Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Global Warming Delusions

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 100 posts

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#41

Post by robotrout »

baguasquirrel wrote: post #39
TomOfTTB wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No offense but I think you're missing the point. The author is not trying to paint an all-positive view of Global Warming he's trying to counter the arguments that claim it will be the end of the world. The problem with GW right now is it's a political football. The left wants to paint the right as irresponsible so they make catastrophic predictions. The right wants to paint the left as alarmist so they deny it outri…

Define "end of the world". The problem indeed is that we don't have computer models accurate enough to predict what will happen. A change of half a degree over the next hundred years isn't too worrying. But a change of 2.5 degrees shifts the wheat belt into Canada. The author is right on that it isn't the end of the world, per se, but he dodges the question of what small changes will do to our civilizations, by frami…

I appreciate your concession that 0.5 deg isn't worrying. I wonder about your 2.5 degree "wheat belt" statement, though.

As somebody who has personally worked on wheat farms in Texas and in Alberta, (these two places, as you may know, have a wide temperature variation between them) I have to say the science behind this statement seems already empirically refuted.

I would submit to you that any extra wheat production you may see in the central US is due to topographical (it's flat), nutritional (good soil), and cultural (daddy was a wheat farmer) influences, more than any propensity of wheat for that exact temperature, as evidenced by the successful wheat farming americans and canadians from Texas to central Alberta)

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#42

Post by Retric »

slackerIII wrote: post #27
Retric wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The several orders of magnitude difference between the value of stuff built near sea level vs the cost of global trade suggest one will not pay for the other. But there are more in depth analysis out there.

Humanity has frequently built dams/drainage systems for several orders of magnitude less money than the value of the items protected by the dam/ drainage systems.

You need to add in failures, like the flooding of the new york subway system, and Katrina etc. Over time we don't keep things 99.9% safe over 100 years so it's not actually several orders of magnitude cheaper. Which is part of why I suggest you read a real analysis of the costs of sea level rise in 1 foot increments.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#43

Post by robotrout »

Alex3917 wrote: post #40
robotrout wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, at least you called it CO2. One point up for using it's actual name, instead of that dirty word, "carbon" that has caught on so strongly lately. Why "intellectually dishonest"? What does that even mean? If somebody argues a point that you don't agree with, it's "intellectually dishonest"? You've already defined the game so much to your benefit, and we're playing it to your rules. When you ignore water vapor, we…

I never claimed there couldn't be benefits of global warming. Certainly there will be benefits as well as drawbacks. But the thesis of the article is that the evidence of the serious consequences of global warming is quite thin. Saying that there will be benefits of global warming doesn't support that thesis; when people say the consequences of global warming will be severe, they are already taking into account the b…

> They are already taking into account the benefits.

Really? Are you sure? What people?

I'd love to read the papers (probably in economics journals, I assume) that did this analysis, as such an analysis would surely be well worth my time to read. The few economists I'm aware of discussing this, caution that it is not worth the money that GW advocates are proposing pouring down this rat hole. Do you have any papers that you can point me to?

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#44

Post by GavinB »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #29
david927 wrote: post #20

The plural of anecdote is not data. And that's what this article presented: don't be afraid of global warming because I could tell you stories about how it's not so bad. There are many problems the author unfortunately omits. Arctic sea shelves collapse? The ocean rises and millions if not billions may be displaced. How's that for an anecdote.

No offense but I think you're missing the point. The author is not trying to paint an all-positive view of Global Warming he's trying to counter the arguments that claim it will be the end of the world. The problem with GW right now is it's a political football. The left wants to paint the right as irresponsible so they make catastrophic predictions. The right wants to paint the left as alarmist so they deny it outri…

The problem is that he's really not saying anything of substance. He makes an appeal to rationality and then proceeds on a disorganized discussion that doesn't come to any useful conclusion.

Botkin says "We are told that the melting of the arctic ice will be a disaster." Then he seems to be trying to refute this passage by saying that a warmer climate worked out great for the vikings. He doesn't attempt any sort of analysis of what the real-world effects of change in sea-level would be.

Botkin may have something worth saying, but he needs an editor to help him focus in on clearly stating and backing up the points that he wants to make.

All I can get from this is that he wants people to stop the panic because, hey, there might be some benefits from a warmer climate.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#45

Post by quoderat »

Of course, the real danger of climate change is carbon dioxide leading to the buildup of hydrogen sulfide in the oceans (thus killing them, and about everything on land):

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031104063957.ht...

No one seems to know about this, but it's a far more probable -- even extremely likely threat -- given what we know right now.

Also: http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/03/peter_...

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#46

Post by TomOfTTB »

baguasquirrel wrote: post #39
TomOfTTB wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No offense but I think you're missing the point. The author is not trying to paint an all-positive view of Global Warming he's trying to counter the arguments that claim it will be the end of the world. The problem with GW right now is it's a political football. The left wants to paint the right as irresponsible so they make catastrophic predictions. The right wants to paint the left as alarmist so they deny it outri…

Define "end of the world". The problem indeed is that we don't have computer models accurate enough to predict what will happen. A change of half a degree over the next hundred years isn't too worrying. But a change of 2.5 degrees shifts the wheat belt into Canada. The author is right on that it isn't the end of the world, per se, but he dodges the question of what small changes will do to our civilizations, by frami…

I really was trying to stay out of the GW argument specifically. My intent in the response above was just to point out that the WSJ author seems to be assuming people already know the negative side. So it wasn't that he was painting a rosy picture it's just that he was trying to provide supplemental information to what people have already heard.

That said, if you're curious, my problem with GW has always been the focus on the cause and not the effect. I don't have a problem with us trying to do everything we can not to change Earth's enviornment. In general I think it's a good idea for humans to make as little an impact on nature as we can in going about our day.

But at the same time it's a proven fact that our planet makes dramatic shifts in it's climate even without our influence (Ice Age for example). So the reality is climate change is coming whether we cause it or not.

Beyond that GW is not proven beyond a doubt so if it happens not to be true we'll have spent all our time trying to stop causing something that we were never causing in the first place.

So basically my opinion on GW has always been that, since we know climate change is coming no matter what, humanity should work on preparing itself for climate change's effects regardless of who or what causes it.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#47

Post by calambrac »

robotrout wrote: post #28
Alex3917 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A little skeptical? That's just about the most intellectually dishonest argument I could imagine. Although to be fair, I think the CEIC ads saying that humans breathe out CO2 so it must be good for the earth probably have Botkin beat.

Well, at least you called it CO2. One point up for using it's actual name, instead of that dirty word, "carbon" that has caught on so strongly lately. Why "intellectually dishonest"? What does that even mean? If somebody argues a point that you don't agree with, it's "intellectually dishonest"? You've already defined the game so much to your benefit, and we're playing it to your rules. When you ignore water vapor, we…

There might be benefits to a warmer climate. Fine. If we were just simply facing natural global warming (and maybe we are, I'm no expert), I'd say "lemonade from lemons" and all that.

I tend to come down on the side of action to stop possible human contribution to global warming, though. One reason is simply fear of the unknown - there might be benefits, but we're doing alright now, and that isn't really a knob I feel like needs to be tweaked just to see what happens.

But another far more important reason for me is that it seems like the actions needed to stop the possible human contribution to global warming are Good Things whether they're actually causing that particular problem or not. Spewing less crap into the air? Sounds great. More energy efficient cars/trucks/devices/appliances? Sounds great. Paying attention to energy costs expended on lighting, and as a side effect maybe getting to see stars in the sky over a city sometime? Awesome.

I always wonder about the people who say we shouldn't take action. Because it's too expensive? That seems to miss the basic observation that the economy exists to serve the wants and needs of the people within it, not the other way around - if people decide this is something they value, that they want to work on, the economics will work out. I really think its something more basic, the traditional dichotomy between the personal and the common. Or maybe it really is just a cynical response from people in a current position of comfort who see what they're doing right now as threatened by any changes that need to be made.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#48

Post by david927 »

robotrout wrote: post #33
david927 wrote: post #20

The plural of anecdote is not data. And that's what this article presented: don't be afraid of global warming because I could tell you stories about how it's not so bad. There are many problems the author unfortunately omits. Arctic sea shelves collapse? The ocean rises and millions if not billions may be displaced. How's that for an anecdote.

Oh, I'm sure it's billions of people! I mean, why not, right? If you're going to pull numbers out of the air, it seems reasonable that they be large ones! I bet you're right and 1/3rd of the population of the earth will be displaced. (Or were there more billions than just 2 in your scenario?) You should know that even the most computationally challenged "climate modelers" don't claim this will happen quickly. It woul…

The number 'billions' depends on how high the water rises. Bangladesh and Indonesia alone are 400 million whose population are at risk.

>the most computationally challenged "climate modelers" don't claim this will happen quickly

The most crazy/aggressive models from the 1970's said we would lose half the Arctic sea ice by 2050. We hit that point two years ago. If multiple sea shelves collapse, it will indeed come as a tidal wave. We don't know what will happen but we don't have the luxury to be confident that nothing will surprise us.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#49

Post by [deleted] »

robotrout wrote: post #41
baguasquirrel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define "end of the world". The problem indeed is that we don't have computer models accurate enough to predict what will happen. A change of half a degree over the next hundred years isn't too worrying. But a change of 2.5 degrees shifts the wheat belt into Canada. The author is right on that it isn't the end of the world, per se, but he dodges the question of what small changes will do to our civilizations, by frami…

I appreciate your concession that 0.5 deg isn't worrying. I wonder about your 2.5 degree "wheat belt" statement, though. As somebody who has personally worked on wheat farms in Texas and in Alberta, (these two places, as you may know, have a wide temperature variation between them) I have to say the science behind this statement seems already empirically refuted. I would submit to you that any extra wheat production…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN