Conservative Argument on Climate Change

[Thomas Anderson]

This is cherry picking stats from an unstated source and is off by a few hundred percent. Often libertarians like to use this exaggeration to make a point. The actual stated profit by Exxon is 7.4 cents, however that completely ignores the much bigger profits on crude oil sales.

If truly you think that Exxon or anyone else is making such a magnificent profit, you need merely invest in some shares to disabuse you of that falsehood. But again, whether a company makes profits has nothing to do with carbon in the atmosphere being either dangerous or benign.

Also, without govt. investment in roads, bridges and infrastructure, oil companies wouldn't be making diddly on gasoline.

If only government could be prevented from making such "investments" (which are often paid for via property taxes, not gasoline taxes), maybe we would solve something. But the fact that government creates things unnecessarily is no excuse of them to then steal to pay for it. Make no mistake, that pilfered capital is pure profit to cronies, whether they ostensibly provide something of "value" in return or not. But this begs the question -- if it's not Exxon building the "roads, bridges, and infrastructure", then why are you blaming them for advocating for fossil fuels? It seems to me that government is the one advocating for it. They reap the most profits and also build our dependency on it! Exxon merely provides a product which anyone is free to buy or pass on. Only government forces you at gun point to fund roads you may not want. This still has nothing to do with whether or not CO2 is a threat, but at least if you're going to go off on a red herring, assign blame rationally.

 

[jeffoc]

Congrats on your Google-foo. I'm not going to teach a Philosophy of Science course on this thread. Suffice it to say though that science starts way before application of the scientific method. I'm attaching a 9-page document that does a pretty decent job at introducing the basic essentials. Maybe you'll surprise me and actually read it.

Actually the scientific method is the start of science. Skimmed it just because. Extremely basic and not a source that I would go to.

Deprogrammed would be a better term. Don't imagine for a second that they would subject themselves to your scorn. It also generally takes awhile before they realize they've been deprogrammed. You don't just go from diehard adherent to enlightened skeptic overnight. You mull things over and in time find that you no longer believe. Quite a few of my social media friends are previous opponents who were brainwashed into silly cults like AGW, socialism, Scientology, neoconservatism, Christianity, etc. They didn't even realize they were being deprogrammed. I've done a lot of that in the Tea Party as well, deprogramming neoconservatives who one day wake up and find that they're now libertarians (and always were but for a few brainwashed ideas put in their heads). But you have to be willing to even listen, and many are not. Those who live in a self-imposed echo chamber cannot be reached. Cults like AGW are the polar opposite of science, but they like to use the term to support themselves like scientologists or creationists do. Real scientists are inherently skeptical and easily deprogrammed through rational argument. I have some optimism for Woodgeek; most of the others in here, not so much.

This just creeps me out so much that this time for real I am done.

 

[begreen]

Off topic. The graph presented to bolster your argument represented a falsehood. As for investments, I think our own BrotherBart has done fairly well with their stock over the years. But again, that is off topic.

You seem to be arguing with yourself or some phantom voice. I haven't said anything about blaming Exxon for fossil fuels.

 

[jharkin]

The fact that you ask for definative proof or dismiss the theory shows me that you really don't understand the way science works.

The entire objective of the skeptic community is to only throw out enough partial info to cast doubt. In fact its the #1 strategy promulgated in the climate skeptics handbook (Its actually a real book, distributed online) is to always frame the argument that its the climate science communities responsibilty to show definitive proof.

They know that all they have to do is plant a small seed of doubt... just enough to prevent a consensus for real large scale action... and they win.

And then we all loose.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

Actually the scientific method is the start of science. Skimmed it just because. Extremely basic and not a source that I would go to.

Figured you wouldn't want to actually learn how to think scientifically.

This just creeps me out so much that this time for real I am done.

Please let it be so.

The entire objective of the skeptic community is to only throw out enough partial info to cast doubt. In fact its the #1 strategy promulgated in the climate skeptics handbook (Its actually a real book, distributed online) is to always frame the argument that its the climate science communities responsibilty to show definitive proof.

They know that all they have to do is plant a small seed of doubt... just enough to prevent a consensus for real large scale action... and they win.

And then we all loose.

Sure, if you consider NOT being taken down a massively destructive path for no good reason a loss. I've never seen said book, but it sounds like maybe you should read it, along with the previously attached document which actually describes how to practice science and critical thinking.

 

[jharkin]

Sure, if you consider NOT being taken down a massively destructive path for no good reason a loss.

Let make the argument the way you do. YOU prove to us diversifying away from finite fossil fuels that are going to run out eventually no matter what, to a more varied mix of energy sources that are more sustainable is massively destructive to anything but oil company profit.

Prove IT.

 

[jharkin]

This just creeps me out so much that this time for real I am done.

+1. He's not winning any friends calling Christianity a cult either....

 

[btuser]

The entire objective of the skeptic community is to only throw out enough partial info to cast doubt. In fact its the #1 strategy promulgated in the climate skeptics handbook (Its actually a real book, distributed online) is to always frame the argument that its the climate science communities responsibilty to show definitive proof.

They know that all they have to do is plant a small seed of doubt... just enough to prevent a consensus for real large scale action... and they win.

And then we all loose.

It works with Intelligent Design.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

Let make the argument the way you do. YOU prove to us diversifying away from finite fossil fuels that are going to run out eventually no matter what, to a more varied mix of energy sources that are more sustainable is massively destructive to anything but oil company profit.

I never made such a claim. I'm obviously all for diversifying away from fossil fuels. What's massively destructive is socialism, protectionism, curtailing individual freedom, huge bureaucracies, cronyism, and nearly everything else that AGW believers advocate as a political solution to their fabled problem. I can prove any and all of those things, but this is hardly the place. If you want to talk about those things, let's start a new thread.

+1. He's not winning any friends calling Christianity a cult either....

I'm not trying to win friends, I'm trying to establish reliable knowledge. You're not helping your case by clinging to Christianity either.

 

[woodgeek]

Woodgeek, you've actually been one of the few trying to make a case rather than preach a gospel. Where we left off before all the trolls jumped in was my comparison of global warming to insulation in your home. Do you have a rebuttal to that?

rebuttals to rebuttals to rebuttals can be tedious. I am basically saying that I think its common sense and reasonable that a 35% increase to CO2 **might** lead to a 5% increase in the total greenhouse effect (the current best estimate). IOW, the math is not 'crazy', based on tons of unknown figures or lots of assumptions about tipping points or hypothetical positive feedbacks, etc.

You seem to be saying that that does not makes sense, because CO2 has no effect (0%) on temp. IOW, 35%x0% = 0, QED.

Frankly, I don't think your replies, in either words or numerical examples actually address my point. I am saying the 5% << 35%, consistent with CO2 being responsible for ~1//7th of the total greenhouse effect (most of the rest being water), when all the feedbacks and non-linearities to Beer's law are taken into account. You have responded that water is a much bigger driver (we agree), that the greenhouse effect is sub-linear due to beer's law (I also agree), that CO2 actually comes from volcanoes (huh?). It seems you are listing a bunch of reasons that the temp effect should be much less than 35%, and I am saying scientists are predicting it to be 5%, due to many of the effects you list. But then you say that it is actually 0% because of those effects and demand I rebut your 'argument'. yeah.

And the only reason anyone would care about that teeny-tiny non-apocalyptic 5% effect (due to current CO2) on global temperature is b/c according to current rate of release, it becomes a 10-15% effect (6-10°F) by 2100, and any modern climate model predicts a rather doomy global dust-bowl at THAT point.

Deprogrammed would be a better term. ..... Real scientists are inherently skeptical and easily deprogrammed through rational argument. I have some optimism for Woodgeek; most of the others in here, not so much.

Y'know Thomas, you're starting to really make a lot of sense!

 

[btuser]

I never made such a claim. I'm obviously all for diversifying away from fossil fuels. What's massively destructive is socialism, protectionism, curtailing individual freedom, huge bureaucracies, cronyism, and nearly everything else that AGW believers advocate as a political solution to their fabled problem. I can prove any and all of those things, but this is hardly the place. If you want to talk about those things, let's start a new thread.

Is it fake because the science is flawed, or because you need it to be wrong?

 

[woodgeek]

Here we go back to post #16....before all those trolls derailed things

As to why I'm so "into alternative and renewable energy", it has little to do with climate change, although I do wish to be prepared for either warming or cooling, not that I think my "carbon footprint" has anything to do with it. My motivations are manifold. I believe peak oil and the wars for remaining oil have the potential to cause severe supply disruptions in not only fuel but everything that depends on fuel. Our whole economy is based on a just-in-time delivery by truck model. We can't go five days without trucks moving goods before people start severely suffering from shortages of all kinds of necessities. Adding punitive energy taxes and carbon caps to the mix only makes this worse. We also have an aging electrical grid created by government mandate and subsidy which isn't being properly maintained because the costs of doing so exceed the revenue permitted by government price caps on electric utilities. We've now experienced several large regional blackouts which were a complete surprise to those who oversee the grid. This will get even worse as we continually increase our electricity demands on the back of government suppressed prices. We don't know how precious of a resource we have because of price fixing, so people over-use it. Then there's the threat of terrorism, storms, and economic conditions impacting the availability of fuel and grid power. On top of that, government is getting ever more intrusive with their warrantless spying. With the new agenda to get "smart grid" controls into every home, the infringement on your freedom and privacy goes far beyond the electric company deciding when you can or can't watch TV or wash your clothes or what temperature your thermostat should be set to.

Those are all clear and present threats which should encourage everyone to be better prepared and to buffer themselves from reliance on the grid and the on-demand economy. But the overarching threat that poses the most severe danger and is growing more likely (even inevitable) every day is the potential for a global currency collapse as central banks around the world have turned to printing money at ever-increasing rates to support their failed socialist models. The Federal Reserve last month publicly declared a policy to print $40 billion per month ad infinitum (and it will surely exceed that figure as inflation gets out of control). The ECB, BoE, BoJ, and others are on a similar course. History has shown that this inevitably will result in hyperinflation. But this time will be worse than any other in the past because it will occur in the reserve currency of the world and all major competitors for that title simultaneously. Historically, people in countries with hyperinflating currencies could just use a neighboring currency. In the 20th century, most hyperinflating countries turned to the U.S. Dollar as a stable alternative. But what is the alternative this time? Probably gold and silver, but a whole new economy of re-monetizing precious metals will have to develop before that gets widespread. In the meantime, we'll be dumped back into a barter and self-sufficiency economy which virtually nobody is prepared for. So you can expect major supply chains to shut down entirely. Electric will be spotty at best. Same with water. Food delivery will probably fall to government emergency measures. Heating fuel likewise. Most people will probably have to evacuate to FEMA camps in order to survive on government rations. And if the government response to Hurricane Katrina was any indication, the conditions there won't be enviable. Think this can't happen? Most people naturally believe that horrific things can't happen to them. But they do all the time, even to "good" people. My wife lived through hyperinflation in Poland in 1990-1992 and told me all about it. The government is currently preparing for a "mass casualty event". Do some research. It's scary, but it's scarier to be unprepared for it.

Okay. I've been reading this stuff for many years. And I'm over it. It's soooo 2008. The goal of the thread is to develop a strategy for addressing AGW that is palatable to the right. This answer is doom them until they doom in their pants and go build a doomstead. Unless they live in NYC, then they can kiss their azz goodbye.

Even as a AGW cultist, however, I do have to concede that the (likely permanent) higher price of oil provides an invisible hand pushing a lot of AGW mitigation strategies without the need for any govt central planning. Whale oil used to be really expensive too.

Beyond all that though, assuming that humanity manages to solve all of those issues without American consumers missing a single reality television show episode, it's about building a better life. It's about being independently wealthy without needing millions of dollars. Inflation is certainly going to get much worse no matter what, but even if it doesn't get totally out of hand (as in hyperinflation or even the late '70s levels), even 3-5% inflation can really strain your personal lifestyle if your income doesn't keep up with it. At 5% inflation, prices double in 14 years. Double. This is especially a problem for the elderly on fixed incomes, but also for those who just can't get a raise, or whose raises don't match inflation. Or for the unemployed, who may receive some assistance, but that also doesn't keep up with inflation. If your income doesn't double in 14 years to match 5% inflation, then your living standards must necessarily decrease as a result. And if you're already pinching pennies, that might mean that you lose your house and other cherished assets. So being off-the-grid and self-sufficient eliminates many of the threats related to inflation and all of the stress related to it. If your production is not denominated in Federal Reserve Notes, then the value of FRNs is immaterial to your well-being. Your solar panels don't produce FRNs, they produce electricity. Your woodlot doesn't produce FRNs, it produces BTUs of heat. Your garden doesn't produce FRNs, it produces nutritious food. So if your standards of living are maintained locally by your own capital assets, then inflation has no bearing on you. Supply and demand have no bearing on you. Income and sales taxes have no bearing on you. This gives you an amazing feeling of freedom and relief from the stresses of the rat race. You can work at will instead of paycheck to paycheck. You can take as much time off as you please and maybe even retire indefinitely if you like. In other words, it gives you real independence.

Ok, Go off-grid as an inflation hedge. Seems compatible with a lot of folks that pick PV (on and off-grid).

As a lefty, I would prefer a strong social safety net (e.g. one keyed to inflation), but OT, I suppose this will sell better with your average Rand-ian.

A side-effect from that is that my carbon footprint is almost zero, or maybe negative if you deduct the fossil fuels I would be using as an average American. I.e. I could sell carbon credits under such a trading scheme. If you naively believe in anthropogenic global warming, my lifestyle is very attractive to you. And that's fine. But don't try to sell me on it to save the planet. If you want to sell conservatives on alternative energy, sell them on the points I made above. Any one of them should be sufficient to pique their interest and any two will probably convince them to go in that direction.

As a recovering doomer, I would love to see #'s on their population, and what fraction are taking your approach versus buying MREs from Glenn Beck. I honestly don't know.

 

[woodgeek]

What has Exxon got to do with anything? There's nobody from Exxon here. We're trying to discuss facts, not assign blame and ulterior motives.

By coincidence, I know a lot of scientists who worked at Exxon for years (before they shut down their awesome basic research campus), and a couple who still work there at a high level. Where to start...

Exxon threw one of these guys a retirement banquet a few years back, and flew folks in from all over the world. As geeks, most of them gave talks at a day-long conference (fun). At the end, the suits locked the doors, and gave us their speech about how AGW was all a bunch of hooey. The piper must be paid....but he doesn't have to be listened to. We all just talked amongst ourselves and ignored the guy. Trolls!

One older guy talked about this awesome new product (a synthetic engine oil additive) that he developed for Exxon back in the 80s, and that he worked out that it would provide something like a 30+% annual return on investment. The suits chose not to develop the product (but sold the patent to someone else for cash). They explained to him--direct quote--that Exxon's core business was drilling holes in the ground and sucking money out, and that a 30% annual ROI was simply not on their radar. Ah. The 80s. The billion dollar research campus...a tax write-off.

I was reminiscing with a current big scientist they have there last year, and he explained to me that the mgmt attitude there came down to money. Kind of a fiduciary 'might makes right'. The mgmt would believe whatever a wealthy person told them (about market conditions, etc) because their wealth prooved that they knew what was going on. Scientists (like me) w/o billions in offshore accounts, well, how would you ever know if I was for real? I could be like totally wrong. IOW, it was the most craven thing I had ever heard (and I have heard a lot) and my 'friend' was a true believer of this BS, and was just trying to help me out by explaining the divine order of the universe (and that I was at the bottom of it).

At a conference, I saw a really smart, 25 yo grad student give a talk. His topic...chemical methods for pulling CO2 out of the air. He did a great job, didn't pretend it was going to be commercially viable....just a kid describing the work he was doing in school, earning a whopping $20k/year to do it. A couple minutes in a passel of petroleum suits cruise in, and **start heckling him** at a scientific conference. Not asking questions...guffawing and 'oh right'ing and picking on his clothes and throwing pop-corn (ok I made the last one up). And wouldn't let anyone else ask him questions at the end....talked over them. And then they marched out after making the world just a little bit safer for big oil.

Sterotypes sometimes contain a germ of truth....and oil execs are always azzhats.

 

[btuser]

There's a good chance that fossil fuels are going to be the cheapest choice for a long time, probably longer than matters.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

rebuttals to rebuttals to rebuttals can be tedious. I am basically saying that I think its common sense and reasonable that a 35% increase to CO2 **might** lead to a 5% increase in the total greenhouse effect (the current best estimate). IOW, the math is not 'crazy', based on tons of unknown figures or lots of assumptions about tipping points or hypothetical positive feedbacks, etc.

You seem to be saying that that does not makes sense, because CO2 has no effect (0%) on temp. IOW, 35%x0% = 0, QED.

The point of a rebuttal is to discover how far apart we still are. If you don't have one, then it indicates a point of understanding. That's the whole goal of argument, to converge on a mutual understanding. I'm not saying that CO2 has zero effect, but that incrementally increasing it has asymptotically near zero effect. That's the nature of a logarithmic equation.

Frankly, I don't think your replies, in either words or numerical examples actually address my point. I am saying the 5% << 35%, consistent with CO2 being responsible for ~1//7th of the total greenhouse effect (most of the rest being water), when all the feedbacks and non-linearities to Beer's law are taken into account. You have responded that water is a much bigger driver (we agree), that the greenhouse effect is sub-linear due to beer's law (I also agree), that CO2 actually comes from volcanoes (huh?). It seems you are listing a bunch of reasons that the temp effect should be much less than 35%, and I am saying scientists are predicting it to be 5%, due to many of the effects you list. But then you say that it is actually 0% because of those effects and demand I rebut your 'argument'. yeah.

Just because CO2 is responsible for 1/7th of the greenhouse effect does not mean that adding additional CO2 would cause any additional warming. That was the point of my home insulation example. If you have R-40 insulation, you're blocking/retaining tens or hundreds of BTUs per sqft per hour. It may represent 100% of your total insulation effect. But if you add an additional R-40 (i.e. double it), you're only blocking/retaining an additional 0.0125 BTU, or a fraction of a fraction of a percent additional. That's what it means to be non-linear. 5% temperature increase from doubling CO2 is absolutely absurd. That would only be true if we had virtually no CO2 in our atmosphere to begin with. But we do. The IPCC has said that it's currently saturated.

I didn't say anything about CO2 coming from volcanoes. I said that volcanoes add heat to the atmosphere (and the oceans). Increased volcanism under the arctic is the main reason that the sea ice volume has changed. Volcanism in the south Pacific is responsible for El Nino.

And the only reason anyone would care about that teeny-tiny non-apocalyptic 5% effect (due to current CO2) on global temperature is b/c according to current rate of release, it becomes a 10-15% effect (6-10°F) by 2100, and any modern climate model predicts a rather doomy global dust-bowl at THAT point.

That's simply not mathematically possible. It's a logarithmic function. There is no 5% let alone 10-15% available. Virtually all of the heat that can be retained by CO2 already is. It's like R-40 insulation.

Okay. I've been reading this stuff for many years. And I'm over it. It's soooo 2008. The goal of the thread is to develop a strategy for addressing AGW that is palatable to the right. This answer is doom them until they doom in their pants and go build a doomstead. Unless they live in NYC, then they can kiss their azz goodbye.

Global warming doom hypotheses won't ever work because they're not credible. But there are plenty of other risks out there that are credible. I'm not sure what you mean when you say you're over it.

Even as a AGW cultist, however, I do have to concede that the (likely permanent) higher price of oil provides an invisible hand pushing a lot of AGW mitigation strategies without the need for any govt central planning. Whale oil used to be really expensive too.

The solution to high prices is high prices, as they say.

Ok, Go off-grid as an inflation hedge. Seems compatible with a lot of folks that pick PV (on and off-grid).

As a lefty, I would prefer a strong social safety net (e.g. one keyed to inflation), but OT, I suppose this will sell better with your average Rand-ian.

Inflation is caused by government (central bank). One of the primary reasons why government favors inflation is so that they can screw people out of promised benefits. So how could you possibly institute a government-run safety net which protects you from inflation? The only way to protect yourself from inflation is by insulating yourself from the government monetary and fiscal system as much as possible. That's why you become self-sufficient in regards to things like electricity.

Sterotypes sometimes contain a germ of truth....and oil execs are always azzhats.

Exxon will make money no matter what happens. If there were a germ of truth to AGW, they would dominate the carbon credit market. They have nothing to gain by obscuring the truth. The truth is that fossil fuels have been the greatest boon to mankind in the history of the world. They support our current standards of living. Nobody is in a rush to replace them, and as such, companies like Exxon will continue making money by supplying them. But whenever the sentiment in the market changes, so will companies like Exxon. Just because they laugh at people's silly ideas doesn't make them wrong. Nor does it make them evil.

 

[woodgeek]

The point of a rebuttal is to discover how far apart we still are. If you don't have one, then it indicates a point of understanding. That's the whole goal of argument, to converge on a mutual understanding. I'm not saying that CO2 has zero effect, but that incrementally increasing it has asymptotically near zero effect. That's the nature of a logarithmic equation.

That's simply not mathematically possible. It's a logarithmic function. There is no 5% let alone 10-15% available. Virtually all of the heat that can be retained by CO2 already is. It's like R-40 insulation.

You seem to be forgetting basic calculus here. (1) Most non-linear functions can be approximated as a linear function over a small range. Even though Beers law is logarithmic, small perturbations to gas conc can have a linear effect. (2) logarithmic functions (unlike the reciprocal relation in your insulation example) do not have an 'asymptote'.

Just because CO2 is responsible for 1/7th of the greenhouse effect does not mean that adding additional CO2 would cause any additional warming. That was the point of my home insulation example. If you have R-40 insulation, you're blocking/retaining tens or hundreds of BTUs per sqft per hour. It may represent 100% of your total insulation effect. But if you add an additional R-40 (i.e. double it), you're only blocking/retaining an additional 0.0125 BTU, or a fraction of a fraction of a percent additional. That's what it means to be non-linear. 5% temperature increase from doubling CO2 is absolutely absurd. That would only be true if we had virtually no CO2 in our atmosphere to begin with. But we do. The IPCC has said that it's currently saturated.

I get that you understand the math of R-value. But the diminishing returns of a log function (to small changes) and a reciprocal function (to large changes) are different formulae. You can't use one function as an example of how a different one works. And the sub-linearity due to the Taylor expansion of the logarithm is already in the 1/7th figure. You can't decide that it has to be applied afterward. Since I don't read the IPCC stuff, give me the quote where they say CO2 is saturated, and we will see if they mean what you say here...

I didn't say anything about CO2 coming from volcanoes. I said that volcanoes add heat to the atmosphere (and the oceans). Increased volcanism under the arctic is the main reason that the sea ice volume has changed. Volcanism in the south Pacific is responsible for El Nino.

Data?? The Ocean is deep, and the energy flows in the ocean currents are much larger than those from volcanoes....how does that work??

Global warming doom hypotheses won't ever work because they're not credible. But there are plenty of other risks out there that are credible. I'm not sure what you mean when you say you're over it.

I mean that after countless hours chasing down sources of information....have personally concluded that peak oil doom is a big ball of politically motivated BS. Kinda like the way you feel about AGW, except I think the papers on the latter are quite compelling.

The solution to high prices is high prices, as they say.

I thought they said the solution was 'substitution'. Worked for whale oil.

Inflation is caused by government (central bank). One of the primary reasons why government favors inflation is so that they can screw people out of promised benefits. So how could you possibly institute a government-run safety net which protects you from inflation? The only way to protect yourself from inflation is by insulating yourself from the government monetary and fiscal system as much as possible. That's why you become self-sufficient in regards to things like electricity.

I am paying the same amount per kWh now as I did in 1989, $0.15 (nominal dollars, suburban Philly versus Chicago). Wow. And it is a few % of my income. I do not fear being crushed by kWh inflation.

I suspect we agree about an (unstated, bipartisan) goal of the US govt to (mildly) debase the dollar, which has a number of positive and negative effects. I think they would like to deflate the existing debt, and don't give a fig about deflating future commitments. But since no real inflation has occurred (yet) they are actually just stimulating the private economy and financial system (with buckets of debt), while preventing US manufacturing exports from getting killed by a too-strong dollar (driven by a global flight to safety). But this is really OT, and done by several threads in the Can.

Exxon will make money no matter what happens. If there were a germ of truth to AGW, they would dominate the carbon credit market. They have nothing to gain by obscuring the truth. The truth is that fossil fuels have been the greatest boon to mankind in the history of the world. They support our current standards of living. Nobody is in a rush to replace them, and as such, companies like Exxon will continue making money by supplying them. But whenever the sentiment in the market changes, so will companies like Exxon. Just because they laugh at people's silly ideas doesn't make them wrong. Nor does it make them evil.

Indeed. They will make money until they don't. I wouldn't bet against them. I'm just saying that their mgmt 'process' is not a scientific one, and they their exec seem much more like 'american psycho's than any of the wall streeters I have ever met.

 

[Ehouse]

You see to be forgetting basic math here. (1) Most non-linear functions can be approximated as a linear function over a small range. Even though Beers law is logarithmic, small perturbations to gas conc can have a linear effect. (2) logarithmic functions (unlike the reciprocal relation in your insulation example) do not have an 'asymptote'.




I get that you understand the math of R-value. But the diminishing returns of a log function (to small changes) and a reciprocal function (to large changes) are different formulae. You can't use one function as an example of how a different one works. And the sub-linearity due to the Taylor expansion of the logarithm is already in the 1/7th figure. You can't decide that it has to be applied afterward. Since I don't read the IPCC stuff, give me the quote where they say CO2 is saturated, and we will see if they mean what you say here...



Data?? The Ocean is deep, and the energy flows in the ocean currents are much larger than those from volcanoes....how does that work??



I mean that I after countless hours chasing down sources of information....I have personally concluded that peak oil doom is a big ball of politically motivated BS. Kinda like the way you feel about AGW, except I think the papers for the latter are quite compelling.



I thought they said the solution was 'substitution'. Worked for whale oil.



I am paying the same amount per kWh now as I did in 1989. (suburban Philly versus Chicago). Wow. And it is a few % of my income. I do not fear being crushed by kWh inflation.



Indeed. They will make money until they don't. I wouldn't bet against them. I'm just saying that their mgmt 'process' is not a scientific one, and they their exec seem much more like 'american psycho's than any of the wall streeters I have ever met.

Quick question; Does the difference in the delta T between your home and it's ambiant surroundings vs. the earth and it's ambiant surroundings, have a bearing on the effects of insulation? Carry on.

Ehouse

 

[jharkin]

You're not helping your case by clinging to Christianity either.

You don't know ANYTHING about me or what my personal beliefs are. I'd respond the same if you spewed your hatred at Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc as well.

 

[woodgeek]

Quick question; Does the difference in the delta T between your home and it's ambiant surroundings vs. the earth and it's ambiant surroundings, have a bearing on the effects of insulation? Carry on.

Ehouse

? I don't understand the question?

 

[Ehouse]

? I don't understand the question?

Well, If my house is at 60* and outside it is 20*, adding insulation after a certain point doesn't do much, if our concern is comfort. However, if I'm worried about water pipes in an outside wall freezing, a little extra might save the day. If the earth's average temp. is 60*, and the temp. in ambient space is ( I have no idea, supply data please.), does this larger (assumed) temp. diff. affect the point of diminishing returns for added insulation? If the answer is yes, and to a significant degree, the comparison of my house and the earth in terms of benefit, (or detriment) is misleading eh?

Ehouse

 

[woodgeek]

Well, If my house is at 60* and outside it is 20*, adding insulation after a certain point doesn't do much, if our concern is comfort. However, if I'm worried about water pipes in an outside wall freezing, a little extra might save the day. If the earth's average temp. is 60*, and the temp. in ambient space is ( I have no idea, supply data please.), does this larger (assumed) temp. diff. affect the point of diminishing returns for added insulation? If the answer is yes, and to a significant degree, the comparison of my house and the earth in terms of benefit, (or detriment) is misleading eh?

Ehouse

Ok. I think I understand. The diminishing returns of insulation are economic. IF you doubled the insulation on your house (neglecting air leaks) you could heat your house by twice the amount with the same BTUs. No diminishing return...its linear. But you don't heat your house twice as much, you decide to heat to the same temp, and use half as much energy. Kinda like mpg on a car. Imagine you drive an SUV doing 25 mpg, switch it for a prius doing 50 mpg and save, say $2000 a year on gas. Someone gives you a car that gets infinity mpg (!), and you dump the prius. Do you save an infinite amount? No, you only save the remaining amount you are spending, another $2000 a year.

As for the earth, the average temp of the earth is 60°F. IF the earth had no greenhouse effect (but was still the same 'color') it would have a temperature of 0°F. The existence of the greenhouse effect is not being debated. Folks discovered it and worked out these basic numbers more than a century ago. If you plug in all the visible and IR properties of these gases, and the amount of them, you can calculate (as like a first year grad student homework problem) that the greenhouse effect should be ~60°F. Same math describes the (measured) temps of the other planets and the asteroids. Nothing to debate here.

Three major greenhouse gases (H2O, CO2 and CH4) together warm the earth by a large amount, 60°F, which, like the fact the earth is round or spinning, is not obvious to our human senses. The math above says that H2O is the biggest contributor, and CH4 is pretty weak. CO2 is Jan Brady in the middle.

Calculating how much warming adding 35% more CO2 (as of currently in 2012) causes is actually tricky. One way to get started is to say something like like if CO2 drives one third of the greenhouse effect, and we add 35% more, then we should increase the greenhouse effect by something like 33%*35%, or 12% or 7°F!! But that would be too simplistic. Instead, you can go back to the (still a homework problem) math calculation that spat out the 60°F number in the first place, and ask it what it thinks should happen, it predicts something like 8%=4-5°F because of the sort of diminishing returns of the logarithm function that Thomas mentions. So anyone who can do calculus can predict that increasing CO2 by 35% using textbook physics should warm the earth by 4-5°F.

Hey, did you notice the earth getting warmer by 5°F? No? that's because it didn't. IF you look at the record, its maybe 1.5-2°F warmer in the last decade relative to the 1950s, and typically, decade-long global average temps can jump around ±1°F. So, WTF? Is all that math (that nails the temps of all the planets and asteroids too) wrong?

Of course not....the model assumes the earth's color and the amount of H2O stay the same....do/will they? Now THAT is a much harder problem, and you need computer models that are not unlike those that try to predict the weather. Now those models do a lousy job predicting the weather in 7 days, but they do a great job of telling you average temps on different days of the year (which is what we want to answer our question). When the answer gets spit out of the computer....good news. Increased cloud cover makes the effect smaller (making the earth 'whiter' and cooler). That kinda scary sounding 5°F number is only.....drumroll please.....3°F. Oh, and the model says the earth takes a couple decades to catch up. Put it all together and the omputer says that we should be 2°F warmer now, and if we stop all CO2 emissions today, may 3°F by 2030. Now THAT jibes with the data.

So the problem is not to explain where the piddly 2±1°F global warming we have now came from....hell, that could just be random fluctuations--let's argue about statistics, not. The problem is that basic physics predicts that we should already have more like 5°F warming...and it hasn't happened. The climate models show that the natural stabilizing influences in the earth climate reduce the effect to something consistent with what we have seen.

The bad news is that while we were lucky that way (nice earth), the same model says the anticipated 21st century CO2 emissions will break the climate.

 

[GaryGary]

Ok. I think I understand. The diminishing returns of insulation are economic. IF you doubled the insulation on your house (neglecting air leaks) you could heat your house by twice the amount with the same BTUs. No diminishing return...its linear. But you don't heat your house twice as much, you decide to heat to the same temp, and use half as much energy. Kinda like mpg on a car. Imagine you drive an SUV doing 25 mpg, switch it for a prius doing 50 mpg and save, say $2000 a year on gas. Someone gives you a car that gets infinity mpg (!), and you dump the prius. Do you save an infinite amount? No, you only save the remaining amount you are spending, another $2000 a year.

As for the earth, the average temp of the earth is 60°F. IF the earth had no greenhouse effect (but was still the same 'color') it would have a temperature of 0°F. The existence of the greenhouse effect is not being debated. Folks discovered it and worked out these basic numbers more than a century ago. If you plug in all the visible and IR properties of these gases, and the amount of them, you can calculate (as like a first year grad student homework problem) that the greenhouse effect should be ~60°F. Same math describes the (measured) temps of the other planets and the asteroids. Nothing to debate here.

Three major greenhouse gases (H2O, CO2 and CH4) together warm the earth by a large amount, 60°F, which, like the fact the earth is round or spinning, is not obvious to our human senses. The math above says that H2O is the biggest contributor, and CH4 is pretty weak. CO2 is Jan Brady in the middle.

Calculating how much warming adding 35% more CO2 (as of currently in 2012) causes is actually tricky. One way to get started is to say something like like if CO2 drives one third of the greenhouse effect, and we add 35% more, then we should increase the greenhouse effect by something like 33%*35%, or 12% or 7°F!! But that would be too simplistic. Instead, you can go back to the (still a homework problem) math calculation that spat out the 60°F number in the first place, and ask it what it thinks should happen, it predicts something like 8%=4-5°F because of the sort of diminishing returns of the logarithm function that Thomas mentions. So anyone who can do calculus can predict that increasing CO2 by 35% using textbook physics should warm the earth by 4-5°F.

Hey, did you notice the earth getting warmer by 5°F? No? that's because it didn't. IF you look at the record, its maybe 1.5-2°F warmer in the last decade relative to the 1950s, and typically, decade-long global average temps can jump around ±1°F. So, WTF? Is all that math (that nails the temps of all the planets and asteroids too) wrong?

Of course not....the model assumes the earth's color and the amount of H2O stay the same....do/will they? Now THAT is a much harder problem, and you need computer models that are not unlike those that try to predict the weather. Now those models do a lousy job predicting the weather in 7 days, but they do a great job of telling you average temps on different days of the year (which is what we want to answer our question). When the answer gets spit out of the computer....good news. Increased cloud cover makes the effect smaller (making the earth 'whiter' and cooler). That kinda scary sounding 5°F number is only.....drumroll please.....3°F. Oh, and the model says the earth takes a couple decades to catch up. Put it all together and the omputer says that we should be 2°F warmer now, and if we stop all CO2 emissions today, may 3°F by 2030. Now THAT jibes with the data.

So the problem is not to explain where the piddly 2±1°F global warming we have now came from....hell, that could just be random fluctuations--let's argue about statistics, not. The problem is that basic physics predicts that we should already have more like 5°F warming...and it hasn't happened. The climate models show that the natural stabilizing influences in the earth climate reduce the effect to something consistent with what we have seen.

The bad news is that while we were lucky that way (nice earth), the same model says the anticipated 21st century CO2 emissions will break the climate.

Wood,

It looks like you have spent some time looking into climate change issues.

A couple climate change related questions/issues that have been troubling me -- maybe you could give your take on them?

1) The tipping point idea that Jim Hansen and others have been describing. Basically the idea that modest changes in one of the climate forcing functions (like CO2 above about 400 ppm) can start feedback mechanisms (eg less ice to reflect solar, methane from tundra etc.) that end up resulting in climate and sea level changes that are well in excess of of what the original CO2 increase would generate on its own, and that would be beyond our ability to control.
They appear to have found evidence in the ice core record that supports these kinds of episodes in the past.
I believe that the IPCC predictions do not include these tipping point effects(?), so the end climate picture could be significantly worse then their predictions?


2) The idea that the standard calculations and models have assumptions and tolerances that could make things better or worse than the nominal predictions. A lot of people like to focus on the positive side of this saying that the outcomes may not be as bad as the predictions, but what about the negative side -- what if errors in assumptions are such as to make the actual outcomes worse than the predictions? I believe that the cheif scientist of NREL (I may have that title wrong) has said that if you change some of the underlying modeling assumptions by modest amounts, the end effect is large -- especially in terms of sea level change.


These are bothersome to me in that you always like to at least be prepared for the worst case outcome, and if there is truth to either of these areas, it seems to me we are far short of being prepared? Maybe we are far short of being prepared even without these potential added effects?

Gary

 

[begreen]

You don't know ANYTHING about me or what my personal beliefs are. I'd respond the same if you spewed your hatred at Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc as well.

Agreed. Let's keep the personal attacks and religion completely out of this thread or it'll be canned shortly.

 

[woodgeek]

Wood,

It looks like you have spent some time looking into climate change issues.

A couple climate change related questions/issues that have been troubling me -- maybe you could give your take on them?

1) The tipping point idea that Jim Hansen and others have been describing. Basically the idea that modest changes in one of the climate forcing functions (like CO2 above about 400 ppm) can start feedback mechanisms (eg less ice to reflect solar, methane from tundra etc.) that end up resulting in climate and sea level changes that are well in excess of of what the original CO2 increase would generate on its own, and that would be beyond our ability to control.
They appear to have found evidence in the ice core record that supports these kinds of episodes in the past.
I believe that the IPCC predictions do not include these tipping point effects(?), so the end climate picture could be significantly worse then their predictions?

2) The idea that the standard calculations and models have assumptions and tolerances that could make things better or worse than the nominal predictions. A lot of people like to focus on the positive side of this saying that the outcomes may not be as bad as the predictions, but what about the negative side -- what if errors in assumptions are such as to make the actual outcomes worse than the predictions? I believe that the cheif scientist of NREL (I may have that title wrong) has said that if you change some of the underlying modeling assumptions by modest amounts, the end effect is large -- especially in terms of sea level change.

These are bothersome to me in that you always like to at least be prepared for the worst case outcome, and if there is truth to either of these areas, it seems to me we are far short of being prepared? Maybe we are far short of being prepared even without these potential added effects?

Gary

I am far from an expert, but I understand (and have taught) the basic physical principles involved.

It is my understanding that the direct temperature 'forcing' is well understood and larger than observed,
and the feedback effects are less well understood (and climate records are not really that useful b/c of the
unique nature/speed of our current 'experiment'), but are, overall, generally accepted to be negative. This
reconciles the small warming from the data and the large predictions of simple physical models.

That what I said earlier.

To me, that is a good place to say stop and engage 'skeptics' who think that the basic phenomenon is implausible, and
based solely on poorly understood feedback effects from climate models. In fact, if simple physical models (that are not
debatable really) were correct, we'd already be up the creek. The warming we see, far from being implausible or
needing to be explained, is actually smaller than we would have estimated by physical 'laws'.

Back to your question....clearly ice is a positive feedback. Again, I am not an expert on the finer points, but I think
when the ice is gone, the positive feedback is maxed out....ice can cause an oscillation between a cold and a hot
state (like an ice age or an interglacial state) but it isn't clear how it superheats our current climate further.

So, I'm basically gonna cop out on your question....there is a lot of hype in the press about permafrost and methane
and tipping points and I am going to wait for all that to be a bit better settled. But I think the scientific community
and press may be confusing the public with all this new, less well cooked science....

Imagine if in 1972, there were a flurry of press releases about how smoking was even more likely to kill you b/c
it also caused obesity, made you a bad driver, caused pneumonia, etc. But all of those articles ended up with 'but of
course this needs to be confirmed in future study'. And in all that noise, the already well demonstrated fact that
it causes lung cancer got lost, and then the cig companies started poking holes in all the new studies, often
correctly, by showing that smoking doesn't make you fat. The result would be an unholy mess. But smokers
would still get lung cancer.

So, you can put me down as a non-skeptic/non-alarmist for the present (i.e. I am skeptical of the latest science
of tipping points, but try to be open minded) but non-skeptical/alarmist for the prognosis on 2100.

Pushing my smoking analogy further....you're a doctor and a 22 yo smoker comes to you and has been smoking heavily
for 5 years. You have to tell him that if he quits now he has a much lower risk of getting lung cancer than if he
keeps smoking for 20 more years. The good news is that if he quits now his chance of cancer is low (but still not
zero). But he also has to get that the risks of continuing (after a long time) are very high.

But if he doesn't believe that cigs cause cancer...can you convince him to quit because it smells, or he might
burn his house down accidentally? IF you throw too many reasons at him, does he start to tune out??

 

[semipro]

Gary comment/question on sea level change brought to mind something related...

Sea level change impact on shorelines has turned out to be much higher than predicted because:
1) Subsidence from groundwater pumping was not considered (something likely to accelerate as things get hotter).
2) Decreases in flow of the Gulf Stream, thought a result of global warming, have resulted in a decrease in the "swell" that occurs in the Sargasso sea.

one source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...ks-sea-level-is-rising-faster-than-the-worlds

The British Isles will be an interesting place when the Gulf Stream stops flowing
Things are much more complex that we humans will ever understand.
We're playing with fire and very likely to get burned.