What happened to global warming?

[stephenhawkings]

Just thought I let you know that you spelled "Valdez" wrong in your signature.

 

OK, back to the physics lesson....

its a quote of some one misspelling it so it only make sense to be accurate!

[stephenhawkings]

so is this a forum about physics? or climate?

[Catalepsy]

I think you forgot to calculate the cost of air conditioning

 

 

Florida will be under water at least it will keep the large rodent problem they have under control in Orlando. UK will get a Mediterranean climate so l am not complaining :happy feet:

 

With a Mediterranean climate in the UK, l won't need to put my gas central heating on in the winter anymore, so cutting down on massive winter heating bills & cutting my winter central heating greenhouse gases to ZERO emissions, how green is that :happy feet:

[Catalepsy]

Well...in the "Off Topic Discussion" message board's thread with the heading of "What happened to global warming?" is about global warming. Since it is a complex topic involving international politics, science, climate, and movies such as "The Day After Tomorrow" and the soon to be released "The Road," this thread includes just about everything except for delicious rice pudding recipes.

 

 

so is this a forum about physics? or climate?

[NickF1011]

this thread includes just about everything except for delicious rice pudding recipes.

 

Cooking rice pudding contributes to global warming.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

I think you forgot to calculate the cost of air conditioning

 

We won't need it, we are gong to have a more Cote d'Asur French Riviera Mediterranean climate :happy feet:

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Cooking rice pudding contributes to global warming.

 

Chinese bastards

 

Farting cows

[Catalepsy]

I forgot to mention using only wild rice and natural organic human milk, and cooked using volcanic hot springs...

 

...When I was a kid (loooong time ago), we visited this hot springs place in Taiwan...and of course, safety back then was a non-issue, and they let us put eggs into these baskets and boiled them in the hot spring! How cool was that!

 

 

 

Cooking rice pudding contributes to global warming.

[Catalepsy]

I seriously doubt in an event of a "global warming" where FL is underwater that UK will be 74...Maybe in Greenland or something...although that's probably underwater too.

 

We probably should buy ship building company stocks...

 

 

We won't need it, we are gong to have a more Cote d'Asur French Riviera Mediterranean climate :happy feet:

[sprinter]

another miscalculation

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/20/an..._overestimated/

 

The take home message is that Antarctica is contributing to rising sea levels. It is the rate that is unclear," says Ian Dalziel, lead investigator for WAGN.

 

The WAGN boffins say they are sure that recent figures for ice loss calculated from GRACE readings have been overestimated, but they are not yet sure by how much. However, they say that there is no dispute about the fact that ice is disappearing from the antarctic sheet - this process has been underway for 20,000 years, since the thickness peaked during the last "glacial maximum".

[TomServo92]

its a quote of some one misspelling it so it only make sense to be accurate!

 

Ahh. Then never mind. :shades:

[retro-man]

Wow - even Fox News admits that global warming is - unfortunately - alive and well.

[RangerM]

Not that I believe we need to worry about it, but if the goal is to reduce the temperature, why not "solve" it on the cheap?

 

The SuperFreakonomics Global-Warming Fact Quiz

By Steven D. Levitt

 

By the time you finish this blog post, you will understand why we differ from our critics in our conclusions.

 

As we write in SuperFreakonomics, there are many misconceptions about the facts surrounding global warming. Take the following true/false quiz to test your knowledge of the science, economics, and technology of global warming.

 

Global-warming science questions:

1. The Earth has gotten substantially warmer over the past 100 years.

 

TRUE / FALSE

 

2. Even if we were to immediately and permanently stabilize our carbon emissions at the current levels, or even cut these emissions substantially, climate models predict that Earth will continue to get warmer for decades.

 

TRUE / FALSE

 

3. When Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it spewed millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. Scientists believe that the haze generated by the eruption reflected some of the Sun’s light, causing the Earth’s temperature to temporarily drop as a consequence.

 

TRUE / FALSE

 

4. Because the half-life of sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere is relatively short (on the order of one year), the cooling effects of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption faded within a few years.

 

TRUE / FALSE

 

5. Dark surfaces absorb more sunlight than light surfaces. Thus, all else equal, light surfaces cause less global warming because more of the sunlight that strikes these surfaces is reflected back into space.

 

TRUE / FALSE

 

6. Clouds, which are white or gray, are lighter in color than the oceans, which are blue.

 

TRUE / FALSE

 

The correct answer to all six of these questions, we believe, is “TRUE.” You can see our chapter on global warming (pp. 165-209) and particularly the endnotes (pp. 247-256) for citations and elaboration. It is our impression that none of the six scientific statements above is at all controversial among climate scientists. I do not believe that any of our global-warming critics would quibble with any of these facts.

 

And just to be perfectly clear, despite all the bluster that has surrounded our chapter on global warming, these are the six scientific facts that are critical to our analysis of geo-engineering in that chapter, a point I will expand upon below. We document many other interesting facts in the chapter, but these are the only ones that are central to our argument.

 

It is simply not the case that criticisms of the geo-engineering solutions that we highlight in the chapter arise because we get the scientific facts wrong, unless the critics think that any of the six statements above are false.

 

So let’s move on to the economic issues surrounding global warming, and let’s see if that is where we differ from the critics in our assumptions.

 

Global warming economics questions:

1. If the Earth’s warming leads to global catastrophe, that would be a really bad outcome.

 

TRUE / FALSE

 

2. Even when there is enormous uncertainty about the likelihood of future cataclysms, it makes sense to invest now in finding ways to avoid such cataclysms.

 

TRUE / FALSE

 

3. Economists estimate that the costs of reducing carbon emissions are likely to be upwards of $1 trillion per year.

 

TRUE / FALSE

 

The correct answer to all three of these economic questions is “TRUE.” These are the three key economic facts that are critical to the arguments in our chapter. The first question doesn’t require any further explanation. The answer to the second question has been hammered home by Martin Weitzman’s work in the area, which we cite in SuperFreakonomics, as well as a newer paper that Weitzman has written. The third fact is based on the analysis of Nicholas Stern. These cost estimates are obviously highly speculative, but the true cost of reducing carbon emissions is likely to be within two orders of magnitude of this number.

 

As far as I know, none of our critics would disagree with any of these three economic facts about global warming. Indeed, Paul Krugman’s attack of our chapter largely focuses on the misconception that we do not agree with fact No. 2, when clearly we do. Somehow Krugman has come to the conclusion that we are in favor of inaction, missing the main point of the chapter, which is that we think immediate and aggressive action is warranted, in the form of investment in (or implementation of) geoengineering solutions. Perhaps Krugman does not consider those steps taking action.

 

So if there is no disagreement on either the six key scientific facts or the three key economic facts, where is the disagreement coming from?

Perhaps it is coming from a lack of agreement over technological facts.

 

Global warming technological questions:

1. There exists an engineering design that provides a means of delivering enough sulfur dioxide to the stratosphere on a continuous basis to effectively cool the Earth. The estimated cost of building and implementing this technology is a few hundred million dollars.

 

TRUE / FALSE

 

2. There exists an engineering design that provides a means of increasing oceanic cloud cover by seeding such clouds with salt-water that is sprayed into the air by a fleet of solar powered dinghies. The estimated cost of building and implementing this technology is a few hundred million dollars.

 

TRUE / FALSE

 

The answer to these questions is once again “TRUE.” As we describe in SuperFreakonomics, the Seattle-based company Intellectual Ventures has designs for both a “stratoshield” (No. 1) and the cloud-seeding project (No. 2).

 

I don’t see how the critics could argue with the answers to those two questions. They might argue that the technology won’t work as Intellectual Ventures hopes it will, but there is no arguing with the fact that Intellectual Ventures has the blueprints to try to build these contraptions, and could have them up and working within a year or two.

 

With all of this as preamble, let’s get to the fundamental question we try to answer in the chapter: If we need to cool the Earth in a hurry, what is the best way to do it?

 

Our answer to that question follows directly from the three sets of facts I presented above. Reducing carbon emissions is not a great way of cooling the Earth in a hurry for two key reasons: (1) even if we cut carbon emissions today, the Earth will continue warming for decades; and (2) reducing carbon emissions is expensive, with a price tag of at least $1 trillion per year. (There is a third problem with reducing carbon emissions, which is that it requires worldwide behavioral change, which will be hard to achieve. But even beyond that, carbon mitigation is not a great solution to the question posed above. There might be other significant benefits tor reducing carbon emissions — addressing ocean acidification, for instance.)

 

A much better approach, we conclude, is geoengineering. The scientific evidence suggests that either the stratoshield or increased oceanic clouds would have a large and immediate impact on cooling the Earth, unlike carbon-emission reductions. The cost of these solutions is trivial compared to the cost of lowering carbon emissions — literally thousands of times cheaper! Perhaps best of all, if something goes wrong and we decide we don’t like the results of the stratoshield or the oceanic clouds, we can stop the programs immediately and any effects will quickly disappear. These two geo-engineering solutions are completely reversible. Given the huge costs of global cataclysm and how cheap the solutions are, it would be crazy not to move forward with geoengineering research in order to have these solutions ready to go in case we decide we need to cool the Earth.

 

Why then, are our our conclusions so radically different from those of our critics?

 

The answer: We are answering a different question than our critics.

 

Our question, at noted above, is what is the cheapest, fastest way to quickly cool the Earth. Like every question we tackle in Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics, we approach the question like economists, using data and logic to conclude that the answer to that question is geo-engineering. Not coincidentally, almost every economist who has asked the same question has come to the same conclusion, including Martin Weitzman and the economists at the Copenhagen Consensus.

 

But that is not the question that Al Gore and the climate scientists are trying to answer. The sorts of questions they tend to ask are “What is the ‘right’ amount of carbon to emit?” or “Is it moral for this generation to put carbon into the air when future generations will pay the price?” or “What are the responsibilities of humankind to the planet?”

 

Unlike the question that we are asking -- How can we most efficiently cool the Earth fast? -- the types of questions that environmentalists are trying to answer mix together both scientific issues and moral/ethical issues. If you have any doubts about this, watch Al Gore’s movie, in which he says explicitly that reducing carbon emissions is not a political issue, but a moral issue.

 

That is why someone like Ken Caldeira can agree with the facts presented in our chapter, say that the chapter is written in good faith, but still disagree with the conclusion that geoengineering is the answer. It is because the question Ken Caldeira is trying to answer is not the question we are trying to answer. The same is true of our critics. But instead of just making this simple point — that we are asking different questions — the critics have either intentionally or unintentionally confused the issues by making all sorts of extraneous arguments.

 

I do not mean to imply that the question we answer in the book is the most important question. It may be that the questions that environmentalists are trying to ask are more important and more interesting, but that certainly does not mean that we don’t want to know the answer to our question, a question that the environmentalists don’t bother to ask very often because they are focused on their more philosophical questions.

 

So for all the blogosphere shouting against our chapter, I have to be honest and say that I just don’t get it. I can’t understand why any environmentalist who really cares about the Earth’s future could say with a straight face that geoengineering doesn’t deserve a seat at the table as the global-warming debate heats up.

 

The American Way: Better, Faster, Cheaper.

 

The author is not a right-wing extremist either, in case you were were wondering.

[goinbroke2]

You answered your own question, it's 1)cheap and 2) american

 

1) means it's not a "critical we act now, send your money to your local government"

and

2) means if it's american then it must be wrong according to the rest of the world.

 

I firmly believe that the states is one of (if not the) most positive forces on earth. Sounds stupid? Think about it, whenever there is a problem, lots of nations worry/complain/ piddle away government and peoples resources trying to legislate an answer. In the states, (as well as some other countries) the GIT-R-DONE attitude means never accepting something that you don't like.

 

(poor example but) Want junk food? too bad there are no makers or sellers of it..fine, I'll make my own junk food and sell it!

 

A pessimist complains there is dirty air, an entrepreneur builds something to clean it, or a filter mask to help you breath.

 

The states is full of, and has the attitude of, the entrpreneur. The worst possible thing to happen is for the states to beat down/deny/ruin the optimism of the entrepreneur. It's what made the states what it is.

 

(perhaps it's all a canadian attitude that big brother is living south of us and will always come to the rescue or will have a solution for everything in life so don't worry about it..but I do believe the world would of been SO much worse off if the states never existed)

[goinbroke2]

Oh yeah, and I agree with your "The American Way: Better, Faster, Cheaper" only now the cheaper part is being eroded by countries with basically slave labour.

[RangerM]

Oh yeah, and I agree with your "The American Way: Better, Faster, Cheaper" only now the cheaper part is being eroded by countries with basically slave labour.

It's only eroded where there's overlap.

 

If you make low-tech stuff, it's being eroded.

 

If you make other (more technologically advanced) things it isn't, for now.

 

Much of America's problem is the complacency engendered by being first for so long.

[NickF1011]

Wow - even Fox News admits that global warming is - unfortunately - alive and well.

 

Eh, sort of. That's just an AP article that happened to be posted on foxnews.com. :shrug:

[stephenhawkings]

my part of the globe is very warm today!

[goinbroke2]

Had an arguement with a mmgw supporter this morning.

I countered with my "shoelace" theory.

It goes like this;

In May there were a certain number of people on earth wearing shoe laces.

In May the temp was a certain degree

I can get scientist to support both facts.

Now it is November and ever since May, the birth rate has put more people on earth than was here at that time. Again I can get scientist to back that claim.

Obviously more people on earth are wearing shoelaces now than were in May because of the greater population we now have.

The temperature has gone up from May to November.

Therefore shoelace wearing, causes the earth to heat up. We need to reduce shoe lace use and for all the shoelace factories that are shutdown, new "greener" velcro and buckle factories will spring up.

Other benefits of reducing lace usage is the work opportunities created by garbage trucks to haul away old shoelaces and places to destroy them. Of course you can still use laces..you'll just pay a carbon..I mean laces tax. But don't worry, if your family uses all velcro, you can sell lace credits to families who can't afford to switch or don't want to switch to velcro or buckles.

 

Now since we've only been recording temps since May we don't know for sure what the temps were before that. Unless we do carbon based testing in ice flows etc which show that the earth was warmer (and colder) before people used laces. But it doesn't matter, we're telling you it's the laces that are doing it and we have the scientists to prove it.

 

Earth has been warming for 20,000 years, ever since the last ice age...it's been warming and cooling in cycles.

 

So, I asked him, 3 questions

1) What is the correct temp the earth should be? (and how do you know)

2) If the earth heated and cooled for the last 20,000 years, why is it now MAN MADE global warming?

3) If a way was available to reduce temps, what temp would you like?

4) If a way was available to reduce temps that didn't involve massive taxing etc, would you be for it?

 

His Answers (after more arguing)

1) like it was in the 70's (wouldn't expand or explain why..was it just a good decade or what?)

2) It has never raised this fast or caused so much damage in such a short time. (no proof just opinion)

3) Again, like it was in the 70's. (when we had 8mpg luxobarges on the roads???)

4) If people don't pay for it through higher taxes then they are doomed to repeat the mistakes they made. we will be back in this same boat in 20 years. (penal taxation, that will teach them..)

 

After 10 more minutes or bantering in circles, he stuck to his "all the polar bears are dying and it's because we drive SUV's"

 

I couldn't stop laughing at him and he stormed away.

Yes the "middle of the road" people in the office said what I said made more sense than he did and they are starting to see this is a big load of crap.

 

Is the earth heating up? Maybe..hell I'll say yes.

Is it directly the result of man? ..mmmm NO! Prove that it is. (and not fuzzy warm stories from the left either)

 

Because the earth is heating up, you can't automatically claim man is the blame, your using one answer for two questions.

Global warming and MMGW are NOT THE SAME!!

[fmccap]

GORE'S BIG PROFITS FROM 'GLOBAL WARMING'...

[Savetheplanet]

You guys are yelling into the wind, most of the ACC debate took place over the last few years with scientists overwhelmingly agreeing with ACC. So now WE (192 countries) are going to do something about it. Not only will we create a new treaty on ACC in Copenhagen to start when Kyoto ends, but we will also pass cap and trade along with many other energy solutions here in America to stop the continues destruction of the environment by over consumers like you guys. After all, Obama and the Dem's have a mandate.

[Savetheplanet]

Here are a few examples of Obam's commitment to the environment.

 

Steven Chu Secretary of energy

 

Lisa Jackson head of EPA

 

Carol Browner director of white house office on energy and climate change p[olicy

 

Obama passed the American recovery and reinvestment act

.Obama included some important environmental legislation in his recovery act, including $11 billion for an electric smart grid, 6.3 billion for state and local governments to invest in energy efficiency, $6 billion for renewable energy, and more.

 

Created the presidents counsel of advisers on science and technology

 

Obama is bringing science back to the White House with the creation of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, an advisory group of the nation's leading scientists and engineers. unlike Bush and Regan (who cut renewable energy research by 90%) and most republicans who don't believe in science but pray to the inviable sky god.

 

Passed the omnibus public lands management act of 2009

 

Obama signed on to this act, which protects two million acres of wilderness in nine states as well as a thousand miles of rivers, which represents a 50% increase in the wild and scenic river system.

 

Appointed Tom Villsack secretary of agriculture

Vilsack is promoting farmers markets and locally grown food in school

 

 

Halted drilling in Utah

 

Obama denounced the Bush administration for turning national park land into drilling sites just before leaving office. The Department of the Interior froze oil and gas drilling on 60 of the 77 sites that the Bush administration allowed in its 11th hour.

 

 

The EPA will eventually regulate C02 as a pollutant, we won't have to wait until 2012

 

That's just a small list of pro environmental things Obama (yes we can) has done. Maybe later I will list some of the things my friends and I have done to protect the environment, guess how many coal fired plants we have sroped from being built in the last 2 years?

 

Power to the people!!

[Savetheplanet]

http://www.originalelf.com/

[NickF1011]

You guys are yelling into the wind, most of the ACC debate took place over the last few years with scientists overwhelmingly agreeing with ACC. So now WE (192 countries) are going to do something about it. Not only will we create a new treaty on ACC in Copenhagen to start when Kyoto ends, but we will also pass cap and trade along with many other energy solutions here in America to stop the continues destruction of the environment by over consumers like you guys. After all, Obama and the Dem's have a mandate.

 

What does "cap and trade" do other than make people rich? It won't curb anything. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. Of course, that's just yelling into the wind.

[goinbroke2]

Cap and trade:

I missed breakfast this morning, so I'll sell my "food credit" to somebody who wants to eat 4 meals a day. That will reduce the total amount of food consumed...oh wait...well it will make me richer for not eating and make the person who want to eat more, poorer...Actually the BROKER that we have to buy and sell food credit's through will be the big winner.

 

Who' s the cap and trade broker again??? oh yes, rymes with "poor" (or is that "pore"?)