ray

It's always good to not be on the same side of the issue as Ricky. He has a way of undercutting his own arguments.

And how am I under cutting my argument by pointing to the effects of storm surge? Is it the simplistic notion that, "we've always had weather events?"
The fact is that, yes, there have always been severe weather that creartes storm surges and waves. Lisbon was destroyed about 1580 for instance... Anchorage Alaska heavily damaged in the fifties... New Jersey and new York not many months ago suffered severe damage.
The point about the atmosphere warming and the oceans both warming and growing in size is that both reactions create the potential for larger storms and greater wave action. Meaning that severe weather events are going to happen with greater frequency.
Pointing to the damage a "once in two hundred years event" like Gavelston and asking you to consider what life is like on the coast lines when these events are happening once a decade ...
doesn't undercut my argument. It should illustrate that the potential changes aren't losing a foot or two of beach. Its the damage that comes when the storm surge reaches 40 to 100 feet further inland.

ray

I suppose you are saying that much of the state has an elevation of less than 6 feet.)

Of course. In terms of where Floridians live ....
The US Army Engineering Corp have done a study of the probable effects of increasing storm surge to coastal areas
S

ea-level rise is a strategic concern, with the potential to change familiar waterways and coastal geography. Rising seas could threaten many U.S. naval bases; one study released by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2013 revealed that a 1.5-foot to 3-foot rise in sea levels by 2050 would leave the vital Norfolk Naval Station—the world’s largest naval base — vulnerable to flooding from big storms, possibly swamping it for days. A 2011 report by the National Research Council estimated that $100 billion of U.S. Navy infrastructure would be at risk from a sea-level rise of 1 meter or more. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration projects a sea level rise of 0.5 to 2 meters by 2100.
Navy officials are using this information to guide the planning and construction of future ports and renovation projects. The Navy would also face other challenges in a warmer world; for example, melting Arctic ice means that the Navy would require greater capabilities to patrol and protect U.S. interests in the region, all in a time of shrinking budgets. Of course, in the case of some navies, global warming could actually be a boon, opening up northern ports that are normally icebound for much of the year.

Many coastal areas in the U.S. are already seeing the reality of sea-level rise and accelerating beach erosion. A 2009 report published by the Florida Oceans and Coastal Council found that rising seas would mean more than just flooding and erosion issues; it would also have a negative impact on coastal water supplies, wastewater treatment and forest ecologies. Mayors of coastal cities are sounding the alarm: in late 2013 in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia — which has experienced the highest rate of sea-level rise on the East Coast — Virginia Beach Mayor Will Sessoms spoke at a conference, “Adaptive Planning for Flooding and Coastal Change.” Sessoms told the bipartisan audience, “The time to act is now … we cannot afford to do nothing.”

Many cities face an uphill economic battle in preparing for rising sea levels, as billions of dollars will be required to invest in moving and/or protecting vital infrastructure. A 2013 report by the New York Academy of Sciences estimated that New York City alone might need to spend $24 billion to create buffer zones and storm-surge barriers to protect against future damage from storms similar to hurricanes Irene and Sandy.

s http://www.climatecentral.org/news/u.s. ... rise-17428

Climate Central’s enhanced analysis paints a much more detailed pictured for completed states. For example, more than 32,000 miles of road and $950 billion of property currently sit on affected land in Florida. Threatened property in New York and New Jersey totals more than $300 billion. And New England states all face important risks.

The predicted sea level rise will take a long time to unfold. The numbers listed here do not represent immediate or literal threats. Under any circumstances, coastal populations and economies will reshape themselves over time. But the new research on West Antarctic Ice Sheet decay — and the amount of humanity in the restless ocean’s way — point to unrelenting centuries of defense, retreat, and reimagination of life along our coasts.

Ray Jay wrote:Freeman:

but the key issue is whether higher carbon dioxide concentrations cause, all other things being equal, higher temperatures on earth. Once that is established then to do nothing is to simply hope that the timer on the ticking bomb is a very long one...and somehow in the future we will figure out how to defuse it...

Consider me nervous, especially with the latest info on Antarctica ice loss.

I posted (subsequent to rickyp) that there has been an unprecedented INCREASE in Antarctic ice. Even the AGW crowd acknowledges it.

It does serve as a reminder, however, that while the planet is warming overall, largely due to human emissions of greenhouse gases, the complexity of the climate system guarantees that the changes to come won’t unfold in a completely straightforward way.

They don't understand why. They posit theories about it. Again, I think we should be hesitant to jump off a cliff just because some government-funded scientists tell us to do so.

I would recommend a small carbon tax with some of the revenue circulating back to lower and middle income taxpayers who would be challenged paying the tax.

There are several reasons not to like this. First, government is looking for more ways to tax carbon as it is. CA is looking at a mileage tax. The President wants to increase taxes on gasoline. Here a tax, there a tax, everywhere a tax-tax.

Second, you propose "devot[ing] much of the revenue to scientific research on solar, wind, nuclear, carbon sequestration, geothermal and better understanding feedback effects." I've no confidence in government to do anything but waste money. How long have we been underwriting research on solar, wind, and nuclear? Yet, the only one that is economically viable is stymied at every turn.

. . . I would stay away from the ridiculously complicated cap and trade regime that Obama has suggested.

Amen.

There's a lot of ground between alarmism and denial. .

I think there are still many unknowns. As long as that is the case, we won't be able to get a planet-wide assent to more stringent measures, making draconian steps here pretty much pointless.

fate

I posted (subsequent to rickyp) that there has been an unprecedented INCREASE in Antarctic ice

You did. from the article you quote.

That doesn’t contradict the idea of global warming — for one thing, the growth is very slow compared with ice loss in the Arctic — but it’s still a scientific mystery that scientists want to understand.

And the original news article posted makes it clear that the danger is that the large Antarctic glaciers are the major problem for rising seas. Right now they are anchored on land.
Besides the article also acknowledged the issue you raise as if it was new to the discussion.

Climate change studies show Antarctica is a complicated continent in how it reacts. For example, just last month Antarctic sea ice levels — not the ice on the continent — reached a record in how far they extended. That has little or no relation to the larger more crucial ice sheet, Scambos and other scientists say.

fate

I've no confidence in government to do anything but waste money. How long have we been underwriting research on solar, wind, and nuclear?

Or stuff like the development of the computer, radar, the internet, frakking,
Nuclear energy has to over come the problems that the Fukishima disaster highlighted. Perhaps government invest in thorium would solve the nuclear and clean energy problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-ba ... lear_power

As of 2012, renewable energy accounts for almost half of new nameplate electrical capacity installed and costs are continuing to fall.[7] Public policy and political leadership helps to "level the playing field" and drive the wider acceptance of renewable energy technologies.[8] As of 2011, 118 countries have targets for their own renewable energy futures, and have enacted wide-ranging public policies to promote renewables.[4][9] Climate change concerns[10][11][12] are driving increasing growth in the renewable energy industries.[13][14][15] Leading renewable energy companies include BrightSource Energy, First Solar, Gamesa, GE Energy, Goldwind, Sinovel, Suntech, Trina Solar, Vestas and Yingli.[16]

Renewable energies, also have the very significant benefit of providing energy security to nations that have been energy importers in the past .... That is very important when considering how energy disruption can create political problems and economic calamity. (Like in the Ukraine right now, or in the US response to middle east politics because of the importance of Arab oil)

rickyp wrote:Renewable energies, also have the very significant benefit of providing energy security to nations that have been energy importers in the past .... That is very important when considering how energy disruption can create political problems and economic calamity. (Like in the Ukraine right now, or in the US response to middle east politics because of the importance of Arab oil)

Right, because "renewable" energy is economically feasible. That's why the government underwrites it like crazy--because it's so cheap!

Oh, what? It's not?

This is the problem: liberals want "renewable" energy, which is many times more expensive than carbon-based energy. They insist we have to do this or we will all drown and/or be burned alive by the Sun. So, they propose to tax us to pay for "renewable" energy while they keep hyping AGW. I think a minister of the French government said recently we have 10 years to save the planet. It's time to panic, people!

Except: solar and wind have many problems. If they didn't, they would be commercially viable. Nuclear, solar, and wind projects have all faced major political hurdles from . . . the LEFT in this country. It seems they can't make up their minds--they are for alternative energy, then they stop it from actually being used.

Meanwhile, they continue to try and tax and regulate coal out of existence. They also want us to pay for research they will not permit to be implemented.

We, the country with more energy resources than any other, are going to face energy shortages because our government is so dumb and so conflicted.

Rail on.

I'm going to invest in life boats.

Ray Jay wrote:I usually do ... are you feeling neglected?

Meh. I responded directly to your points, and agreed in part with you.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:I usually do ... are you feeling neglected?

Meh. I responded directly to your points, and agreed in part with you.

and I appreciated your posts and agree to a certain extent... I just didn't have anything in particular to say in response.

P.S. what does Meh mean?

Interesting. From what I can tell from a google search "meh" is used as an indication of indifference or boredom. But around these forums (DF uses it quite a bit) it seems to mean exasperation. But I could very well be wrong.

I meant it as indifference (not boredom).

freeman3 wrote:Interesting. From what I can tell from a google search "meh" is used as an indication of indifference or boredom. But around these forums (DF uses it quite a bit) it seems to mean exasperation. But I could very well be wrong.

One man's exasperation is another man's indifference.

Dr. Fate:

I've no confidence in government to do anything but waste money.

Although I'm no fan of big government, it does have a role when it comes to externalities. There's no market mechanism to limit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses. Whereas I have full confidence that we will never run out of energy because of human ingenuity, I do not have confidence that we can manage the pollution (externality) without a government role.

There has to be a cost associated with carbon for businesses to worry about it. Although the gas tax accomplishes some of that, as it is currently formulated, it pays for roads and bridges. That's why airplanes and agriculture enjoy certain exemptions. However, there is an environmental cost -- and perhaps an extremely large one -- that needs to be managed.

No doubt Ricky exaggerates government successes when he talks about the internet. However, the Manhattan Project and the Moon landing are clearly government successes. There was no private sector ability or motivation to do that. Similarly a venture capitalist will not invest $100 million in carbon sequestration techniques because there is not an expected payout (since we haven't priced carbon).

Government expenditure on research based on a 10 to 25 year time horizon makes sense. I contrast that with the billions that Bush (ethanol) and Obama have funneled to alternative energy cronies that are not considered good investments by the private sector.

Ray Jay wrote:Dr. Fate:

I've no confidence in government to do anything but waste money.

Although I'm no fan of big government, it does have a role when it comes to externalities. There's no market mechanism to limit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses.

Historically high prices and taxes are doing a fairly good job, imnsho.

Whereas I have full confidence that we will never run out of energy because of human ingenuity, I do not have confidence that we can manage the pollution (externality) without a government role.

I would argue we do a lot less polluting now than we did 30 or 40 years ago. The question is how far can we push it now? We already have innumerable zero-emission and low-emission cars. Now, the government is trying to (through regulation) eradicate our use of coal. I think it's going too far and is hindering the economy and hurting the lower class.

Now, the President keeps trying to spend on infrastructure (forget that he's simultaneously patting himself on the back for the recovery). Here's a couple of projects that should have been begun during the "Stimulus": putting power lines underground, particularly in the Northeast, and extending natural gas lines to the Northeast to lower our use of heating oil.

There has to be a cost associated with carbon for businesses to worry about it. Although the gas tax accomplishes some of that, as it is currently formulated, it pays for roads and bridges. That's why airplanes and agriculture enjoy certain exemptions. However, there is an environmental cost -- and perhaps an extremely large one -- that needs to be managed.

No doubt Ricky exaggerates government successes when he talks about the internet. However, the Manhattan Project and the Moon landing are clearly government successes.

Indeed, but if we talk about government waste it would dwarf its successes. Trillions poured into the war on poverty, education, etc.

There was no private sector ability or motivation to do that. Similarly a venture capitalist will not invest $100 million in carbon sequestration techniques because there is not an expected payout (since we haven't priced carbon).

If that's all it is, I'm fine with it. I don't want to invest in more debacles like Solyndra. The government should fund investment into better energy research, not into companies that may/may not make it.

Government expenditure on research based on a 10 to 25 year time horizon makes sense. I contrast that with the billions that Bush (ethanol) and Obama have funneled to alternative energy cronies that are not considered good investments by the private sector.

We agree.

I remain of the opinion that the next great "age" of mankind will be spawned by free, or nearly free, energy. What form that will take, I have no idea. However, I am certain it won't be the current level of solar panels or windmills. It's more likely to be something either non-discovered or non-existent (as in "yet to be created").

I must say it's peculiar to find myself mostly in agreement with Steve. I say mostly because I do more or less accept the general consensus that fossil fuel burning is causing climate change, which so far as I can tell Steve doesn't accept, but nevertheless I fully agree that current political strategies to respond to that are completely insane.

Fact is that 'the science' is not as settled as people make out. By that I mean that we really don't know what the likely effects of climate change are going to be, or over what timescale. We also don't know how soon it is before we're going to see a revolutionary breakthrough in energy generation which will free us from reliance on fossil fuels. Finally, we don't know whether any efforts to mitigate carbon emissions will make a difference. That's a lot of very significant unknowns.

So what do we know ? Well, we know that renewables are much more expensive than fossil fuels and also much more unreliable. We know that the one overriding factor above all others that drives economic growth and prosperity is the cost of energy. It's true that one more thing we know is the fact that fossil fuels are finite and can't be relied on forever, but at the same time we also know that it will require massive investment in R&D and then even more massive investment in infrastructure if we're ever going to replace them as our main energy source. For this investment we're going to need to be propserous. In order to be prosperous we're going to need access to affordable energy. I personally think our need for energy in the short term trumps the perceived need to cut down on carbon emissions in the short term. The two needn't be contradictory goals in any case. America is pretty much the only major economy to have cut carbon emissions in recent years and it hasn't done that by moving to renewables, it's done it by the move to gas from highly polluting coal as an interim measure.

The green lobby is way too dogmatic in my view. They endlessly harp on about the need to cut emissions and yet at the same time refuse to countenance the two forms of energy we currently have (gas and nuclear) which have proven to be most successful in effecting a cut in carbon. I'm very reluctant to see my bills spiral out of control and see thousands of jobs disappear from my country to more lax regimes so we can be sacrificed on the altar of 'sustainability'. If current renewables are the best that's on offer then it's only sustainable at a much lower standard of living for everybody. Screw that, we should be more ambitious. Humanity is a hugely creative and adaptive species. We've conquered nature before and we can do it again. The solution to climate change is not to settle for all being poorer it's to harness that creativity and find real solutions that will make us all richer. I'm confident in our ability to make this happen, but it won't happen if we shackle our economy with a reliance on yesterday's technology and drive up energy costs so much that all of our jobs get exported to China.

Sassenach wrote:I must say it's peculiar to find myself mostly in agreement with Steve. I say mostly because I do more or less accept the general consensus that fossil fuel burning is causing climate change, which so far as I can tell Steve doesn't accept, but nevertheless I fully agree that current political strategies to respond to that are completely insane.

Fact is that 'the science' is not as settled as people make out. By that I mean that we really don't know what the likely effects of climate change are going to be, or over what timescale. We also don't know how soon it is before we're going to see a revolutionary breakthrough in energy generation which will free us from reliance on fossil fuels. Finally, we don't know whether any efforts to mitigate carbon emissions will make a difference. That's a lot of very significant unknowns.

So what do we know ? Well, we know that renewables are much more expensive than fossil fuels and also much more unreliable. We know that the one overriding factor above all others that drives economic growth and prosperity is the cost of energy. It's true that one more thing we know is the fact that fossil fuels are finite and can't be relied on forever, but at the same time we also know that it will require massive investment in R&D and then even more massive investment in infrastructure if we're ever going to replace them as our main energy source. For this investment we're going to need to be propserous. In order to be prosperous we're going to need access to affordable energy. I personally think our need for energy in the short term trumps the perceived need to cut down on carbon emissions in the short term. The two needn't be contradictory goals in any case. America is pretty much the only major economy to have cut carbon emissions in recent years and it hasn't done that by moving to renewables, it's done it by the move to gas from highly polluting coal as an interim measure.

The green lobby is way too dogmatic in my view. They endlessly harp on about the need to cut emissions and yet at the same time refuse to countenance the two forms of energy we currently have (gas and nuclear) which have proven to be most successful in effecting a cut in carbon. I'm very reluctant to see my bills spiral out of control and see thousands of jobs disappear from my country to more lax regimes so we can be sacrificed on the altar of 'sustainability'. If current renewables are the best that's on offer then it's only sustainable at a much lower standard of living for everybody. Screw that, we should be more ambitious. Humanity is a hugely creative and adaptive species. We've conquered nature before and we can do it again. The solution to climate change is not to settle for all being poorer it's to harness that creativity and find real solutions that will make us all richer. I'm confident in our ability to make this happen, but it won't happen if we shackle our economy with a reliance on yesterday's technology and drive up energy costs so much that all of our jobs get exported to China.

Beyond just saying, "Amen," let me go my own route just a bit. I think we (the US) should seek to exploit our energy reserves in ways that we are not now. If we drove prices down, we could then put modest taxes on consumption without harming the economy. This taxation would go into the most promising "breakthrough" research, NOT to the forms of energy that have been around for decades or centuries (wind) and have not proven cost-effective.

The green lobby is as zealous as any religion and is verging on a Malthusian (technically, I guess it's a Neo-Malthusian) worldview, if it hasn't already arrived there. We need optimism and innovation.

We can solve this. I am less afraid of "Water World" than I am of "1984."

This is a different take on a story I posted the other day:

Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night.

In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”.

Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of the authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published. “The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,” he added.

Professor Bengtsson’s paper challenged the finding of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double. It suggested that the climate might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out “to reduce the underlying uncertainty”.

The five contributing scientists, from America and Sweden, submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters, one of the most highly regarded journals, at the end of last year but were told in February that it had been rejected.

A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process wrote that he strongly advised against publishing it because it was “less than helpful”. The unnamed scientist concluded: “Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate sceptics media side.”

Professor Bengtsson resigned from the advisory board of Lord Lawson of Blaby’s climate sceptic think-tank this week after being subjected to what he described as McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics. . .

Professor Bengtsson, the former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, said he accepted that emissions would increase the global average temperature but the key question was how quickly.

He added that it was “utterly unacceptable” to advise against publishing a paper on the ground that the findings might be used by climate sceptics to advance their arguments. “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models. Therefore, if people are proposing to do major changes to the world’s economic system we must have much more solid information.”

I think this summarizes the political slant of science today:

What makes the Bengtsson case somewhat unusual is his high profile. A Director at ECMWF. Then Max Planck Institute. He was at ECMWF when that organization became the top weather forecasting center in the world. He knows the importance of models providing good forecasts, with demonstrable skill — exactly what the climate models do not yet provide.

That climate models do NOT provide good forecasts with demonstrable skill should concern everyone. But as Bengtsson has found out, a scientist advertises this fact at their peril.

Bengtsson has always been a little skeptical, as all good scientists should be. After all, most published science ends up being wrong anyway.

But once he became more outspoken about his skepticism, well…that’s just unacceptable for someone of his stature. That his treatment should lead him to worry about his health and his safety tells us a lot about just how politicized global warming research has become.

This bad behavior by the climate science community is nothing new. It’s been going on for at least 20 years.

I have talked to established climate scientists who are afraid to say anything about their skepticism. In hushed tones, they admit they have to skew the wording of papers and proposals to not appear to be one of those “denier” types.

I won't apologize for saying this: those who swallow the AGW thing whole have become the drones they accuse Christians of being. It is improbable that climatologists who have been a bit incorrect up to this point are suddenly going to be spot on. There are many things they can't explain.

I think this is primarily being used as a scare tactic by political extremists and now many have just accepted it as "settled science." As I've said, there is little that is settled that cannot be written down as a formula. Global Warming/Change/Chaos is not simple, is not fully grasped, and cannot be, yet it is used like the hammer of truth against anyone who dares dissent.

That is not science. It's totalitarianism.

Ah, we get to the heart of the matter. "Most published science ends up being wrong, anyway"..."there are many things they cannot explain"...
It is certainly healthy to be skeptical; it is one of the rights/ requirements of being a citizen in a democracy to be skeptical of what the powers that be are telling you. However, the anti-science bias that is manifest in a good part of the opposition to climate change is not valid in my mind. RJ and I might disagree about climate change and the methods used to address it, but at the end of the day it is just a problem to be solved and not a stand-in for larger issues. Science has ushered in the amazing progress we have seen over the past several hundred years--not religion.
The persistence of religion, in spite of scientific undercutting of its validity, is a testament that religion continues to provide things largely missing in modern society (meaning, a sense of community, shared values, solace for old age and fear of death, etc). Science will continue its search for truth instead of received truth. And it is still the best way to a better society. And while it is understandable why those that are religious would be eager to point out the limitations of science, that anti-science bias driving at least some of the climate change opposition is a cause for concern.