 (more efficient photosynthsis leading to much higher biological production of plant matter). In fact, the total bioload of the earth has steadily increased over the last few decades.
5.IF AGM is real and IF it will result in big temperature increases and IF its negative affects far outweigh the positive ones, it is very unlikely we have the ability to change it. The US could completely eliminate CO2 emissions and we would have no discernible impact on AGM.

Well said, I agree with all of this! :)

 

[4FordFamily]

These 2 sentences are in complete conflict of each other. Yes, you are absolutely entitled to your own opinion, and I am impressed that you recognize and admit to your own bias on the subject. The issue I see, and I'm putting this as nicely as I can without typing a book here, is that an economist's (Or psychologist's for that matter) opinion on the issue of global warming/climate change is completely worthless. There will be no economy when we are reduced to the barter system due to complete anarchy. It may sound like I am exaggerating, but it's never been about the small changes we think we see around us that believers use as proof. The issue of climate change is about asking the hypothetical question of "What would happen if the entire country of Mexico was rendered uninhabitable due to drought and heat?". Do you think 120 million people aren't going to do everything they can to survive? How much do we help them out, if any? It's not about some "The Day After Tomorrow" ice age that is the issue - it's the massive humanitarian crisis, the inevitable civil wars and the complete breakdown of modern society that's to worry about. Look at what happened to New Orleans after Katrina for a small scale example. I'm not attacking you personally - My point is that an economist's opinion on climate change, is the equivalent of re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

I'm honestly confused, I'm not an economist I just have an economist worldview. I will also add, the same doom and gloom can easily be spelled out if we continue to disregard the fiscal ramifications of our decisions.

It's not really necessary to claim anyone's view is "worthless" let's keep this civil.

In addition, the constructs I described were such that laymen such as myself can comprehend. Also if you wish, you might re read what I initially posted where you'll see I didn't make a claim or assertion as to whether or not man made global (climate change) is a reality and if so, to what degree it is so. My observations are of how this had changed over time.

Again I'm also not saying that humans are not destroying earth even if global (warming) climate change at the hands of humans is a farce. We absolutely are and need to do more for our planet, no doubt.

I personally don't feel that I have any bias, but I offer what I perceive as a different point of view on how to analyze the situation than perhaps others do.

I'm also assuming based on your response that you have a doctorate in a relevant science? No disrespect intended I am genuinely interested. I find this subject matter fascinating.

 

[4FordFamily]

I, respectfully, disagree. Global warming/climate change (and it's effects) are a global-scale concern (thus the grandioseness of the terms). That is; the impacts (or lack thereof) that mankind is having on this planet's ecosystems are of concern to every living thing on this planet. The financial ramifications involved can potentially impact any person who participates in the global economy (which is nearly every living human).

As such, I disagree that any opinion on the topic could ever be "completely worthless". If dolphins could suddenly begin communicating with us on this topic, then - IMHO - their opinions would also matter (though I would be heavily suspect of interpretation bias, of course).

Well said. I would also argue that we have heard from scores of people with the same worldview on the subject and I would love to hear from others. I would also like to hear from those with a better working knowledge of the various science behind these theories.

 

[4FordFamily]

I think people are really getting tired of paying for the elites' pet projects. What does the fight against Global Whatever (GW) get the average citizen? Bupkiss. Americans pay the price for it. Always Americans. Every time this becomes a hot top again, we all pay more money and lose more rights. The theory of GW has been around for quite some time. Right as the Vietnam war was ending and all the hippies needed something else to protest against. I have asked before to the GW crowd what do you actually want and there is no answer. I am not sure they ever got that far, they simply want to protest, tax, tax again, infringe rights, and then tax some more. I am also under the impression that they think there is a very small group of "Ultra right-wing, Conservative, Fox watching, Republicans" that do not believe in "GW" when in fact I'd suspect 1/2 the people do not believe in it. Bottom line is even if it was true, there is nothing that can be done on a global scale to stop it. It is what it is. Balance will come. If GW wipes out 90% of the globe, then so be it. Meanwhile I'd like to enjoy the minuscule piece of time that I am allotted without being a slave to someone's ideology.

There is a good video clip with Ted Cruz questioning the Sierra Club president who clearly does not even understand his own "science". They simply want more money. That is what it is about; money and control.

Again,

I know many of all persuasions politically that have become skeptics to some degree or another. Please though, keep politics out of this. It's too polarizing. I have my views (which may actually surprise many of you) but they're not relevant here.

 

[4FordFamily]

I have studied global warming very carefully over the years. I've read 100's of scientific papers. Here are my conclusions:

1. There is almost a 100% chance that man is affecting the climate
2. The magnitude of the impact of human activity on the climate is very uncertain. For example, most scientists agree that the surface temperature records of the last year are due to "a combination of AGW and the El Nino". But they can't give numbers (e.g. it is 80% due to one vs. the other_.
3. Climate models have failed to accurately predict temperatures, total ice and a variety of other planet-scale phenomena.
4. There is an obvious bias to emphasize the negative impacts of warmer temperatures. There are enormous benefits to higher temperatures and to increased CO2 (more efficient photosynthsis leading to much higher biological production of plant matter). In fact, the total bioload of the earth has steadily increased over the last few decades.
5.IF AGM is real and IF it will result in big temperature increases and IF its negative affects far outweigh the positive ones, it is very unlikely we have the ability to change it. The US could completely eliminate CO2 emissions and we would have no discernible impact on AGM.

This is a more succinct summary of what I imagined may be the case, with consideration I had never thought of (potential "benefits"). Interesting.

If true, I am more inclined to think we should focus energy and time improving our planet in other ways, such as cleaning our oceans.

Let's say humans are responsible for 10% of warming which seems like a lot but admittedly I am no expert. If America stopped producing any at all would it even impact 1% of this? What would this do for the world's climate? Is that even a reasonable goal? If not how much more minuscule would any realistic changes in the US impact this?

I also find that people don't have the ability to truly comprehend very high numbers or high level concepts easily outside of one subject matter. Trillions of dollars is nearly unfathomable, it just doesn't seem real.

It has nothing to do with being "stupid", it's a matter of scale so outside the realm of daily consideration, IMO. One must try very hard (and will still probably not fully grasp) to fathom what trillions of dollars are. Same with billions of years.

This impacts all of our abilities to have these conversations (myself included)

 

[ReeferBob]

These 2 sentences are in complete conflict of each other. Yes, you are absolutely entitled to your own opinion, and I am impressed that you recognize and admit to your own bias on the subject. The issue I see, and I'm putting this as nicely as I can without typing a book here, is that an economist's (Or psychologist's for that matter) opinion on the issue of global warming/climate change is completely worthless. There will be no economy when we are reduced to the barter system due to complete anarchy. It may sound like I am exaggerating, but it's never been about the small changes we think we see around us that believers use as proof. The issue of climate change is about asking the hypothetical question of "What would happen if the entire country of Mexico was rendered uninhabitable due to drought and heat?". Do you think 120 million people aren't going to do everything they can to survive? How much do we help them out, if any? It's not about some "The Day After Tomorrow" ice age that is the issue - it's the massive humanitarian crisis, the inevitable civil wars and the complete breakdown of modern society that's to worry about. Look at what happened to New Orleans after Katrina for a small scale example. I'm not attacking you personally - My point is that an economist's opinion on climate change, is the equivalent of re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

But is this a bad thing for the planet, which is what I believe is of the foremost importance for those that believe in MMGW? We used to have disease, famine and war to thin the herd. Now we have people living twice as long, getting inoculated from all manor of disease and wars are fought economically with little loss of life. These are good things for the individual yes? How so fairs the species and our planet however? I have read reports that should China open up its society that there aren't enough resources on the planet to feed the ensuing frenzy. Before intervention in parts of Africa they used to have 1000's of preventable deaths every year. Now, with the intervention, they have 10,000's of deaths. As a "civilized" society, must we intervene? And is it just kicking the can farther down the road? Until, as you suggest, our meddling in the planet makes equatorial locations uninhabitable and we see what you describe, perhaps again balancing the scales? What is the end-game?

 

[jgvergo]

Well said. I would also argue that we have heard from scores of people with the same worldview on the subject and I would love to hear from others. I would also like to hear from those with a better working knowledge of the various science behind these theories.

I am a research scientist (computer science) with a mathematics background. Most of what I do is in and around the area of modeling. All serious modelers know that all models are flawed. Some are better than others and some might be good enough to be useful. By definition, a model is an approximation of a system. I have decades of experience working with research scientists who have attempted to model complex systems. Once the complexity of the system gets beyond a certain point, models tend to become useless. I can't prove it, but I think that is what is happening with climate models. There are simply too many variables with too many unknown interrelationships that prevent us from accurately modeling something as complex as our climate system on a planetary scale.

As an aside, I can create a computer model that shows CO2 is beneficial in under 1 minute, but it will be flawed. The structure and interpretation of every model reflects the mindset of the modeler. That is a kind of scientific bias and I see it in the interpretation of the climate models on an ongoing basis.

 

[Nemguy123]

Yes co2 may be beneficial to plants and other organisms but excess co2 is also causing the ocean to become too acidic for corals to grow you still have to consider that a corals skeleton is made of CaCO3 (calcium carbonate) the same thing our teeth are made out of if you sit a corals skeleton in anything acidic it will slowly dissolve just like if we put our teeth in soda or something acidic they will dissolve the corals can only take so much so co2 can good for plants and other animals that it cannot harm but for the ocean all the excess co2 is making the water very acidic and soon it will destroy the reefs there are actually some parts of the ocean where the shells of hermits/snails/clams etc... Are actually clear because the rate of dissolving and growing are neck and neck and it's been slowly observed soon they will not be able to make their shells and soon reefs will not be able to grow and then they will die off but us humans by other means not just putting co2 in the air my main point is yes co2 can be good but oceanic acidification is a real thing and co2 is in fact causing it

 

[DLHDesign]

I have asked before to the GW crowd what do you actually want and there is no answer.

The majority of mankind to recognize that we are not only the dominant inhabitants, but also the stewards of the planet (and any other we should colonize or populate with our stuff). To improve our collective understanding of the natural world. To take reasonable actions to reduce - and ideally eliminate - unnecessary harm to said planet(s), based on our current understandings and without stunting our ability to progress as a species.

If GW wipes out 90% of the globe, then so be it. Meanwhile I'd like to enjoy the minuscule piece of time that I am allotted without being a slave to someone's ideology.

For me; this is a crux of the debate. Concern over how the world is changing as a result of man's influence is not something that can be personal; the timelines are too short. People worry about man-made climate change because of the impact it will have on our children and their children. Or the generation after that, even.

The alternative you propose, taking tax dollars and moving them into green technologies, has little chance of achieving similar results.

So; just to make sure we're clear - I did not intend to propose any such alternative. My question was about why one person's opinion should be deemed "worthless" on this topic and had nothing to do with money or who would pay for what. I don't believe that my actual question has been answered, but I thank you for taking the time to respond.

I do believe that government can play a role here. They could focus on the basic research that might yield a breakthrough in green technology.

This is, basically, what government is trying to do. But there is no magic button that blinks "Push Here For Breakthrough" - it's all guess and conjecture; trial and error. And that takes time and/or money. The more money you throw at it; the less time it typically takes - and the sooner the private sector will be willing to take over the efforts.
One of government's role is to pay for things that are not profitable. For example; no one would want to build roads under our (America's) current system, because there's no money in it. If we were to privatize our roadways, then you (as a driver) would have to pay - somehow - to use them. And not just the occasional toll road; those tolls only cover relatively small sections of roadways that were subsidized by taxes. And since space from point A to point B is finite, you would eventually be trapped in a monopolized system (until something better than driving came along, at least; like flying cars... We should totally privatize roads!). Climate research is like that - there's no money in it until there's something to produce or some service to provide that someone is willing to pay for. Finding that something or service is, as I said, costly in time and materials. In established markets (ex; computers), the private sector is happy to absorb these costs because they already know that the ROI is going to be there (or will have a high enough percentage of being there, at least). But in emerging markets (and climate science is still an emerging market), the guarantee of an ROI is not as certain - the market is not established.

 

[jgvergo]

This is, basically, what government is trying to do. But there is no magic button that blinks "Push Here For Breakthrough" - it's all guess and conjecture; trial and error. And that takes time and/or money. The more money you throw at it; the less time it typically takes - and the sooner the private sector will be willing to take over the efforts.

The government is talking about doing much more. Through a combination of regulations and carbon taxes, they are punishing some industries while propping up others. That is very different than investing in basic research to find alternatives. When you throw money around...people line up to catch it, and they don't always have the best intentions.

 

[4FordFamily]

I am a research scientist (computer science) with a mathematics background. Most of what I do is in and around the area of modeling. All serious modelers know that all models are flawed. Some are better than others and some might be good enough to be useful. By definition, a model is an approximation of a system. I have decades of experience working with research scientists who have attempted to model complex systems. Once the complexity of the system gets beyond a certain point, models tend to become useless. I can't prove it, but I think that is what is happening with climate models. There are simply too many variables with too many unknown interrelationships that prevent us from accurately modeling something as complex as our climate system on a planetary scale.

As an aside, I can create a computer model that shows CO2 is beneficial in under 1 minute, but it will be flawed. The structure and interpretation of every model reflects the mindset of the modeler. That is a kind of scientific bias and I see it in the interpretation of the climate models on an ongoing basis.

This is absolutely fascinating. Thank you for sharing, I suspected that was the case but lack the competence and experience to explain what you just did.

 

[jgvergo]

This is absolutely fascinating. Thank you for sharing, I suspected that was the case but lack the competence and experience to explain what you just did.

Let me give an example of what I mean by "bias" (i.e. a tendency) on the part of modellers. There are clearly some benefits to increased CO2. Increased CO2 leads to increased plant life. Farming will benefit (CO2 is basically a fertilizer). Those of us who grew up on planted freshwater aquariums know that explosive plant grow is made possible by injecting CO2. There are also many reasons to hypothesize that increases in temperatures will benefit life in general. More people die from the cold than from heat. When growing most things in a lab, we "incubate" (i.e. heat) them to accelerate growth.

Yet, almost all scientific studies focus on the negative consequences of CO2 and heat. That represents a bias on the part of scientists to investigate the negative consequences. The interesting question is "what is the underlying cause of this tendency"?