Assuming AGW is real, what do we do about it ?

[bush_cheney2004]

My feeling is that this is just one of those "flyers" that will die soon enough. There would be a lot of work to be done to correlate the temperature changes on Mars to those on Earth.

The empirical data and solar theories already exist...just been drowned out by the eco-political agenda here on Earth.

[Michael Hardner]

The empirical data and solar theories already exist...just been drowned out by the eco-political agenda here on Earth.

See my recent post about Friis-Christensen and his recent (last year) statement about his theory on sunspots.

Edited October 2, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[ToadBrother]

Point taken. I read more into then was there.

That said. My point is we have absolutely no reason to feel guilty for developing a technology society which has raised the standard or living for all humanity (some more than other albeit). This society also gives us the tools we need to adapt.

The Mesopotamians thought the same, I'm sure, until their agricultural techniques brought salts to the surface, rendering large areas of the Fertile Crescent worthless down to this very day.

[TimG]

The Mesopotamians thought the same, I'm sure, until their agricultural techniques brought salts to the surface, rendering large areas of the Fertile Crescent worthless down to this very day.

The Mesopotamians had no ability to transport food over large distances or to sustain a society without a local source of food.

In any case, you really need to pick your problem. If you want to worry about food production and soil degradation then we can look at promoting sustainable farming. Obsessing about CO2 will do nothing about that problem and will probably make societies more vulnerable by making it more expensive to move food to where it is needed.

Edited October 2, 2010 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

The Mesopotamians had no ability to transport food over large distances or to sustain a society without a local source of food.

In any case, you really need to pick your problem. If you want to worry about food production and soil degradation then we can look at promoting sustainable farming. Obsessing about CO2 will do nothing about that problem and will probably make societies more vulnerable by making it more expensive to move food to where it is needed.

You're not getting the analogy. The point is that every civilization has always thought it was the bee's knees when it came to its cultural and technological achievements, and often they were. But it didn't stop many of them from unsustainable activities. Mesopotamia invented urban civilization, large-scale agriculture, writing, legal systems, bookkeeping, etc. and so forth, but by the last millennium before Christ it was a backwater.

We need to move past oil, and do it damned fast. I think at current consumption levels (ever increasing, mind you), we'll probably be facing the serious consequences when my kids are hitting late middle age. The real kicker is that we do know the technologies, even if some are in need of refinement, but oil is still very cheap, and thus we're taking the path of least resistance. People aren't adapting, they're just plunging headlong, and you know as well as I do that that, unconstrained, will lead to disaster. Just imagine the price of fertilizer leaping up five fold and then tell me how our agricultural system is so incredibly impervious.

AGW simply introduces another facet to an inevitable problem. If we act as if it's real, even if it turns out to be wrong (though I guarantee you, it isn't; overblown and exaggerated, perhaps, but I cannot think of a single major scientific theory worked on and accepted by the bulk of its researchers in the last fifty years that has actually been completely wrong), then we also find a way around the oil problem, preserving those precious long-chain hydrocarbons for something other than driving to the frickin' mall or flying to Australia.

[GostHacked]

To quote my OP:

"Again, this thread is not to debate IF it's happening. If you're on this thread, then we're debating what to do about it."

My objective is to discuss approaches, since we're often too busy on here debating WHETHER there is AGW, even as opposition to that idea dwindles.

I agree, sorry for being a dick. I need to have a coffee before I post in the morning.

[bush_cheney2004]

...AGW simply introduces another facet to an inevitable problem. If we act as if it's real, even if it turns out to be wrong....

Still doesn't matter...see your original point above. All you have concocted is another assumed "bees knees" superiority, which will still be eclipsed by other events and processes.

[ToadBrother]

Still doesn't matter...see your original point above. All you have concocted is another assumed "bees knees" superiority, which will still be eclipsed by other events and processes.

What I'm saying is that we can see the wall coming. We can apply the brakes or steer out of the way, or simply ram into it. I think a logical, rational approach would be to find a solution, rather than kicking the sandcastle and then wondering how to rebuild it.

[bush_cheney2004]

What I'm saying is that we can see the wall coming. We can apply the brakes or steer out of the way, or simply ram into it. I think a logical, rational approach would be to find a solution, rather than kicking the sandcastle and then wondering how to rebuild it.

Let it come....just as before. All we can say for sure is that it will be different. Adapt or perish...as always. It is the natural order of things, even for clever mankind.

[Slim]

Let it come....just as before. All we can say for sure is that it will be different. Adapt or perish...as always. It is the natural order of things, even for clever mankind.

That's kind of... heartless; borderline sociopathic actually.

Or just laziness?

[TimG]

Mesopotamia invented urban civilization, large-scale agriculture, writing, legal systems, bookkeeping, etc. and so forth, but by the last millennium before Christ it was a backwater.

And they problem thought thunder was a wrath of the gods. You cannot even begin to compare what we have now to what they had then.

We need to move past oil, and do it damned fast.

I agree. But if we want to so something about oil we have stop talking about CO2 because obsessing about CO2 hinders our ability to address the oil problem by making electricity more expensive than it needs to be.

Then we also find a way around the oil problem, preserving those precious long-chain hydrocarbons for something other than driving to the frickin' mall or flying to Australia.

You don't seem to understand. To get off oil we have to electrify our transportation system. Electrifying our transportation system requires a lot of low cost and reliable electricity. We can produce that electricity with coal but the CO2 obsessives are trying to stop us from using coal and the are trying force us to use really expensive and unreliable things like wind and solar. The net result is we have a political stalemate that prolongs the status quo and our dependence on oil.

If you want change you need start by confronting the clueless environmentalists that understand nothing about how energy is produced and how much we need the stuff to function.

Edited October 3, 2010 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

That's kind of... heartless; borderline sociopathic actually.

Or just laziness?

Hardly laziness...as this is what spawned the Industrial Revolution. Energy density and BTUs matter more than your heart.

[Slim]

Hardly laziness...as this is what spawned the Industrial Revolution. Energy density and BTUs matter more than your heart.

What I gathered from your statement was that we should do nothing about CC, and just deal with it as it comes, regardless. If some people die, who cares? Happens all the time.

Am I wrong?

You don't seem to understand. To get off oil we have to electrify our transportation system. Electrifying our transportation system requires a lot of low cost and reliable electricity. We can produce that electricity with coal but the CO2 obsessives are trying to stop us from using coal and the are trying force us to use really expensive and unreliable things like wind and solar. The net result is we have a political stalemate that prolongs the status quo and our dependence on oil.

Coal already provides the lion's share of the world's electricity generation. If CO2 emissions (and pollution) were not concerns we could happily go along using coal as our power sources for many generations.

But that is not the case. Coal is a terrible emitter of CO2, and even though you believe CO2 is a non-issue, doesn't mean that it isn't important to everyone else. That's why we want off coal.

So coal is out. Can't rely on it in the long term, especially not in developed countries where it's easier to use other technologies. Short term possibilities for power generation? Established technologies that are cleaner: Hydro, wind, solar, natural gas. A logical combination of all of these are the best bet, I think. And gradually move to longer-term solutions like nuclear, geothermal, etc.

[bush_cheney2004]

What I gathered from your statement was that we should do nothing about CC, and just deal with it as it comes, regardless. If some people die, who cares? Happens all the time.

More important than what we should or should not do is what we will do based on the economics of the matter. More people die each day from the lack of potable water.

Am I wrong?

Yes.

[TimG]

But that is not the case. Coal is a terrible emitter of CO2, and even though you believe CO2 is a non-issue, doesn't mean that it isn't important to everyone else. That's why we want off coal.

Then you simply ensure the status quo continues. TB was worried about peak oil and I was responding to him and anyone who thinks peak oil is the issue.

Short term possibilities for power generation? Established technologies that are cleaner: Hydro, wind, solar, natural gas. A logical combination of all of these are the best bet, I think. And gradually move to longer-term solutions like nuclear, geothermal, etc.

Gas will be used by default. Wind and solar are uneconomic so they will not be used out of expensive feel good projects designed to cater to the CO2 obsessive. Nuclear is not going to happen any time soon. There is no political will to face down the enviros. It is easier to do nothing. Edited October 3, 2010 by TimG

[wyly]

The population situation was considerably different then. I'd argue that once we had basically migrated to every corner of the world by about 10,000 years ago, it was impossible to wipe us out. I think we'd survive, but our current civilization will not.

I don't think it would have made a difference, the event that nearly wiped out our ancestors appears to have been a super volcano, it's effects affected the entire planet, there was no escaping an explosion of this size.... 1816 the year of no summer where famine was widespread due to crop failures was a result of the 1815 eruption of Mt Tambora a category 7 eruption, the eruption of Mt Toba 73,000 yrs ago was a monster category 8 eruption...but even the damage of super volcanoes like Toba is still relatively short term....global warming is not short term, it will last centuries nor will it limit itself to only regional areas, it hits the entire planet.....

[Slim]

More important than what we should or should not do is what we will do based on the economics of the matter. More people die each day from the lack of potable water.

Ohhh okay, you're saying we shouldn't do anything about AGW because of the economics. And then you're referring to people dying because of lack of potable water? I'm not sure how that relates to your previous statements. Or the conversation at hand. But okay!

Anyway, Tim and I are actually discussing the economics of the issue. I'm still not sure what point you're trying to get across, but I assume its the economic one. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Slim]

Ugh, I had already typed up a post in response to this one, Tim, but I think it got lost in the interwebs. So if another SIMILAR post pops up from me, disregard it.

Unless it's more coherent than this one.

Then you simply ensure the status quo continues. TB was worried about peak oil and I was responding to him and anyone who thinks peak oil is the issue.

I'm not sure I follow you here. The status quo?

Do you mean flogging the AGW horse and the peak oil one could, in fact, prevent any progress on either? I'm not trying to be flip, just need some clarification.

Gas will be used by default. Wind and solar are uneconomic so they will not be used out of expensive feel good projects designed to cater to the CO2 obsessive. Nuclear is not going to happen any time soon. There is no political will to face down the enviros. It is easier to do nothing.

I disagree about your statement on wind/solar. They have their place, and in certain regions could be expected to provide sizeable chunk of energy (technical term). Especially once next-gen photovoltaics (sp?) come out. Anyway, if wind/solar were deadweight industries, why is China spending so much time on developing solar? The industries are too large to seem as insignificant as you portray them to be.

And political will to face down enviros? I'm not sure what you mean there... care to elaborate?

[bush_cheney2004]

Ohhh okay, you're saying we shouldn't do anything about AGW because of the economics. And then you're referring to people dying because of lack of potable water? I'm not sure how that relates to your previous statements. Or the conversation at hand. But okay!

Look..it's not complicated. I am categorically rejecting any AGW argument based on the notion of 3rd world people dying, suffering, or otherwise having their lives ruined when we already have known circumstances and accepted mortality from far more direct causes. The lack of potable water is just one such example.

Anyway, Tim and I are actually discussing the economics of the issue. I'm still not sure what point you're trying to get across, but I assume its the economic one. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Agreed...when the continued impact of doing nothing tips the cost benefit analysis, then we will have actions based on economics, not the eco propaganda of polar bears.

[Slim]

Look..it's not complicated. I am categorically rejecting any AGW argument based on the notion of 3rd world people dying, suffering, or otherwise having their lives ruined when we already have known circumstances and accepted mortality from far more direct causes. The lack of potable water is just one such example.

Ah, that's a bit better! Although a little roundabout in appearing.

Just be careful you aren't dismissing the entire AGW problem because of that one principal, which could easily be used to argue against ANY economic action:

"Why should we have any military research or spending to possibly prevent human suffering when people are dying right now?"

or

"Why should we set standards and regulations on food on the possibility of people getting sick and dying when people are dying right now?"

See where I'm going with that? That's why I don't reckon it's a legitimate argument to make.

when the continued impact of doing nothing tips the cost benefit analysis, then we will have actions based on economics, not the eco propaganda of polar bears.

Yeah, but that's really not a strong argument to make, when the 'do-nothing' approach doesn't have a lot of support from the scientific community.

[TimG]

Do you mean flogging the AGW horse and the peak oil one could, in fact, prevent any progress on either? I'm not trying to be flip, just need some clarification.

That is exactly what I am saying. If we want to do something about oil use as soon as possible we must ensure cheap electricity. This means using coal and not using expensive sources like wind and solar. If we want to do something about CO2 that means expensive electricity which undermines the business case for EVs which prolongs our need for oil. We don't have infinite resources to throw at these problems. We must prioritize. I think peak oil deserves more attention than CO2.

I disagree about your statement on wind/solar. They have their place, and in certain regions could be expected to provide sizeable chunk of energy (technical term). Especially once next-gen photovoltaics (sp?) come out. Anyway, if wind/solar were deadweight industries, why is China spending so much time on developing solar? The industries are too large to seem as insignificant as you portray them to be.

I have a simple rule: if people will invest their own money without government subsidies into a technology then it is viable. When a technology is viable it will be rapidly adopted. So far that is not happening with wind or solar.

And political will to face down enviros? I'm not sure what you mean there... care to elaborate?

Make it clear that they have expectations that cannot be met and they must change them. i.e. opposition to nuclear plants is no longer acceptable. Same goes for hydro dams.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ah, that's a bit better! Although a little roundabout in appearing.

Just be careful you aren't dismissing the entire AGW problem because of that one principal, which could easily be used to argue against ANY economic action:

Non sequitur - clearly the example I cited exists today...it is not an extreme position.

See where I'm going with that? That's why I don't reckon it's a legitimate argument to make.

It's not an argument...it is fact. The world will not drastically move away from a hydrocarbon economy because of an emotional argument based on higher human mortality.

Yeah, but that's really not a strong argument to make, when the 'do-nothing' approach doesn't have a lot of support from the scientific community.

The scientific community doesn't decide political and economic policy....nor should they.

Edited October 3, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Slim]

That is exactly what I am saying. If we want to do something about oil use as soon as possible we must ensure cheap electricity. This means using coal and not using expensive sources like wind and solar. If we want to do something about CO2 that means expensive electricity which undermines the business case for EVs which prolongs our need for oil. We don't have infinite resources to throw at these problems. We must prioritize. I think peak oil deserves more attention than CO2.

Okay, I agree this is definitely a legit concern. But I disagree with your assumption that action on both issues cancel each other out.

Phasing out coal in favor of natural gas (I know I've been mentioning this a lot lately, but I think it bears repeating) is a great way to both combat peak oil and AGW at the same time. Right now, NG is plentiful and cheap. For the short to mid-term, it should be exploited!

I have a simple rule: if people will invest their own money without government subsidies into a technology then it is viable. When a technology is viable it will be rapidly adopted. So far that is not happening with wind or solar.

You assume it's okay for existing industry to have a monopoly over power generation. And monopoly usually means actively preventing the progress of competing tech. Which is happening.

Make it clear that they have expectations that cannot be met and they must change them. i.e. opposition to nuclear plants is no longer acceptable. Same goes for hydro dams.

I agree about the nuclear, absolutely. It's an established technology, proven and in use around the globe. It has some problems, but the benefits far outweigh the costs from what I've seen. But I don't think the same 'enviros' arguing for real solutions to AGW are the same people that protest against nuclear power. Different folks, I reckon. Don't lump 'em all together, cause there are extreme views that simply aren't useful to the dialogue.

[Slim]

It's not an argument...it is fact. The world will not drastically move away from a hydrocarbon economy because of an emotional argument based on higher human mortality.

Mkay, just making sure you weren't using one principle to negate the rest of the argument for AGW solutions.

Incidentally, I don't disagree, nobody rational would. So, um, yeah.

The scientific community doesn't decide political and economic policy....nor should they.

But they sure as hell help to back up policy decisions, especially on things like AGW. It's absurd to say that the scientific community's findings are irrelevant in the discussion of the economy vs. AGW

[bush_cheney2004]

Mkay, just making sure you weren't using one principle to negate the rest of the argument for AGW solutions.

Incidentally, I don't disagree, nobody rational would. So, um, yeah.

You are making a value judgement that is not consistent with existing policies (i.e. wars, mining, energy production, agriculture, etc.). Your position is not rational given the obvious status quo.

But they sure as hell help to back up policy decisions, especially on things like AGW. It's absurd to say that the scientific community's findings are irrelevant in the discussion of the economy vs. AGW

I didn't say they were irrelevant, just that they do not and should not make such decisons. AGW zealots must face the possiblity that little to nothing will be done in the face of higher geo-political and economic priorities. I have never understood why such zealots assumed that we would all just roll over because they predict doom.

Edited October 3, 2010 by bush_cheney2004