RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

mastrcmmdr -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (7/1/2009 8:48:00 AM)

Interesting that 5 of the APS members who opposed their position on GW were from Krugmans own Princeton. Krugman is an unabashed socialist and idealogue. He's never met an agenda that will centralize power in the government that he doesnt like.



samboct -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (7/1/2009 9:11:31 AM)

"Since I know it's impossible to read everything that any individual may have posted on a specific subject, or remember it if they can, I'll reiterate a few points of what I believe the science supports:

1. Tentatively, the preponderance of the evidence seems to support a gentle rise in average global temperature over the past few decades.

2. Mankind's industry and technology have increased the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere."


Umm, let's stick with the science since the polemic doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

3)  The concern about CO2 is that it functions as a photon trap.  Photons from the sun in the absence of CO2 hit the ground, change their wavelength slightly- and bounce back off and head into space, warming the planet some.  Add CO2 and what happens is the photons hit the ground, change their wavelength some- and then hit the CO2 as they try to leave.  They're  reflected back to the surface warming it up some more.

4)  CO2 has a very long lifetime in the atmosphere- measured in decades.

The physics on this is quite clear, and is not disputed.  Add more CO2, increase the temperature of the surface.  Is it possible that there is some other mechanism leading to the observed warming you noted in point 1?  Sure- as a scientist, when anybody says that this is the only explanation, I tend to be skeptical.   So is the rise of CO2 correlating with global temperature the only possible explanation?  Nope- it's just the best explanation we've got- it fits the data better than anything else.  All of the other hypotheses that have been thrown out to explain what's going on don't fit the data as well.  As I've noted previously- we've done the sun cycle data 3x- doesn't track with the observed warming.  Science likes parsimonious explanations, and this one fits.

You want to talk about how the Obama administration is screwing up?  The ACES bill is a compromise, like any political bill, and continues the idiocy of clean coal.  While I was originally happy with the pick of Steven Chu as energy secretary- I don't think he has the balls for the job.  Clean coal needs to get thrown under the bus- and the sooner the better.  Well, at least corn from ethanol as a long term fuel seems to be ditched.  Improved electric transmission technology such as superconductors are given short shrift (I did see a brief mention) but there's nothing about energy storage technology which, if coupled with better transmission, would make wind and solar far more economically viable and in a much shorter time frame.  So while I applaud the conservation measures, there's still too little to really do the "moonshot" that's needed now for our economic viability.

My biggest grumble with GHG isn't the science- it's with the economic argument that the status quo is actually worth prolonging.  Because from my perspective- it sure isn't.  We've given way too much money to the Middle East, coal mining is an environmental disaster and really doesn't seem to do much to lift people out of poverty, and since many of our companies are dinosaurs who haven't figure out that they're dead (move all your research and manufacturing to China- what have you got left?  A brand?  That does a lot....) we need to create new companies and fast.  Doing the same old/same old isn't going to do that.  Regardless of the science- the economics of creating new industries is what the country needs now.

I'm sure we'll be able to deal with global warming and survive as a species- but we just may not like the outcome very much.  But hey, what have future generations ever done for us?

Sam



FirmhandKY -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (7/1/2009 2:45:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
I reserve my condemnation and contempt for the people who argue for AGW from an ideological perspective, not at people who simply believe that current scientific evidence seems to support the theory of AGW.


....fair enough. Twue believers of any stripe tend to be irritating. However i have a hypothesis for you. Which i'll get to in a bit.....

quote:

At times, it isn't always easy to distinguish the difference, but I've found the use of the term and concept of "deny" or "deniers" an excellent pointer.


.....in my opinion that's a pretty useless pointer.

...

So, my hypothesis time.

That contrary streak of yours is in danger of making you a twue skeptic......blinding you to when someone is coming to a problem with eyes wide open rather than tightly focussed, yet coming to a conclusion different to yours.

i'm not asking you to stop being skeptical.......far from it.........but that test of yours is rubbish, lumping in the twue believers with those who sincerely think there may be a problem that we need to deal with.
There are deniers on both sides.......characterising those who point this out as being zealots is counter-productive and shuts down a reasonable debate.


philo,

A joy as always to speak and talk with you.

A couple of responses:

1. A skeptic can go over the edge and become a cynic. An idealist can go over the edge and become a naive dupe. A population of either dupes or cynics is unhealthy.

Becoming overly cynical is one of the areas that I watch out for: it is one of my biases that I attempt to take care that I do not automatically assume. However, I think I have a pretty good handle on it, as I am actually an idealist who has learned that assuming skepticism is generally more likely to lead to the truth than unquestioning gullibility.

2. The use of the term "deny" is a perfectly valid English word. However, within the context of the AGW debate, it has been coopted to mean a very specific thing, and to be linked to a very specific example (the Holocaust of which we have already discussed). The term "denier" is closely linked to the Holocaust, and sliding it use over to the AGW discussion was an intentional symbolic act in order to equate skeptics of AGW with "beliefs out of the mainstream" which mark deniers of the Holocaust.

This is a political act, not a scientific act.

I reject your rejection of the term as a marker of political ideology. [8D] [:)]

Good discussion, though.

Firm



FirmhandKY -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (7/1/2009 2:56:39 PM)

sam,

Great post.

I don't disagree with much of the facts you presented, although we could probably get into a spirited discussion about is the historical record comparing the timing of a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels and the rise of global temperatures, on a geological time scale basis.

One of the areas I have heartburn about the "high degree of certainty" some people claim for the entire AGW process is the modeling.

I work with complex computer modeling, and it's not nearly as complex as the climate models. I can tweak a variable here, or a variable there, and make massive changes in the final result.

And, basically, I can justify every tweak I make. If I have a propensity for a certain outcome, almost without fail I can cause the result I want to "magically" appear, and even be able to defend it in a court of law.

AGW computer models are so much more complex, and have so many more assumptions piled upon assumption that I distrust anyone who attempts to make a claim of "high reliability", based on complex climate models.

Firm



philosophy -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (7/1/2009 3:43:15 PM)

....fair enough.....in a spirit of semantic cooperation i shall try to refrain from characterising those who seem to ignore good science in the climate change debate as 'deniers'. Instead i shall call them Ostriches, as in 'there they go, adopting the ostrich position'........[:D]



FirmhandKY -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (7/1/2009 3:53:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

....fair enough.....in a spirit of semantic cooperation i shall try to refrain from characterising those who seem to ignore good science in the climate change debate as 'deniers'. Instead i shall call them Ostriches, as in 'there they go, adopting the ostrich position'........[:D]


hehe ...

And the other side are the "Chicken Littles" .... [:D]

This bird metaphor could gain some traction ...

Firm



mnottertail -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (7/1/2009 4:34:30 PM)

We are slightly elevated above the intelligent design blather, at any rate. 



samboct -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (7/1/2009 4:51:47 PM)

Hi Firm

Thanks-

I agree with you on the computer modeling stuff, but I think we can tease apart some areas of certainty and uncertainty.

For example- the CO2 data's pretty solid- long track record, and unless we assume that our theories of mixing in gases is in error (and a bunch of my p-chem profs and most other teachers of stat. mech don't know what they're talking about), I think we can leave this one alone.

What I suspect that some folks don't realize is that measuring temperature of the planet is a lot harder.  It's heterogeneous, and there are a whole bunch of factors that can vary the temperature of a region- not to mention estimates of its mass and heat capacity.  But is this a modeling problem or a data collection problem?  There's certainly lots and lots of data and there's also the problem that the historical records of measurement may be off.  But we also have some geological proxies that are hard to argue with such as the melting of glaciers, polar caps, coral reef destruction and increasing range of viruses which are born by insects.  Dengue for example, is becoming more of a threat to the southern US states.

In terms of the correlation of CO2 and the observed warming (admittedly a noisy number)-the issue isn't really whether or not CO2 is contributing to the warming- the question is whether there are other factors which are powerful enough to alter the temperature over time.  Nobody's been able to come up with anything that matches the observed temperature rise- so I tend to think the correlation of CO2 and temperature is a pretty decent hypothesis.  Bear in mind that whatever you come up with- it has to have lots of mass and be present in increasing concentration over time.  (I guess heat from the earth's core would qualify, but I think we'd see more evidence of that.)

Where we certainly agree though, is the modeling predictions of what happens next.  I'm old enough to remember the GIGO rule too, and the computer modeling in some fields is pretty idiotic.  Furthermore, given how complex the temperature data is, I don't think there's any hope for a simple analytical solution, which means that you have to use a numerical approach.  The temperature data is very noisy, which means that there's a lot going on- and making an extrapolation based on noise needs some very big error bars.  So I'll agree with you that the predictions of what happens 20 years out are certainly pretty noisy, but its hard to argue that there isn't going to be some upward trend.  So upward trend- yeah, pretty reliable.  But any claim of accuracy goes out the window.

However, in terms of uncertainty- while the physics is at least on some reasonable footing, I have yet to see anything resembling an economic model that is.  So I will reiterate- where is the certainty that giving our economy a good housecleaning is actually going to prove deleterious?  Oh, some major firms will fail, but like I said before- they're dead dinosaurs anyhow, and the sooner they go, the better, so we can have some smaller nimble firms that will scavenge the carcass and multiply.  I still think that we're going to benefit by developing new technology that will lower long term energy costs.  Note that wind and solar are very scary concepts to oil companies and coal firms.  The supply of wind and sun isn't limited from a human time frame, thus, once the infrastructure is installed, the cost of electricity can only decrease.  And I think this realization has the existing energy companies in a dither.

Sam



mnottertail -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (7/1/2009 4:55:40 PM)

I might freak some folks out with this, but recently on NPR (sci fri) there was a pretty convincing discussion that aerosols would solve the CO2 problem............

Lachs-Mi-Singh



FirmhandKY -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (7/2/2009 7:13:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Hi Firm

Thanks-

I agree with you on the computer modeling stuff, but I think we can tease apart some areas of certainty and uncertainty.

For example- the CO2 data's pretty solid- long track record, and unless we assume that our theories of mixing in gases is in error (and a bunch of my p-chem profs and most other teachers of stat. mech don't know what they're talking about), I think we can leave this one alone.

What I suspect that some folks don't realize is that measuring temperature of the planet is a lot harder.  It's heterogeneous, and there are a whole bunch of factors that can vary the temperature of a region- not to mention estimates of its mass and heat capacity.  But is this a modeling problem or a data collection problem?  There's certainly lots and lots of data and there's also the problem that the historical records of measurement may be off.  But we also have some geological proxies that are hard to argue with such as the melting of glaciers, polar caps, coral reef destruction and increasing range of viruses which are born by insects.  Dengue for example, is becoming more of a threat to the southern US states.

In terms of the correlation of CO2 and the observed warming (admittedly a noisy number)-the issue isn't really whether or not CO2 is contributing to the warming- the question is whether there are other factors which are powerful enough to alter the temperature over time.  Nobody's been able to come up with anything that matches the observed temperature rise- so I tend to think the correlation of CO2 and temperature is a pretty decent hypothesis.  Bear in mind that whatever you come up with- it has to have lots of mass and be present in increasing concentration over time.  (I guess heat from the earth's core would qualify, but I think we'd see more evidence of that.)

Where we certainly agree though, is the modeling predictions of what happens next.  I'm old enough to remember the GIGO rule too, and the computer modeling in some fields is pretty idiotic.  Furthermore, given how complex the temperature data is, I don't think there's any hope for a simple analytical solution, which means that you have to use a numerical approach.  The temperature data is very noisy, which means that there's a lot going on- and making an extrapolation based on noise needs some very big error bars.  So I'll agree with you that the predictions of what happens 20 years out are certainly pretty noisy, but its hard to argue that there isn't going to be some upward trend.  So upward trend- yeah, pretty reliable.  But any claim of accuracy goes out the window.

Sam,

Again, excellent post. I would tentatively accept everything you have said so far, subject to new data and new paradigms.

I would like to say that it is the noise in the figures where I think a lot of the disagreements come from in these types of discussions, as well as massive confusion about how critical certain assumptions are, as well as the use of anecdotal evidence over rigorous research.

Of course, as Heretic often points out, we only have a case of 1 to study, so anecdotal evidence looms large in many peoples non-scientific calculations.

Because of the small number of cases, this leaves only two areas in which to gather data that may apply (and that may even be tangential information, I'll admit) on the case: other planets, and the geological historical record.

This is the reason that I challenged DomKen on his time frame, and tried to expand his definition of "climate".

Now we come to a critical area: the politics of the situation.

Admittedly, we have incomplete and sometimes contradictory data, so it is here that the degree of uncertainty that one is willing to accept becomes key in one's positions on what (if any) changes to our civilization, economies and cultures that one is willing to espouse and accept.

Here lie dragons. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

However, in terms of uncertainty- while the physics is at least on some reasonable footing, I have yet to see anything resembling an economic model that is.  So I will reiterate- where is the certainty that giving our economy a good housecleaning is actually going to prove deleterious?  Oh, some major firms will fail, but like I said before- they're dead dinosaurs anyhow, and the sooner they go, the better, so we can have some smaller nimble firms that will scavenge the carcass and multiply.  I still think that we're going to benefit by developing new technology that will lower long term energy costs.  Note that wind and solar are very scary concepts to oil companies and coal firms.  The supply of wind and sun isn't limited from a human time frame, thus, once the infrastructure is installed, the cost of electricity can only decrease.  And I think this realization has the existing energy companies in a dither.


In theory, not a bad start in the discussion about AGW and it's possible economic impact.

However, I'd just say that it's pretty easy and facile to condemn large segments of the economy to destruction so lightly.

This is where the real debate starts, and which reflects back on some of the uncertainties about AGW. Basically ... what is the danger, and what costs are you willing to pay to address that danger?

Firm



DomKen -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (7/2/2009 7:42:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
This is the reason that I challenged DomKen on his time frame, and tried to expand his definition of "climate".

The oh so 'reasonable' Firm is still whining about someone using a term in the standard sense?

I will point out that all you've so verbosely done in theses responses to Sam is admit the data is overwhlemingly in favor of AGW but that you don't think anything should be done because it would be expensive in the short term. I also note that you continue to ask 'what is the danger' as if it hasn't ever been explained to you.



samboct -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (7/2/2009 7:53:47 AM)

Hi Firm

In terms of the climate change we're seeing now in the context of the planet's history- sure, it's a relatively small change compared to the ice ages due to orbital variation.  Or the volcanism and continent formation.  But if these things happen, we can only adapt, we can't alter the fundamentals.  With regards to anthropogenic CO2, we can alter the fundamental cause of the change.  In terms of data gathering- we don't understand our own planet's ecosphere.  While other planet's may be more tractable to study (although there's a data gathering problem), our planet is a lot more complex- so then the argument of that what happens on Mars isn't really relevant to what's happening on earth.  Same argument about curing cancer in a rat.  No problem- but humans have been a bit harder to work on.  In terms of climate history- no problem with more data and more refinement, but as you know, fundamental science is based on probabilities- and in the science community, it's been accepted that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of some temperature increase.  The contrary hypotheses haven't held up. 

As a historical lesson, let me point out that when Idi Amin listened to Peter Duesberg (a nobel laureate) that HIV was NOT the cause of AIDS, he condemned millions to death and suffering.  Contrarian viewpoints have their price too.

In terms of the economics- again let's look at history.  If you look at the top two dozen companies in the Dow over the past century, you'll find there's a lot of turnover.  There's a lot of turnover even at the 50 year mark.  The twentieth century saw unparalleled economic growth both globally and for the US.  Why?  Well, religion was relegated to a back seat (largely), there were massive public expenditures in science and technology driven by wars (both cold and hot), the  US discovered that educating its workforce proved to make them more competitive (in contrast to Europe, with the exception of Germany), and our tax structure reduced the  importance of hereditary money.  Our patent system, coupled with few restrictions on corporate actions and a free wheeling populace, created companies at an unprecedented rate.  We did discover that we needed to have a few more restrictions on corporate activities to reduce the growth of monopolies/oligopolies which stifled competition, but until we forgot all of what made us successful, we weren't doing too badly.  I still think it's a viable formula.

The cries of massive economic disruption because of transitions- well, they just never seem to pan out.  What about all the blacksmiths that were displaced with the arrival of the automobile?  How about the stables, the trade in horse urine/excrement, and street cleaning?  (I think in NYC at the turn of the century, there were something like a million horses.)  Do we really morn the passing of those industries?  Or do the industries that have been created provide better jobs?  Even the demise of the railroads and the shipping lines didn't cause much disruption.  My rule of thumb is that you can never worry about job destruction- as part of a dynamic economy, that's going to happen.  What you can help nurture is job creation- and protecting dinosaurs just isn't very effective.  In my home state of CT, we've seen the state bend over backwards to try and keep large defense contractors in state.  The claim was that a high percentage of the state's workers are in these firms.  Well, after massive tax breaks etc., the state has barely broken even in terms of jobs in those industries (no growth) and it turns out that CT has about the same percentage of folks employed in these large firms as most other states (think its around 15%).  Net result- CT ranks at the bottom in the US in terms of jobs creation, and most of our young folks are leaving the state for greener pastures, because its too hard to start new companies in this state-the legacy firms have an advantage.  When you say that we need to worry about economic disruption  " However, I'd just say that it's pretty easy and facile to condemn large segments of the economy to destruction so lightly."- from my perspective- you've tilted the playing field to the legacy firms and failed to take into account the high failed opportunity costs.   Not only is trying to protect legacy industries dumb from an environmental perspective, it turns out that it doesn't do much for you economically either.  Look at telco as another example- we kept firms alive that had to protect their !@#$%*!@#$ copper networks.

Furthermore- all the legacy energy firms have enormous subsidies, because I'm sorry to say- economists are morons and have typically neglected the costs to the environment since its too hard to figure out- so they just ignore it.  Well, that's on par with saying that tracking the temperature changes all over the planet is too tough- so we'll just pick one spot and track the temperature there as a proxy for the rest of the globe.  Once the costs of the environmental damage are added in- and that would mean actually restoring the environment to some semblance of normalcy rather than denuding mountains hacking coal out, and making giant mounds of tailings- coal power is far from economical.  Besides- wind power, when coupled with better energy storage and transmission- available within a decade, already looks to be less expensive using today's technology- and the costs will only diminish.  So why exactly do you want to keep spending more money on electricity than you have to?



Sam



FirmhandKY -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (7/2/2009 8:10:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
This is the reason that I challenged DomKen on his time frame, and tried to expand his definition of "climate".

The oh so 'reasonable' Firm is still whining about someone using a term in the standard sense?

I will point out that all you've so verbosely done in theses responses to Sam is admit the data is overwhlemingly in favor of AGW but that you don't think anything should be done because it would be expensive in the short term. I also note that you continue to ask 'what is the danger' as if it hasn't ever been explained to you.


[sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif]

Firm



FirmhandKY -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (7/2/2009 8:54:50 AM)

FR:

Some interesting reading on the effects of Global Warming on food crops:

HIGHLIGHTS OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2009-2018 (direct pdf download)

Page 68:

Table 3.6. Summary of key 2007 IPCC 4th Assessment for Agriculture by warming increments

Global mean annual temperature change relative to the 1980-99 ( C) baseline


Sub-sector: Food crops

***

Region: Global

+1oC to +2oC

---

+2oC to +3oC

550 ppm CO2 (approx. equal to +2oC) increases crop yield by 17%; this increase is offset by temperature increase of 2o C assuming no adaptation and 3oC with adaptation.

+3oC to +5oC

---

***

Region: Mid-to High latitudes

+1oC to +2oC

Cold limitation alleviated for all crops.

Adaptation of maize and wheat increases yield 10% to 15%; rice yield no change; regional variation is high.

+2oC to +3oC

Adaptation increases all crops above baseline yield.

+3oC to +5oC

---

***

Region: Low latitudes

+1oC to +2oC

Wheat and maize yields reduced below baseline levels; rice is unchanged.

Adaptation of maize, wheat, rice, maintains yields at current levels

+2oC to +3oC

Adaptation maintains yields of all crops above baseline; yields drop below baseline for all crops without adaptation

+3oC to +5oC

Adaptation maintains yields of all crops above baseline; yield drops below baseline for all crops without
adaptation

Maize and wheat yields reduced below baseline regardless of adaptation, but adaptation maintains rice yield at baseline levels


Note:

Conclusions are based on the quantitative projections across a range of emission scenarios used by the IPCC, while adaptation to climate change is not included in these estimations. For the full documentation on the methodologies and scenarios used by the IPCC, see reference below.

Source: Easterling et al 2007.

***


Additional quotes:

Overall these reports have indicated that in terms of the linkages between climate change, water resources and agriculture, farming systems are increasingly vulnerable to changes in water availability and temperature, as well the growing incidence and severity of flood and drought events, and this will require high levels of adaptive responses. In some situations climate change will also lead to beneficial opportunities for agriculture, such as an increase in wheat yield potential in Northern Europe and overall crop yields in North America.

Summary and key messages

So can agriculture meet the rising demand for food?

This Chapter only provides a brief overview of some of the supply-side issues but it does suggest that production could be increased considerably. The three critical supply factors examined - land, productivity and water - do not appear to pose insurmountable barriers to increasing agricultural production.



samboct -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (7/2/2009 9:40:53 AM)

"The three critical supply factors examined - land, productivity and water - do not appear to pose insurmountable barriers to increasing agricultural production."

Dumb, dumb, dumb....Viruses, bacteria, fungi and insects all adapt to changing climes and migrate quicker than crops.  While viruses don't like cold temperatures, they thrive and mutate faster in warmer climes.  There are relatively few islands in the South Pacific that are idyllic- most are disease infested hell holes with very high levels of humidity, thunderstorms etc.  You want to try building a plant in a monsoon?

I think the choice is straightforward.-

Quit protecting legacy industries and return to a more dynamic economy by setting up some challenges instead of mollycoddling US industry and reduce the risks from climate change

OR- try to preserve the status quo until it's untenable, with the likelihood of an uncompetitive economy and massive disruption in food, power and shelter due to climate change.

Sam



DomKen -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (7/2/2009 9:56:21 AM)

That is for 2018, as in 9 years away. IOW short term. This study also fails to deal with the simple fact that changes in sea level will result in the loss of arable land. Notice the study says that agriculture will require high levels of adaptive response without detailing how that will be accomplished. In NA, for instance, one of the primary adaptations needed will be more irrigation. How many places right now have surplus fresh water for this use? I know for a fact the area you now live in does not have that surplus.

What happens by 2050 when 200 million people have been displaced by climate change?
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/NSPR-7SVC8T?OpenDocument

What happens in 2080 when some areas are 8C warmer on average?
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/projected-agriculture-in-2080-due-to-climate-change
Book map is derived from



FirmhandKY -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (7/2/2009 11:18:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

That is for 2018, as in 9 years away. IOW short term. This study also fails to deal with the simple fact that changes in sea level will result in the loss of arable land. Notice the study says that agriculture will require high levels of adaptive response without detailing how that will be accomplished. In NA, for instance, one of the primary adaptations needed will be more irrigation. How many places right now have surplus fresh water for this use? I know for a fact the area you now live in does not have that surplus.

What happens by 2050 when 200 million people have been displaced by climate change?
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/NSPR-7SVC8T?OpenDocument

What happens in 2080 when some areas are 8C warmer on average?
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/projected-agriculture-in-2080-due-to-climate-change
Book map is derived from

The IPCC report I quoted gives a range of expected changes based on the temperature ranges. Those changes are basically valid for any year.

I suspect you have not read the source report. Neither have I. However, I'm not making claims of the source's methodology, while you are.

As for your "Disaster Migration" claim, here from your own link:
quote:


"Migration needs to be recognised as not being negative per se, but a sometimes necessary response to the negative impacts of climate change. The policy decision we make today will determine whether migration can be a choice, a pro-active adaptation measure, or whether migration and displacement is the tragic proof of our collective failure to provide better alternatives," Warner concludes.


I'd have a few questions as well ...

1. How many people migrate every year, now?
2. What percentage of the current population is 200 million?
3. How is this exactly a disaster?

For your "What happens in 2080 when some areas are 8C warmer on average?" link:

Pretty picture.

No information. No conclusions. Therefore no science.

Like I said ... pretty picture.

Where, exactly is the disaster?

Firm



FirmhandKY -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (7/2/2009 11:25:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

"The three critical supply factors examined - land, productivity and water - do not appear to pose insurmountable barriers to increasing agricultural production."

Dumb, dumb, dumb....Viruses, bacteria, fungi and insects all adapt to changing climes and migrate quicker than crops.  While viruses don't like cold temperatures, they thrive and mutate faster in warmer climes.  There are relatively few islands in the South Pacific that are idyllic- most are disease infested hell holes with very high levels of humidity, thunderstorms etc.  You want to try building a plant in a monsoon?

Sam,

You've fallen off the scientific wagon now.

The report you classify as "Dumb, dumb, dumb" is an IPCC report. You wanna go there? [:D]

Also, do not fall into the fallacy of thinking that being competent in one area makes you competent in another field. I've provided data and links to the original source material. I suspect (although don't know beyond a shadow of a doubt) that such things as "Viruses, bacteria, fungi and insects" were at least considered in the original study.


quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

I think the choice is straightforward.-

Quit protecting legacy industries and return to a more dynamic economy by setting up some challenges instead of mollycoddling US industry and reduce the risks from climate change

OR- try to preserve the status quo until it's untenable, with the likelihood of an uncompetitive economy and massive disruption in food, power and shelter due to climate change.


I think there is a difference between "protecting legacy industries" and acting in deliberate manner so as not to cause perhaps unnecessary distress and economic pain to the populations of the world.

You seem to be falling into the "chicken little" group right now. Please prove me wrong.

Firm



philosophy -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (7/2/2009 11:47:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


I suspect (although don't know beyond a shadow of a doubt) that such things as "Viruses, bacteria, fungi and insects" were at least considered in the original study.




.....i don't share your optimism there Firm. i read the pdf, not saying i understood everything (my arts degree is good for research skills but a tad light on science), it didn't mention the concerns that Sam raised. At least as far as i could see.

One of the problems we have in this area of science is its sheer complexity. It's an area where paleobotanists, physicists, chemists, climatologists, geologists, agricultural scientists, mathematicians, plants biolgists, microbiologists, astronomers, marine biologists, computer science specialists, statiticians, ecologists and forensic aerchologists all have a role to play. (NB that is not an exhaustive list......there are plenty more -ists who have a say).
i very much doubt there has ever been a scientific endeavour in history where so many different fields of study not only overlap but are necessary for a clear view.

One area which the study glossed over a bit, in my view, was the loss of land to any rise in sea levels. It didn't take into account, for instance, the need for infrastructure. It's all very well saying that a previously useless piece of land will be fertile.....but without a way to get that food to market it may as well be on the moon.

Even if we take the study at face value we're looking at an enormous upheaval, both social and economic. We can seriously lessen that by acting now. i think you're seeing the short term problems and not balancing them against the medium/long term problems.

One problem here is that old bugbear, the political electoral cycle. A twenty year plan, instituted properly and with bipartisan, even global, support........will leave the world and the US economy in a stronger position than merely thinking about the problem in five year chunks.



samboct -> RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science (7/2/2009 12:50:03 PM)

" The report you classify as "Dumb, dumb, dumb" is an IPCC report. You wanna go there? "

Sure- why not?  These days I work in evaluating markets for advanced materials- I have to be a bit of a generalist.  The IPCC report is correct- in theory it can be done.  In practice, moving everybody north 500-1000 miles seems to be a bit more disruptive than leaving the damn coal in the ground- but hey, if you're fine with that one....

" You seem to be falling into the "chicken little" group right now. Please prove me wrong."

Firm- we've been debating this global warming thing for probably over a year.  If when we began the debate, I came up with the prediction that the US economy would be plunged into a depression the likes of which haven't been seen since the 1930s, with unemployment climbing into double digits, based on poorly understood financial derivatives and a wildly inflated housing market, I suspect you'd have dismissed me as saying the sky was falling back then.  I suspect that if you dug out some of my old posts, I wasn't happy with the state of the economy back then, but I must admit, I didn't see it unraveling this badly, this quickly.  But for you to dismiss the idea that the economy needs some major help as the demented ravings of Chicken Little- well, from my perspective that's akin to being on the Titanic with water lapping at your ankles and saying everything is fine, no need to panic.  While I agree that panic is non-productive- it's also kind of silly to stay put in a burning building too.  In short- we are in a crisis, and its time to figure out how to deal with the mess.  Going back to business as usual doesn't seem to be an option.

In terms of the economy- maybe we've got a fundamental disagreement on how we see our current economy?  From my perspective- it sucks.  We have a dysfunctional financial system which has stifled economic innovation by what is effectively too high a tax- our money in this country is too expensive, and thus it's been cheaper to move manufacturing to Asia.  While I like what Obama has pointed out are the problems- I'm far less happy with the solutions.  The "solution" to the banking crisis to date- has seemed more like a band aid when a tourniquet and amputation is called for.  Banking is a service part of an economy- if it takes too big a bite, the economy suffers- and that's whats happened.

Too much of our money is underground- in hidden financial transactions which now require massive federal bailouts- seems that we  must keep the rich folks rich.  Yet historically, the strength of this country has been in a well educated and prosperous middle class- that's the real strength of most modern economies.  Two tier economies-which are what we seem to be returning to, are stable, but unproductive and non competitive with more dynamic ecnomies.  Why else did the US win the cold war with the USSR?

I also agree with Obama that our health care costs are sinking our economy as well-but having heard from Gil Omenn (one of the guys working on the plan to fix it), I'm not very sanguine that what's going to be proposed is anything more than tinkering about the edges.

So, while advocating junking the existing infrastructure can certainly seem disruptive with a functional economy, from my perspective- with a dysfunctional economy- it makes good economic sense.  Solving the financial crisis won't lead to new jobs directly.  Nor will solving the health care crisis.  But solving the energy crunch can lead to new jobs- and I think jobs are what are really needed to solve this economic crisis.  I really don't see how protecting inefficient legacy industries is going to lead us anywhere good.

Inefficient?  Yes- China has now become the de facto leader in advanced coal technology- happened in the past year or so.  So while they now have a huge inventory of inefficient plants, they've also been developing both IGCC plants and higher temperature plants (the simplest way to improve the efficiency of a coal plant is to run it at higher temp- the trick is not to melt the steel used for boilers and kill the heat exchangers) while the US plants- on average more efficient than China- have fallen behind.  So why not let China be the king of the hill in coal plants- and let us focus on energy storage and transmission?  We've got plenty of wind and solar- if we can get the energy piped to where its needed (and this isn't far fetched- check American Superconductor for some very interesting developments)- we'll leapfrog the whole coal industry and transition to the next generation of energy production. 

If you think this is disruptive- please give an example of when protecting an inefficient legacy industry actually lead to economic growth in the long run?

Sam



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625