An Oxford physicist claims he can trace individual “extreme weather events” to climate change, thereby allowing people to sue the corporations that are the biggest greenhouse gas contributors for the damage caused in those events. An attorney for Native Americans has already filed such a lawsuit in the name of Alaska villagers who might actually have to live on land instead of ice if the permafrost melts.
Of course, if you want to find those really responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, don’t blame the corporations: look in the mirror.
Besides this, premature ejaculation, delayed ejaculation, low libido are viagra generic discount a few sexual conditions faced by males. These medications buy super viagra are available in multiple flavors. Smoking also causes Erectile Dysfunction in males If you decide levitra vs viagra without consulting your doctor, it is important to identify all the ED problems clearly as well as the major reasons behind the medical condition. Drugs regularly recommended to treat erectile dysfunction in grown-up brand viagra pfizer guys may help young men who have a muscle infection called Duchenne brawny dystrophy, as indicated by another study.
On the other hand, some people remain unconvinced that anthropogenic climate change is real. What if they are right? Can corporations sue environmental groups for any costs they have imposed on them in a wasted effort to reduce emissions?
Can corporations sue environmental groups for any costs they have imposed on them in a wasted effort to reduce emissions?
Perhaps corporations can sue folks such as the Antiplanner who get paid to publish papers on the Internet that claim CO2 to be a “greenhouse gas” and express concern over CO2 emission levels.
And poster like D4P, this way we can all spend a lot of money and get nothing done.
But that’s OK, the lawyers will do well.
Here’s the part I do not get from those who either do not accept global warming as a certainty or are highly skeptical of it.
If you knew there was a chance that really bad stuff could happen if you continued to do something that you knew had potential consequences – what would be a reasonable and prudent path forward?
Would you just claim that the whole thing was just not possible under any scenario or would you want hedge your bets just a tad?
Next, what is the harm of doing SOMETHING vs NOTHING ?
Is the “something” a dead loss under any conceivable scenario?
Would developing more efficient energy approaches and cutting back on pollution be harmful things to do even if it turned out that global warming turned out to be less consequential than first feared?
So this is the part I do not understand.
It’s sort of like someone smoking cigarettes and claiming that until they are presented with absolute incontrovertible proof of the connection to downstream bad stuff happening that they’ll “take my chances”.
Is this not a thoroughly DUMB strategy?
What is a PRUDENT path when you don’t have absolute proof?
How many times in our history have we OVERESTIMATED the harm from something verses how many times have we UNDERESTIMATED the potential harm?
Don’t we have not such a good track record with respect to this?
Here’s the part I do not get from those who either do not accept global warming as a certainty or are highly skeptical of it.
larry
———–
I don’t know anyone that doesn’t believe we may get warmer or cooler, the disagreement is the cause.
If the cause is the Sun and we can’t do anything about it, it is a total waste of money, carbon off sets and effort.
But at least the people selling carbon offsets can become rich selling nothing in return for taxing businesses for reciving nothing in return
I don’t know anyone that doesn’t believe we may get warmer or cooler, the disagreement is the cause.
The Antiplanner has labeled CO2 a “greenhouse gas”, about which Wikipedia has the following to say:
Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases are essential to maintaining the current temperature of the Earth; without them this planet would be so cold as to be uninhabitable.
This seems to imply a positive relationship between the level of greenhouse gases and the earth’s temperature. In other words, reduce the level of greenhouse gases and the temperature goes down. Increase the level of greenhouse gases and the temperature goes up.
Why, then, would it be difficult to believe that human activities that increase the level of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere could increase the earth’s temperature? This seems like a completely reasonable conclusion, and one that would only be rejected by people who are motivated to believe otherwise.
This seems like a completely reasonable conclusion, and one that would only be rejected by people who are motivated to believe otherwise.
D4P
———-
Are you not sure?
you said this seems like a completely reasonable conclusion
I don’t understand your question.
You seem to believe in man made global warming, but you say in the above post.
“This seems like a completely reasonable conclusion”
Instead of this is the conclusion.
I don’t see any particular advantage to making ultimate proclamations, or declaring that the world “is” a certain way. Humans have limited knowledge, and it makes more sense to me to consider beliefs to be transitory and subject to change.
But given the positive relationship between levels of CO2 and earth temperature that is implied when someone like the Antiplanner labels CO2 a “greenhouse” gas, why would someone like the Antiplanner then try to deny the notion that increased CO2 levels would be expected to lead to increased temperatures? It doesn’t make sense to label CO2 a greenhouse gas and then deny that increased CO2 levels should be expected to have a positive effect on temperatures.
Craig (re: #4),
The sun is not the cause of the increase in warming merely because it is the source. A step is missing there (a step which Karlock is refusing to acknowledge). That is: the radiation from the sun that enters the atmosphere and hits the surface of the earth is primarily within the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum, but the earth modifies this radiation, lenghtening the wavelengths, so when this energy is emitted by the surface of the earth back to the atmosphere it is primarily within the infrared range. What is theorized is that the atmosphere is acting like a one way door: the visible is allowed in, but the infrared is absorbed by the carbon dioxide (and other compounds as Karlock admits) and thus is only partially allowed out.
What is theorized is that the atmosphere is acting like a one way door:
t g
Are you not sure?
craig: certainty is too high of a standard to be useful for human beings. Every human being makes multiple decisions every day without 100% certainty.
craig: certainty is too high of a standard to be useful for human beings. Every human being makes multiple decisions every day without 100% certainty.
D4P
———-
So are you saying that global warming or climate change or what ever we are calling it today, may not be man made?
So are you saying that global warming or climate change or what ever we are calling it today, may not be man made?
Yes. The point is that, in most cases, humans will never really “know for sure”. We routinely make decisions based on probabilities and likelihoods, and upon our best understanding of available information at the time.
If human beings waited for certainty, they’d never leave the house. But even THAT has risks, as there are all kinds of bad things that can happen to you at home.
Where is Dan when one needs help eating a red herring before anyone sees it?
The court system has nothing to do with science. Period. A judge is in no position, academically, socially, even legally, to determine the accuracy of a scientific claim. A judge can (and many do) rely on myths to defend their decisions.
This physicist, as a scientist, is an idiot. A hydrologist could model the same storm and lay the blame for the flooding on the land developers who increased the impervious surface of the land.
Which could lead one to suggest that due to the sheer number of variables such scientific endeavor is meaningless. And I would agree that this endeavor is meaningless. Which is socially unfortunate, because it leads many to dismiss science altogether. But the components of a model can be correct, even when the model is itself is too broadly applied. And though illogical, it is easy to reject the components because of the model. Sins of the father and all that.
Randal asks, seemingly innocently:
On the other hand, some people remain unconvinced that anthropogenic climate change is real. What if they are right? Can corporations sue environmental groups for any costs they have imposed on them in a wasted effort to reduce emissions?
They are wrong.
There are multifold and numerous pieces of evidence that it is warming. There is more than two centuries of knowledge that adding energy to a system changes the system. There is more than a century of knowledge that adding CO2 to the system raises the temperature of the system. We know by the isotope ratio that the ~34% increase in CO2 is anthropogenic.
It’s over.
So, what Randal has shown is the underlying corporate motive to deny man-made climate change: they don’t want to get sued like Big Tobacco.
DS
Craig (re: #11),
I know we like a digression around here, but from climatology to epistemology? Stay focused. I know it’s hard. But if you put away your Focault and celebrate that grand american tradition called common sense, you might not be so inclined to those suicidal thoughts you’ve been having. Your cartesian relativistic critique of knowledge is troubling to me; I thought that nonsense was played out in the nineties.
If you are unsure of your existence, please do not project your fears on me. I am not only confident in my knowledge, but am confident in the words I use to express that knowledge. Theory. Don’t rely on the soft musings of your bible school teacher for your understanding of the world. God did not create the world in six days and theory is apparently more than you think. Look it up.
So, what Randal has shown is the underlying corporate motive to deny man-made climate change: they don’t want to get sued like Big Tobacco
I wonder how many millions of dollars Big Tobacco spent trying to muddy the waters and convince people like Jim Karlock that cigarette smoking is harmless.
Of course, if you want to find those really responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, don’t blame the corporations: look in the mirror.
Now, this is where sometimes Randal’s ideology intersects with my work. We are, ultimately, all responsible for what we are doing to our life-support system.
The ‘haves’ impart much more energy and resource exploitation to the earth system than the ‘have nots’. Our consumption patterns in the First World impact ecosystems much more than a hungry villager in the Congo (fleeing from war).
History is full of societies that used more resources than the surrounding ecosystem could provide. Technology allowed expansion outward for more exploitation, then another collapse, then more expansion, another collapse, etc. Where we are now is that we are using cheap energy to head off large-scale ecosystem collapse (in the form of the Haber process). When this cheap energy goes away, what we used to prop up our numbers will go away – what is the replacement?
If we find no replacement, then there will be a hard landing or a soft landing. It is up to us to decide. The denialists would have you believe there is no need to think about ecosystems in this decision, and their lack of understanding prevents us from our choice (as much as I hate binary argumentation, there are limits to natural systems).
DS
Since we’re back on the topic of global warming (yay) and I see Karlock is active again, I would like to remind him that he has not established where these peer reviewed papers he has requested should begin. So, reposting (out of anonymous pleasure in annoying) a previous comment to Karlock:
Karlock, are you a heart specialist? For I’m assuming you are only trying to promote general stress in order to increase your profits.
In answer to my question, in which I asked if you agreed or disagreed that the radiation that is emitted by the sun and enters the earth’s atmosphere is primarily within the visible range, you replied:
JK: Much of the energy output is not visible: IR, UV, magnetic fields, cosmic rays etc.,
Let me clarify. Do you agree or disagree with the following: Of the electromagnetic radiation emitted from the sun the majority of the wavelengths which reach the surface of the earth are within the visible range.
To clarify: I did not ask about the output. This would be nonsense. We are not discussing the effects of molecular vibration on the temperature of the galaxy. We are discussing the effects of molecular vibration on the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere.
Secondly, in answer to my question, do you agree or disagree that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation, you replied:
JK: Very little . In the real atmosphere, most IR is absorbed by H2O.
Do not presume anymore about my question than I have allowed. The question was simple. I did not ask if atmospherically carbon dioxide absorbs more or less than any other compound. So allow me to repeat (your war of attrition has not fully enervated me):
Do you agree or disagree that carbon dioxide absorbs Infrared wavelengths?
Your request for evidence is becoming tiring and ridiculous if you are unwilling to provide a scientific point of departure. Which is fine, if you admit you are only dancing with rhetoric because you are that one thing more dreaded to this blog’s libertarian bunch than a planner – you are…gasp…a politician. Put your clothes back on, emperor.
Melting Ice May Slow Global Warming:
RE: #21
Even if the plankton don’t sink and it offers no carbon dioxide sequestering benefit, this could be great news still as it could give a boost to fish populations generally.
we’re still arguing over whether or not global warming is real …rather than… what are the consequences of being wrong….
on either side of the issue?
It appears to me… on one side.. we’ve wasted some money but no real harm done… on the other side… civilization as we know it goes away….
Given our history in the past of grossly underestimating the harm of “not wasting money on pollution that doesn’t hurt us” … I’d ask again…
if you don’t know for sure..and there probably is some level of risk – is the right answer to do absolutely nothing – zip?
Note what was left out of the excerpt in 21:
In ecology, we call this possibility ‘a factor in the set of emergent properties’. That is: it’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
Systems of immense complexity always have ’emergent properties’ (scholarly jargon for ‘surprises’). I agree with t g that it might change the food balance in the southern oceans, allowing more fish to thrive, but the breakdown products of plankton also allow the growth of algae, which can lower sunlight penetration and use oxygen.
It certainly is an interesting conundrum and will be fun to follow the ecosystem adjustment to more nutrients.
DS
LarryG (#23),
I beleive that is Pascal’s argument for believing in god, so I’ll have to vote against you.
if you don’t know for sure..and there probably is some level of risk – is the right answer to do absolutely nothing – ?
I’d say this is basic risk assessment.
Some would have you believe there is no risk, albeit with no empirical backing or evidence. Those who say there is risk enumerate the evidence, and the range of risks based on the evidence, then attempt to value the damage.
From a basic logical standpoint, knowing only the previous para., the rational course would be to go with the folk who have evidence. But since when are we rational?
DS
From the Associated Press on the IPCC’s 2007 report:
If the scientists are so sure that controlling pollution will do nothing to stop warming and sea level rise, what’s the point? If the private sector would like to invest in atmospheric CO2 scrubbers, that’s dandy. (Maybe the technology can be used to terraform our neighboring planets.) But don’t waste tax money on trying to prevent what scientists are calling unpreventable.
hotter temperatures and rises in sea level “would continue for centuries†no matter how much humans control their pollution
If I just read that alone, it doesn’t say that the level of warming and sea rise is completely independent of population. All it says to me is that some level of warming and sea level rise will happen even if the population doesn’t grow. Among other things, that quote leaves open the possibility that greater levels of warming and/or sea level rises could result from greater levels of population/greenhouse gas production.
In other words, even if it’s true that humans can’t prevent greater-than-zero change, that in and of itself doesn’t mean that the level of change will be completely independent of human behavior. No more humans might not prevent change, but more humans might exacerbate change.
I have read that elsewhere; that the worst will come regardless. It seems economically wise to consider that in implementing policy. I fail to see how its inevitability diminishes the need for response though. It means we can be more reasonable in our response, because we don’t have to act like a frightened congress approving a bank bailout with no details. We can be measured and rational. We can build the sea walls and modify our emissions.
There are always those who assert – and look for anything to confirm it* – that we should ‘do nothing’.
Nonetheless, that AP story leaves a lot out and the likely warming is based on emissions scenarios. That is: we are unlikely to change our lives to stop a ‘likely’ warming scenario.
DS
* the searching is called ‘selection bias’ and the finding is called ‘confirmation bias’.
All it says to me is that some level of warming and sea level rise will happen even if the population doesn’t grow.
Yes.
There is ~.5ºC warming in the ‘pipeline’. Regardless of our actions, because of our past actions.
The issue is whether we continue to put energy into the system to further increase warming.
DS
Dan, OT, any suggestions on stats for additions to MSA housing stock through renovation? Do you know if/how the American Housing Survey deals with it?
t g:
are you talking percentage replacement via aging stock (infill)?
DS
Dan,
I’m interested in how to best account for the number and quality of home renovation in the housing stock.
Specifically I’m looking at the distribution of home stock for each value bracket over time.
All else equal, if there is significant renovation activity in a region, the stock of low value homes will be reduced and the stock of higher values homes will be increased over time. Any thoughts on the best indicator for that?
t g:
AFAIK this is not aggregated at the national level. I used to do this analysis in WA from county-level data via GIS [.dbf files, readable in Excel].
Your indicator is ‘Assessed Value’ or ‘Taxable Value’, and depending upon the data owner, you’ll likely have a label (column title) something like ‘land value’ and ‘assessed value’ and the difference is the ‘house value’, which may be a field calculation and a column or not; my county used the labels ‘land’, ‘improvement’ (house value) and ‘taxable value’ (land+house), an AK dataset I have uses ‘bldg’ and ‘land’. When your ‘house’ is less than the ‘land’, that’s when it is ripe for redev. When ‘taxable’ and ‘land’ are the same, vacant parcel. Developers look for ‘house’ < ‘land’ for their planning.
Trends over time? You’ll likely have to search the literature for an author who has crunched these numbers – Chuck Nelson does this sort of work, Gyuorko maybe.
HTH.
DS
Appreciate it. Lots of help.
There might be something out there – for Realtors or developers – for ‘distressed’ homes (value lower than land), but again this is analysis at the parcel level and a lot of work – and counties don’t like to give out Assessor data together with Parcel ID in bulk for privacy reasons. So it may be a report for a fee.
DS
Back OT,
So we already know the planet is warming, so the premise of this post is false.
So we are back to, as Frank linked above, how much warming there is in the pipeline + whatever action we fail to take to reduce energy input to the system. There is onus on individuals for this: will we reduce consumption? What will this do to an economy that is dependent upon consumption (vs production)?
DS
“It appears to me… on one side.. we’ve wasted some money but no real harm done… on the other side… civilization as we know it goes away….”
I have a buddy from college that ended up marrying a girl that we all knew and too many of us had more than a few one night stands. That in itself isn’t a big deal but we could never figure out what he had in common with her. They’re still married but arguably never really been happy. How did he get there? My best Dr. Phil guess is this same sort of thinking —> If he doesn’t marry her, he’ll never find another woman to marry. And at that what’s the harm in doing it, right?
Well, it’s all the things he could’ve done. The same with the resources put into it. If you’re wrong, and chances are that man is not causing any of the current warming (note, not a single climate model has correctly predicted the near future climate – not wx but climate – let alone been successfully back tested), let alone if man is causing any warming that it leads to anything serious anytime soon, then you forgo addressing very serious problems today that have huge impacts on people who are alive today. That is still a billion people on this earth go hungry every day, more than that go without clean drinking water, most still don’t have sanitary means for dealing with human waste; there is HIV/AIDS, hepitits C, all sorts of cancers that we barely detect very well in advance let alone actually able to cure or prevent, another 800 million people that are illiterate let alone educated well enough to perform skilled labor; a-holes in power in Zimbabwe, Sudan and other countries; an entire generation has grown up in Somalia without a government; North Korea will likely continue to have famines that need to be addressed; etc, etc, etc. There are a butt ton of problems that need to be addressed of which many wouldn’t take very much in terms of resources to address. It’s about priorities and probabilities. Far too often the issue is approached as black and white.
Anyone wanting to keep up with the play (and most of the comments so far are based on old information) should take a moment to look at these two links (if the links don’t work just copy and paste the URLs):
This one from NASA explains the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO):
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
This second one from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) describes the PDO two days ago on Christmas Day:
http://www.osdpd. noaa.gov/ PSB/EPS/SST/ data/anomnight. 12.25.2008. gif
The US friend who sent me the second one commented:
Satellite image shows the PDO is back. We’re in for several decades of
cooler climate. Note the horseshoe shape of cold water in the Pacific
northeast. Gore must be crying in his beer at the lost revenue from his
carbon capping scam.
Chilling, eh?
And those of who talk about managing the risk of warming should give more thought to managing the risk of cooling. The Warm periods of the recent past (The Minoan warm period, the Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period) were all periods when civilisations blossomed and populations grew. The Little Ice Age that followed the Medieval Warm Period was a disaster.
So while I take some satisfaction at the warming alarmists being challenged by recent observations I take no comfort from the prospect of several decades of cooling.
And yes Carbon Dioxide is a GHG but a minor one. And it’s effect falls away with increasing concentrations rather like painting a window. The first coat has a large effect but subsequent coats have less and less. Water in the form of water vapour and clouds is far and away the most important greenhouse gas. Most of know that a cloudy winter’s night will be several degrees warmer than a cloud free winter’s night. (the cloud blanket effect). On the other hand temperatures near the sea are less extreme than inland – the humidity effect. The change in night temperatures from one day to the next are major (several degrees or more) while we struggle to measure any effect from increased carbon dioxide. Indeed long term proxy measurements show that carbon dioxide increases follow increased temperatures rather than precede them. Not many people believe that cancer causes smoking.
Owen, thanks for the article on the PDO. I particularly liked the concluding paragraph:
“Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.—
t.g.,
When translated from officialese into English this appears to mean:
“We haven’t a clue but we pretend we do.”
Many of us predicted that if the AGW theory proved to be just another scare to add to all the previous ones the anti civilisation brigade would find another reason to demonise carbon dioxide and hence continue to wage war on the use of fossil fuels especially by developing nations trying to take their place in the sun.
It hasn’t taken long. We are getting increasing numbers of press releases and panic claims about the acidification of the oceans from the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. (which assumes an optimum).
Apparently the coral reefs will die – again. They were going to drown because of rising seas but of course they rise and fall to match the sea level which is why they have been around so long.
First the pH of the oceans is not constant but varies from place to place. So if the average pH falls then some places depart further from the average while others mover closer to it. Any effects will be site dependent.
BUT, here is the characteristic signature of the Alarmist. They talk of the acidification of the oceans which implies the oceans are turning acid and naturally more acidity is bad. Drinking battery acid is not good for your health.
But in reality the oceans are alkaline – i.e. their pH is higher than 7.0 which is neutral.
Seawater typically varies from pH 7.5 to 8.5, with an average around 8 (7.8
to be pedantic). This means that the oceans are alkaline. Surface waters
(warm) have a pH closer to 8.5, and deep waters (cold) have a pH closer to
7.5.
Due to the chemical reactions that occur, seawater is heavily buffered. This
means that it is difficult to permanently change the pH by adding acids or
bases. However, there are localised variations. At the surface these are due
to temperature changes and biological activity, and at depth they are
controlled by pressure and advection (movement of water with varying
concentrations of dissolved gases).
The correct term for what they claim is going on is the reduced alkinity of the ocean – not the increased acidity. Go to the chemicals which control your spa pool and you will find their labels are correct. They talk of pH decreases and alkilinity increasers.
Even Wikipedia acknowledges this when it says: Note that, although the ocean is acidifying, its pH is still greater than 7 (that of neutral water), so the ocean could also be described as becoming less alkaline.
This is serious corruption of scientific language by these new wave alarmists – but what would you expect?
Owen,
corals are dying due to acidification.
Is there anything else you want to argue from ignorance about?
DS
How can moving towards neutrality be described acidification?
Which corals, where and at what rate?
This is a highly contentious area of debate.
IT is hard to find agreement on whether they are dying or not, and if they are then what is causing it,
and why they have spurts and declines.
One thing we do know is that they have been around a long time and during that time different areas of the ocean have had much wider variations in atmospheric concentrations that we are witnessing now – so how come they are still around?
A bit like the polar bears – they obviously don’t exist, because they must have died out in previous warm periods. Someone is making them up.
Please Owen.
You are blatantly ignorant about this issue.
o Corals have adapted to conditions of a particular pH in the recent past. 100 MYA means squat. You may want to take an intro Biology class so you can understand adaptation.
o And the ocean is acidifying because of the addition of H+ ions, which pushes the pH closer to 1. Don’t let it being over 7 confuse you. An intro Chem class will explain this for you.
Or maybe you have a manuscript ready to go to correct the hundreds of marine scientists who are studying and publishing on this issue? If so, you owe it to the world to correct these poor, misguided scientists. Or is it “scientists”?
DS
In case anyone is confused about the corals and acidification issue, here: [ 1. *, 2. , 3. , 4. , ].
But whoya gonna believe? Some guy, or a long line of people doing the work for a living, over generations?
DS
* http://tinyurl.com/8tgov4