Does it matter if global warming is a fraud?

[engineerdude]

It's good to have thought, but it's best to have a reason for that thought. Why do you think that "the entire issue of CO2" is nonsense?

 

 

 

Thems the breaks.

 

It's *long* past due that we give some form of valuation to Nature, you know, the world around us. Bureaucracy and red tape will not facilitate.

 

I recommend the book, "Natural Capitalism" for an insight into valuation of the natural world, apart from commodities.

 

 

 

Perhaps they would feel the same as someone working in a British factory during the 1870's. :shrug:

 

Working in an 1870's British factory? Huh?

 

I understand it's your opinion that it's *long* past due to give some form of valuation to nature. I myself value nature a great deal. But that is not what this thread is about, this is about the repercussions if anthropogenic global warming proves to be a hoax.

 

Lastly, I would be very happy to tell you why the concept that CO2 influences global climate is ridiculous. But not here. Again, that's not this thread.

 

So, Freeztar, what do you think the harm would be (if any) if Al Gore-ish global warming turns out out to be fake?

[chrisrich]

I almost don't want to step into this but I do wish to say anyone who has seen Al Gore's an Inconvenient truth needs to weight what Al Gore is saying against a lesser known video called The great global warming swindle. Not saying either side is all right or all wrong, but get both sides before you rant away on the forums if you haven't already.

 

That said, I'm curious about whether or not it's true that increased CO2 levels are causing the Oceans to become more acidic killing aquatic life. As if there isn't enough of a problem already with the pacific garbage patch and toxic plastics in the ocean.

 

The basic idea mentioned before sounds good to me - first step to reducing our "carbon footprint" should be planting more trees.

 

The thread topic is a great question. There are some things that do matter whether or not global warming is fraud. Is it diverting attention from pollution of our water supplies? From the ocean garbage? Is it being used to push Hybrid vehicles that are no more clean than any carbon burning vehicle on the road? Is it really green to drive a hybrid when you take into account the mining of platinum, lithium and other relatively rare materials required for the battery technology? I can't argue with some of the hybrids that use gas engines as generators of electricity - these are putting out some high numbers in terms of power output and range. But battery powered electrics certainly don't seem all that green to me. Or Safe (what happens with the hundreds of volts of batteries behind you in a collision? Will you get electrocuted? Will you be inhaling toxic chemical smoke from burning batteries?)

 

Whether or not global warming is fraud we need to rethink our way of life, clean up our mess, and manage what we have with absolute care. But it does matter if Global warming is fraud because of the corporate agenda's that are pushing it. If companies are promoting news about global warming when they know it's false just so they can milk global warming research funds and grants, then yes, it matters.

[freeztar]

So, Freeztar, what do you think the harm would be (if any) if Al Gore-ish global warming turns out out to be fake?

 

It would be terrible for scientific credibility.

 

But I don't see it happening...

[BrianG]

Engineerdude discusses a carbon tax, Freeztar calls it "some form of valuation to Nature". That sounds more PC than a tax. How much should my neighbor pay if he wants to emit cyanide into the air? How much should I pay for the [ce]CO2[/ce] I emit when singing a song, praying, or talking?

[lemit]

Engineerdude discusses a carbon tax, Freeztar calls it "some form of valuation to Nature". That sounds more PC than a tax. How much should my neighbor pay if he wants to emit cyanide into the air? How much should I pay for the [ce]CO2[/ce] I emit when singing a song, praying, or talking?

 

Those are interesting questions. How would you answer them?

 

Thanks.

 

--lemit

[Essay]

Well, I think the entire issue of CO2... ...is what the current "climate change" activists focus on.

 

I suppose the media's unnuanced take on the climate problem makes it seem as if cutting CO2 is the only solution. Certainly it is the most important solution to the problem of long-term sustainability of civilization, and as such CO2 is often mentioned by science as the largest single factor that we need to change; but for the short-term sustainability of civilization we need to focus on restoring the biosphere.

 

As we learn more about the carbon cycle - especially how we are obviously transferring carbon from the ground to the air - we are also becoming aware of the less obvious influences of civilization on the carbon cycle.

 

It was Pielke's (the elder, I think) work that helped reveal the large influence that our land-use and land-cover changes have on climate. Much of his work dealt with albedo and UHI effects; but as science came to realize how much labile carbon is "biosequestered" in the microbiomes of the pedosphere and aqua-sphere (hundreds of gigatonnes), and understood how our land-use and land-cover changes often degrade the pedosphere, it became apparant that our emissions were only a small part of the overall problem - the balance of biosequestration within the carbon cycle.

 

Practically anything we can do to restore the biosphere will enhance the carbon cycle's ability to "naturally" sequester carbon. Even Al Gore and Jim Hansen have, in the past couple of years, begun to talk about "carbon sinks" and biosequestration as important parts of an overall strategy to lower atmospheric carbon levels.

 

Note: The term "productivity" in this post, means biological productivity (not the economic indicator).

 

It is fortunate that restoring the biosphere's productivity doesn't also add to atmospheric carbon; then we'd really be screwed!

But (not by coincidence) the productivity of the biosphere is related to the labile fraction of carbon in the carbon cycle (which affects atmospheric carbon levels); and so by managing the carbon cycle better, we can (for between one and two generations) restore productivity to the biosphere to achieve sustainability and (coincidentally) help draw down atmospheric carbon levels.

===

 

Linking the increased productivity of biosequestration (through trading carbon credits), to the reduction (caps) of atmospheric CO2 levels, is a win-win type situation where the push and pull incentives both make things better.

....Unless you want to stick with the old carbon-wasting industrial-age technology of the past, and continue degrading the planet's productivity.

 

~ :phones:

[BrianG]

By carbon cycle, your're not talking about those lightweight bikes? Doesn't the cycle manage regulate itself? If there is more CO2 in the air, don't plant's use more of it?

 

Climate change mitigation can be summed up in three words: "Stop, go back!" Trying to achieve preindustrial emission levels may not be the pinnacle of science.

[freeztar]

Doesn't the cycle manage regulate itself? If there is more CO2 in the air, don't plant's use more of it?

 

Yes, to a point. But the plants need to be there in the first place. As we deforest and change land-use patterns to more destructive means, we diminish the amount of trees etc. to uptake co2. This is what essay was getting at. Atmospheric co2 is only one side of the carbon cycle. The other side is the ocean and land's ability to sequester the carbon.

 

NatGeo recently had an interesting graphic related to this. I'll see if I can find it.

 

Here it is:

The Big Idea — The Carbon Bathtub — National Geographic Magazine

[BrianG]

Then good forest practices are more important than [ce]CO2[/ce] emission reductions, if I understand your post. Rather than stunt our economy with carbon caps and tax, we could just plant more trees. Wouldn't that be an optimal strategy?

[Essay]

Then good forest practices are more important than [ce]CO2[/ce] emission reductions, if I understand your post. Rather than stunt our economy with carbon caps and tax, we could just plant more trees. Wouldn't that be an optimal strategy?

I think doing both would be optimal, but....

 

Not just trees, BrianG. They only represent a few gigatonnes. The soil represents 100's of gigatonnes.

This bathtub graphic only shows the fraction of CO2 that we contrubute, and its fate.

 

The "bathtub" should also show the more than 100 gigatonnes of CO2 that is naturally exchanged, each year, between the soil (with other microbiomes) and the atmosphere.

 

The Big Idea — The Carbon Bathtub — National Geographic Magazine

Plants, oceans, and rocks all drain carbon from the atmosphere, but as climatologist David Archer explains in his book The Long Thaw, those drains are slow. It’s going to take them hundreds of years to remove most of the CO2 that humans are pouring into the tub and hundreds of thousands of years to remove it all. Stopping the rise of CO2 will thus require huge cuts in emissions from cars, power plants, and factories, until inflow no longer exceeds outflow.

 

Most of Sterman’s students—and his results have been replicated at other universities—didn’t understand that, at least not when the problem was described in the usual climate jargon. Most thought that simply stopping emissions from rising would stop the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere— as if a tap running steadily but rapidly would not eventually overflow the tub. If MIT graduate students don’t get it, most politicians and voters probably don’t either.

....

His students are generally much better at bathtub dynamics by the end of his course, which gives him hope. “People can learn this.” —Sterman

I'm all for research and efforts to turn down the tap filling the tub, but it will be worthless unless we also make the drain bigger.

 

That will involve establishing a whole bunch of new industries to support a carbon-sustainable economy.

Control of biomass -taking dominion over the earth and its life- will provide orders of magnitude more jobs than any high-tech solar or wind industries. That is how we can make the drain bigger ...and get past the problem of another "jobless recovery" ...hint, hint.

 

~ :eek2:

[Erasmus00]

By carbon cycle, your're not talking about those lightweight bikes? Doesn't the cycle manage regulate itself? If there is more CO2 in the air, don't plant's use more of it?

 

Climate change mitigation can be summed up in three words: "Stop, go back!" Trying to achieve preindustrial emission levels may not be the pinnacle of science.

 

But its important to realize that emitting less doesn't necessarily mean using less power. We need more research and development into harnessing energy without burning fossil fuels.

 

Even if we ignore global warming, as "skeptics" do (note: a few climate scientists have been caught behaving unethically, i.e. denying freedom of information requests. However, there are hundreds more who are perfectly ethical members of the profession, as is evidenced by the very same emails) doesn't it make sense to tax excessive foreign oil use in order to help pave the way for new options?

 

Wouldn't being the leaders in non-fossil fuel energy dramatically grow our economy the "old fashioned way" (innovation)?

[BrianG]

... [D]oesn't it make sense to tax excessive foreign oil use in order to help pave the way for new options?

 

Wouldn't being the leaders in non-fossil fuel energy dramatically grow our economy the "old fashioned way" (innovation)?

 

I think history shows taxing imports increases international tensions, sometimes leading to war. Who gets to define "excessive"? Doesn't the US tax all oil the same way, at the pumps?

 

I don't believe increased taxes are the answer, in fact, I'd call for reduced taxes. Letting people keep more of their money would increase the incentives to produce more, grow the economy and invest in all forms of energy production. If someone could come up with a better replacement for oil, the world would beat a path to his door.

[Chacmool]

What will have the worst outcome?

- Global warming is fake but we acted on it anyway, or

- Global warming is real but we did nothing about it

[BrianG]

The difference between science and religion, we can test an idea in science, see if reality disproves theory, and get an answer. Where are the experimental tests on climate change mitigation?

 

Are preserving forests more important than reducing CO₂ emissions?

 

Is energy independence a reasonable goal where economic systems are highly specialized?

 

If renewables cost more than conventional energy, does't that mean they require more resources? Is price a good measure of efficiency?

 

Does "Green jobs" mean not producing waste? Then, wouldn't the jobless have the most efficient green jobs?

[freeztar]

The difference between science and religion, we can test an idea in science, see if reality disproves theory, and get an answer. Where are the experimental tests on climate change mitigation?

 

I understand you trepidation regarding climate change mitigation.

 

It is a tricky subject and I'm not sure science should be getting into bed with this political issue.

 

You raise a good point. This is evidenced by my researching and failing to come up with studies that actually test specifically for mitigation.

 

Yet, this makes me think that such experiments are high on cost or implementation, so we don't see them.

 

Are preserving forests more important than reducing CO₂ emissions?

Preserving forests helps lock down CO2.

 

Moving forward, I think it is important for humans to realize that a one-sided approach is not viable. Reducing emmissions and ramping up sequestering is needed.

 

Is energy independence a reasonable goal where economic systems are highly specialized?

YES!

 

Specializations change. Only 20 years ago, we didn't have anybody that was an expert on the intenet. :)

 

If renewables cost more than conventional energy, does't that mean they require more resources? Is price a good measure of efficiency?

This is a good point!

 

I don't think price is a good indicator of anything except what the consumer is willing to pay. I prefer to get my power from "alternate" sources. I petition my power company. They make available "green energy". Awesome. I pay a little bit more per kwh, but it is worth it. It encourages progress and makes my conscience a little lighter. :)

 

Does "Green jobs" mean not producing waste? Then, wouldn't the jobless have the most efficient green jobs?

 

The phrase "green jobs" is nebulous and sees its best fit with politics.

 

Until progression sees Ecology as a tit for tat of reasonable progression, I'm afraid all the "green jobs" in the world will not help. :(

[BrianG]

...

The phrase "green jobs" is nebulous and sees its best fit with politics.

 

Until progression sees Ecology as a tit for tat of reasonable progression, I'm afraid all the "green jobs" in the world will not help. :)

 

Do you think sustainable growth falls into this same category? I like growth, I just think sustainable isn't a realistic condition. We live in an interdependent world, if you don't like the way the markets work on the NYSE, you can invest in another. It's not as if the consumer has no choice now.

 

But choices are being eliminated, by tax and climate policy. The more we pay for government, the less we have to make conscience a little lighter. The more mandates, the more we subsidize ethanol and force CFL bulbs on consumers, the less choice we have. I don't know about you, but taxes are a serious expense in my budget. Housing is a significant expense, too. Climate legislation of building efficiency goes right to my ventilation and fireplace situation.

 

We need facts, experimental results instead of catastrophic computer models and theory. We need better science, with more reliable, tested results.

[freeztar]

Do you think sustainable growth falls into this same category? I like growth, I just think sustainable isn't a realistic condition. We live in an interdependent world, if you don't like the way the markets work on the NYSE, you can invest in another. It's not as if the consumer has no choice now.

 

But choices are being eliminated, by tax and climate policy. The more we pay for government, the less we have to make conscience a little lighter. The more mandates, the more we subsidize ethanol and force CFL bulbs on consumers, the less choice we have. I don't know about you, but taxes are a serious expense in my budget. Housing is a significant expense, too. Climate legislation of building efficiency goes right to my ventilation and fireplace situation.

 

I'm with you here. We need a paradigm shift and it will not be easy.

 

We need facts, experimental results instead of catastrophic computer models and theory. We need better science, with more reliable, tested results.

 

"Better science" requires "better" scrutiny. You've yet to propose a viable experiment, so I'm left giving credence to the extant experts. :)