WSJ: Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

[weller2]

Malthus claimed this 200 years ago. Last time I checked we are still here.

Malthusian reasoning is valid assuming no technological progress.

If you go back to my post, then you’ll see that my positive scenario involves technology advances and my negative scenario doesn’t. This is because scientific advances are notoriously hard to predict – by predictions from 1950s I would have a flying car, and world would have maybe 5 computers. In reality I carry computer in my pocket, but I’m still driving around on four wheels.

Is it possible that we will innovate out of this mess? Yes. Is it certain? No.

 

[weller2]

And since there is no evidence that CO2 is a problem I say let them grow! In fact we should find a way to ship our abundant supplies of coal to them.

Ignoring the CO2… And what are you guys gonna do after you’ve already sold all of your coal for export? Go back to wooden windmills and beewax candles?

The policy you are advocating has been famously dubbed Strength through Exhaustion.

 

[gilliam]

No. It’s all about the Third World. If India, Africa, etc. follow the high-emissions path the West took, CO2 will shoot through the roof. They must be put on a path which can combine high HDI with low emissions. That, or the developed countries must cut their CO2 emissions (to accommodate the increasing Third World emissions) while maintaining HDI.

Either way, the challenge is the same.

All depends on what track they will take, which also depends on what local natural resources they have and what kind of production they go into.

China, isn’t a very sterling example right now, I’m afraid.

 

[weller2]

All depends on what track they will take, which also depends on what local natural resources they have and what kind of production they go into.

On a continental scale, resources are roughly the same everywhere… and it all comes down to energy source anyway. The logical solution would be to give these people nuclear power plants, but of course this is politically infeasible. One thing I’m praying for is that someone will finally develop an unweaponizable nuclear power source.

China, isn’t a very sterling example right now, I’m afraid.

China is a perfect example what happens when a country of 1 billion people tries to repeat Britain’s coal-fueled industrial revolution of 300 years ago: you cannot see the sun through smog. What’s happening now in China is exactly what we don’t want to be happening in Africa in 30 years.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Those temps are ‘adjusted’ and the set is incomplete with contrary data omitted.

The chart I posted was not compiled by an AGW proponent. It was a Wikipedia summary of 11 different independent sources. You could argue that one or two of them were “doctored” to favor the global warming hypothesis, but all 11? Here is link to the original article. Read the notes at the end of the posting an see if you can find a “smoking gun” that refutes all 11 data sources?

By the way, one of the reasons why temperature data is adjusted is that the data represents different gathering methods. In order to blend less accurate data from long ago with more accurate data from a few years ago, a proper amount of adjustment is the right thing to do. There is no reason to think that all adjustments are detrimental to the accuracy of the final ensemble of data, unless you had already decided ahead of time that any result that supports global warming must be corrupt.

 

[weller2]

Speaking of adjustments, this is a temperature dataset compiled by a known skeptic, with funding from Big Oil, in order to compile a dataset free of adjustments.

Guess what? It shows warming.

 

[lynnvinc]

It allows maximizing HDI while minimizing energy use and CO2 production per capita.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...n_Development_Index_per_country,_2006.svg.png

Wow, great chart.

Another way to think about China is what if it were divided up into 4 nations of equal pop size – with each being about the pop of the US – then the CO2 emissions of each of these would be about 1/4 that of the US.

But what strikes me is that there are plenty of nations with good development levels that are doing much much better than we are re emissions per capita. We are like profligate renegades who would rather burn our money with the autumn leaves than do things to reduce our profligacy.

Reminds me of an AC commercial where the family runs out into their front yard yelling to the neighborhood, “We’ve been robbed” (for not having a more efficient AC).

If only Americans could come to understand how we are robbing ourselves and others around the world and future generations by being so danged inefficient and non-conservative of energy & resources and contributing not only to AGW, but to local and regional harms and death.

 

[gilliam]

Resources are roughly the same everywhere… and it all comes down to energy source anyway. The logical solution would be to give these people nuclear power plants, but of course this is politically infeasible. One thing I’m praying for is that someone will finally develop an unweaponizable nuclear power source.

May be technically infeasible as well, unless an outside company/national runs it for them.

China is a perfect example what happens when a country of 1 billion people tries to Britain’s coal-fueled industrial revolution of 300 years ago: you cannot see the sun through smog.

true

 

[gilliam]

But what strikes me is that there are plenty of nations with good development levels that are doing much much better than we are re emissions per capita. We are like profligate renegades who would rather burn our money with the autumn leaves than do things to reduce our profligacy…

All depends on their industry (or lack thereof)

 

[JWH123]

Right. I guess it’s now “climate change” that we terrible humans have caused with our evil carbon footprints. I think I learned around 1959 that the earth’s temperature has slowly changed cyclically since the beginning.

Climate change is indeed real. It is caused by sunspots and solar flares.

Honestly, humans have some nerve pushing this man made global warming nonsense. Thinking that WE are more powerful than GOD, who is the master of the universe and all things within it.

So is it happening, yes. Is there anything human action or inaction will do to prevent it from happening, absolutely positively not.

 

[estesbob]

All depends on what track they will take, which also depends on what local natural resources they have and what kind of production they go into.

China, isn’t a very sterling example right now, I’m afraid.

The problem in China is not coal fired plants-the problem is they declined to install the equipment to clean up the emissions.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Climate change is indeed real. It is caused by sunspots and solar flares.

Honestly, humans have some nerve pushing this man made global warming nonsense. Thinking that WE are more powerful than GOD, who is the master of the universe and all things within it.

So is it happening, yes. Is there anything human action or inaction will do to prevent it from happening, absolutely positively not.

Whenever I hear this argument about how humans are so arrogant as to think they can influence the climate, I am reminded that the lowly bacteria were instrumental in bringing oxygen to our atmosphere in the first place. It is not arrogant to believe that we can be just as influential as the bacteria, is it?

 

[JWH123]

Whenever I hear this argument about how humans are so arrogant as to think they can influence the climate, I am reminded that the lowly bacteria were instrumental in bringing oxygen to our atmosphere in the first place. It is not arrogant to believe that we can be just as influential as the bacteria, is it?

Let’s keep in mind that the most radical instance of climate change in the history of the world occurred before humans inhabited the planet. It most certainly was not man-made.

By the way, the bacteria came in the first wave of God’s creation. Remember, God made everything else first, and humans were the last of His creation (saving the best for last, it seems).

 

[estesbob]

Whenever I hear this argument about how humans are so arrogant as to think they can influence the climate, I am reminded that the lowly bacteria were instrumental in bringing oxygen to our atmosphere in the first place. It is not arrogant to believe that we can be just as influential as the bacteria, is it?

And where did the lowly bacteria come from?

 

[lynnvinc]

Let’s keep in mind that the most radical instance of climate change in the history of the world occurred before humans inhabited the planet. It most certainly was not man-made…

Wow, isn’t is amazing that a condition can have more than one cause!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Let’s keep in mind that the most radical instance of climate change in the history of the world occurred before humans inhabited the planet. It most certainly was not man-made.

Of course. By why is that relevant? Are you really comfortable with the prospect of climate returning to the Eocene when it was 12 deg. C warmer than it is now? As you said, it was before humans inhabited the planet. If we returned to those temperature extremes, it is likely that humans once again would not be inhabiting the planet. Talking about ancient climate extremes as some sort of balm for worries about global warming is nonsense.

By the way, the bacteria came in the first wave of God’s creation. Remember, God made everything else first, and humans were the last of His creation (saving the best for last, it seems).

I mentioned bacteria only to point out that big changes can come from something very lowly, so it is not arrogant to think that we might be able to adversely affect the climate. The fact that bacteria appeared first does nothing to take away from that point, so I’m puzzled as to why you brought it up.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And where did the lowly bacteria come from?

As I said in my previous post, when they appeared and where they came from has no bearing on the point I made with them, which was to dispel the myth that it is arrogant to think we could adversely affect climate.

 

[estesbob]

Wow, isn’t is amazing that a condition can have more than one cause!

Which is why we should not be overly concerned about CO2 emmissions

 

[estesbob]

As I said in my previous post, when they appeared and where they came from has no bearing on the point I made with them, which was to dispel the myth that it is arrogant to think we could adversely affect climate.

we caused bacteria?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Which is why we should not be overly concerned about CO2 emmissions

The forces that were in play millions of years ago and brought about those temperature extremes are not the same forces that in play today. If God wants to bring about the end of the world by giving us the Eocene again, then there is nothing we can do about it. But if we degrade our world by actions that we should have known would have those consequences, well, we won’t be able to blame God for that.