quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

" 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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Actually, I see it just the other way. I believe I'm taking the longer term view, and that most people who are wanting to re-engineer the world are thinking short term.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Actually, I see it just the other way. I believe I'm taking the longer term view, and that most people who are wanting to re-engineer the world are thinking short term.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Actually, I see it just the other way. I believe I'm taking the longer term view, and that most people who are wanting to re-engineer the world are thinking short term.

?
You're advocating doing nothing at all. Do you really think the human species much less our civilization can survive a return to the conditions of the Carboniferous, the last time most of the carbon we're burning now was in the atmosphere? Do you think you can survive in a 2000ppm CO2 atmosphere? You might want to look into what precisely causes the normal breathing reflex.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Firm

Your query was how did we transition from a discussion about science which we have reasonable agreement on to an economic discussion?

" 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"

I think this comment might have had something to do with the transition- and threatening to lump me in with the "Chicken Littles".  May I suggest that we make progress without ad hominem posturing?

I will point out that the basis of our disagreement is economics- and there's a simple problem at the base of it- what's the cost of carbon?  I'm not crazy about the cap and trade nonsense- I find it reminiscent of the Superfund debacle where more than half the money spent went to lawyers.  A simple carbon tax at the source would help dramatically put the economic debate on a much firmer footing because that way, we could accurately quantify how much of a tax break these legacy industries have gotten to date instead of the hand waving that's taking place.  And nobody gets any credit for trying to stuff CO2 underground- the science behind that one makes Star Wars look like an intelligent exercise.  The number I've seen where things get interesting is $50/ton.

Sam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DemonKia

Yeah, it's an opinion column, & he feels strongly about the subject. Hyperbole is part of writing opinion columns.

I stuck to quoting his review of the data, as that was what was pertinent to the discussion. & I'm still far more impressed with Krugman's handle on science than with yours, even after reading thru the rest of the thread.

Sounds like you should start a thread about Global Climate Change as religious belief . . . . .

That's quite a hysterical claim made, that last paragraph. Talk about hyperbole, you definitely trumped Krugman in that department. How does that help your case?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Paul Krugman's words on Global Warming:

quote:

the deniers ... a form of treason ... the irresponsibility and immorality ... who show no sign of being interested in the truth ... Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual?

Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.

Blasphemers and heretics of the Global Warming denomination of the Liberal One True Religion to be tortured and executed. Film at 10 ... [:)]

Firm

quote:

I must admit, as a mere scribe, I lack the wit to prove this case myself, but Professor von Krugman’s understanding transcends that of more ordinary humans, and so he must be right. It surely matters not that the matter under examination — the technique of weather control — is outside the area of study in which the professor has been accorded his prize. For if the world listens in awe to the pronouncements of beauty pageant victors upon philosophy, the affairs of nations, and other matters of general import, then why should Professor von Krugman not be granted equal credit for infallibility in all that he chooses to discourse upon? Certainly, given his celebrity otherwise, his indifferent performance in the swimsuit competition should not be held against him in this regard.

No, if Professor von Krugman concludes they are traitors, then traitors they must be, and not merely traitors to the crown, as were their predecessors in criminality, but traitors to the planet itself. Of course, the good professor is far too polite to specify the traitors’ portion, but the proper punishment is apparent. Death must be their sentence; for treason brooks no other. The gentle professor may be too kind to pronounce the verdict, but Justice herself cries out to us to do our duty. Without question or delay, the traitors must die.