Global Warming Debate: Refuting Common Arguments

[vanesch]

Well, we have been in an interglacial period of the Ice Age for close to 12,000 years. In the last say 100 years we have noticed a dramatic increase of temperature.
What's unusual I believe is the rate of change not the change itself.

In fact, even that doesn't really matter. What matters is what change (and rate of change) is expected in the near future and how we think that our society can cope with that. It could for instance very well be that we are facing a change that is "natural" (or that has more or less "natural" rates of change or values), but with which our modern society cannot cope. Maybe our current society (or the society that will be current 50 - 100 years from now) will be too sensitive to even a "natural" climate change. Or maybe our society will be robust enough to cope with even a very "unnatural and anomalous" change. In fact we don't really care in how much the change humanity might cause with industrial emissions is causing larger-than-natural changes or not: what we might care about is whether our society can cope with whatever is the change that we are causing (or even that we are not causing but undergoing).

But all this is part of the political and societal debate, but not of the scientific inquiry into climate dynamics itself.

From a scientific PoV, it shouldn't matter whether the climate change is induced by humans or not, or whether it is "dramatic" or not, or whether it is "anomalous" or not. One should just try to understand the dynamical system that describes all of this, as a function of atmospheric composition and other "external" conditions, and try to find ways to measure this. In a way, scientists shouldn't be involved too much in the political debate, but concentrate on getting the model right.

 

[Sorry!]

In fact, even that doesn't really matter. What matters is what change (and rate of change) is expected in the near future and how we think that our society can cope with that. It could for instance very well be that we are facing a change that is "natural" (or that has more or less "natural" rates of change or values), but with which our modern society cannot cope. Maybe our current society (or the society that will be current 50 - 100 years from now) will be too sensitive to even a "natural" climate change. Or maybe our society will be robust enough to cope with even a very "unnatural and anomalous" change. In fact we don't really care in how much the change humanity might cause with industrial emissions is causing larger-than-natural changes or not: what we might care about is whether our society can cope with whatever is the change that we are causing (or even that we are not causing but undergoing).

But all this is part of the political and societal debate, but not of the scientific inquiry into climate dynamics itself.

From a scientific PoV, it shouldn't matter whether the climate change is induced by humans or not, or whether it is "dramatic" or not, or whether it is "anomalous" or not. One should just try to understand the dynamical system that describes all of this, as a function of atmospheric composition and other "external" conditions, and try to find ways to measure this. In a way, scientists shouldn't be involved too much in the political debate, but concentrate on getting the model right.

Point taken.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is a huge red herring.

What does the discovery of new species have to do with anything. One could argue that a changing climate would create new niches into which new species would evolve to fill. Meanwhile the species adapted to the old climate would expire. So it would not be to far fetched to expect a blossoming of new species in time of a climate change.

Yep, no peer reviewed links, but then, Evo, I do not see any peer reviewed links of yours showing the link between new species and climate change.

It is worse than that. What does the fact that we discover existing species have to do with anything? The articles clearly state that these species already existed, not that new species evolved and were then discovered. That these newly discovered species are endangered by climate change is also referenced.

 

[Evo]

It is worse than that. What does the fact that we discover existing species have to do with anything? The articles clearly state that these species already existed, not that new species evolved and were then discovered. That these newly discovered species are endangered by climate change is also referenced.

It was to do with BW's posts of species listed by the WWF and in response to the previous posters question about species. Did neither of you bother to read the thread? Not to mention I made no claims, so I don't know what supposed claims you are seeing that aren't there.

 

[Andre]

Was it ever recorded how many species are endangered by the http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/19/do-first-generation-biofuels-spell-doom-for-tropical-rainforests-global-climate-worlds-poor/ to battle global warming?

 

[mheslep]

Was it ever recorded how many species are endangered by the http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/19/do-first-generation-biofuels-spell-doom-for-tropical-rainforests-global-climate-worlds-poor/ to battle global warming?

You read Romm Andre? Bad for your mental health. That guy will end up living in cave in Afghanistan sending out 'Death to Deniers!' press releases.

 

[Sorry!]

Was it ever recorded how many species are endangered by the http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/19/do-first-generation-biofuels-spell-doom-for-tropical-rainforests-global-climate-worlds-poor/ to battle global warming?

I don't think this article talks about what is currently happening but what will happen in the future if these sort of biofuels become more mainstream fuel source. It is a pretty real concern though. Not only does it indirectly effect us (by effecting the different ecosystems of the world) but these fuels directly effect us by raising prices of pretty much everything. Which is why I don't think biofuels will necessarily be our answer to either global warming or our rising needs for more resources.

 

[skypunter]

So the message I get from you is, don't worry there is an infinite amount of fossil fuels and we will never run out.

What does it matter what the latest discovery is, it does not change the fact that there is a finite amount of fossil fuels available. It does not change the fact that every new discovery is deeper and harder to get to with lower overall yields. If we want to ensure that our grandchildren and their grandchildren have a technology driven lifestyle we need to start developing renewable sources of energy. We simply cannot assume that we will always find more fossil fuels.

Are you familiar with the recent advancement in recovering natural gas from shale deposits?
It's not deeper and harder to get to and it has higher yields than conventional gas deposits.
We are using a technique called hydrofracing to extract massive quantities gas from the shale, and it's cheaper than conventional drilling.
Check it out, because the US dependence on foreign energy and peak oil are not just old news, they're debunked.
This is the result of a realistic and productive technological advancement. Not pie in the sky.

 

[Evo]

Are you familiar with the recent advancement in recovering natural gas from shale deposits?
It's not deeper and harder to get to and it has higher yields than conventional gas deposits.
We are using a technique called hydrofracing to extract massive quantities gas from the shale, and it's cheaper than conventional drilling.
Check it out, because the US dependence on foreign energy and peak oil are not just old news, they're debunked.
This is the result of a realistic and productive technological advancement. Not pie in the sky.

I wasn't aware of the advancements made in shale oil technology. I was of the understanding that it was environmentally unsound, (the previous process was) and it's still, IMO, only postponing the inevitable fact that we can not remain dependant on fossil fuels.

Still the article is interesting.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/30/magazines/fortune/Oil_from_stone.fortune/index2.htm

 

[skypunter]

It's not oil, but natural gas.
See here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124104549891270585.html

Rather than saying we cannot continue to rely on fossil fuel, I would say that we cannot continue to waste fossil fuels.

We have much to learn and discover.

 

[mheslep]

Are you familiar with the recent advancement in recovering natural gas from shale deposits?
It's not deeper and harder to get to and it has higher yields than conventional gas deposits.
We are using a technique called hydrofracing to extract massive quantities gas from the shale, and it's cheaper than conventional drilling.
Check it out, because the US dependence on foreign energy and peak oil are not just old news, they're debunked.
This is the result of a realistic and productive technological advancement. Not pie in the sky.

Indeed, the US now has the largest unproven gas reserves in the world due to the shale gas, some 1750 TCF. Even so, that's only 75 years of gas at today's US usage rates.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/164713-how-much-natural-gas-remains-in-the-usa

 

[hilo1222]

I feel that we should do something about the environment. However the campaign led by Al Gore and other people is misleading and definately costing us money

 

[Bored Wombat]

I feel that we should do something about the environment. However the campaign led by Al Gore and other people is misleading and definately costing us money

I think any change to a lower carbon economy will cost money.

But in what way do you think "the campaign" is misleading?

 

[Xezlec]

It's a little hard to believe that running out of fossil fuels is something we need to worry about now. When it starts getting scarce, energy will quickly become massively in demand, so some other power source will suddenly get a giant, flaming cash enema like the hand of God. I predict that the sudden rush of an oil-industry-sized chunk of money into alternative energy would produce 10 new or old-but-significantly-refined technologies close to the cost-effectiveness of fossil fuels within about the first week.

Let's stick to the question of climate change. That's the one that seems worrying.

 

[Chalnoth]

It's a little hard to believe that running out of fossil fuels is something we need to worry about now. When it starts getting scarce, energy will quickly become massively in demand, so some other power source will suddenly get a giant, flaming cash enema like the hand of God. I predict that the sudden rush of an oil-industry-sized chunk of money into alternative energy would produce 10 new or old-but-significantly-refined technologies close to the cost-effectiveness of fossil fuels within about the first week.

Uh, you realize, I hope, that this already happened? Just before the economic collapse? It didn't require oil to get scarce either: all it required was for oil reserves to drop a bit below demand. The price inelasticity of oil did the rest. This resulted in massive profits for the oil industry.

The problem is that the switch to alternative fuels will take time. And that means price shocks and subsequent economic hardship if you just let the market deal with it.

Let's stick to the question of climate change. That's the one that seems worrying.

Well, I would have to agree with that. Though once the global economy gets back up to pre-collapse levels, we're going to be worrying about oil reserves once again.

 

[Xezlec]

Uh, you realize, I hope, that this already happened? Just before the economic collapse? It didn't require oil to get scarce either: all it required was for oil reserves to drop a bit below demand. The price inelasticity of oil did the rest. This resulted in massive profits for the oil industry.

Since you bring it up, sure, there was a brief surge in oil prices that did indeed shoot some money and extra political attention into the alternative energy world. I'm not convinced that was equivalent to a real, full-scale, long-term fossil-fuels-running-out scenario (I think various people with various fingers on various financial levers understood that it was temporary) but it's a decent example. That brief price surge was enough give us hybrids, kill the SUV industry, and (arguably) elect an environmentalist president, all very quickly. And we survived.

The problem is that the switch to alternative fuels will take time. And that means price shocks and subsequent economic hardship if you just let the market deal with it.

Aren't you likely to get economic hardship either way? And as for price shocks, is a long-term price squeeze necessarily better than a quick, but bad, shock?

 

[Chalnoth]

Since you bring it up, sure, there was a brief surge in oil prices that did indeed shoot some money and extra political attention into the alternative energy world. I'm not convinced that was equivalent to a real, full-scale, long-term fossil-fuels-running-out scenario (I think various people with various fingers on various financial levers understood that it was temporary) but it's a decent example. That brief price surge was enough give us hybrids, kill the SUV industry, and (arguably) elect an environmentalist president, all very quickly. And we survived.

The only reason that was temporary was because of the following economic collapse. If the world economy hadn't collapsed, then we'd still be faced with the same, or higher, oil prices.

Of course, this state of affairs is somewhat fortunate for global warming, but the problem is that our reserves of oil are only about half spent, meaning only about half of their impact for global warming will be felt. And coal is very, very far from being expended, so we really need to place an economic cost on CO2 production now, so that we don't end up waiting 50 years to start reducing our emission of coal. The nice thing about placing an economic cost on CO2 emission now is that we can get the same basic benefit of running out of fuel, but without the downside of major economic upheaval.

Aren't you likely to get economic hardship either way? And as for price shocks, is a long-term price squeeze necessarily better than a quick, but bad, shock?

Well, the problem is that the shock might be entirely too much to bear. It also would probably be far too late for global warming (for anything but oil).

Here's the real worry when it comes to limited fossil fuels: hoarding. Every nation on Earth right now is basically increasing its use of fossil fuels. At the same time, the supplies of fossil fuels are dwindling. At some point, the fossil fuel exporting nations of the world will realize that their own reserves aren't even going to support their own economy.

And when that happens? Well, we can expect nations to, one by one, stop exporting any oil at all. And later with other fossil fuels.

The large, but bearable, price shock that occurred a couple of years ago? That was only because the supplies of oil leveled off while demand continued to increase. What do you think will happen if there is a sudden drop in the supply of oil of, say, 2%? 5%? 10%? Not only would we be talking about a sudden, obscene increase in oil prices. We just wouldn't have enough oil around to run the economies of the world, guaranteeing a major economic collapse, even with a reduction of just a couple of percent. In a worst-case scenario, we'd be talking about a number of nations, one after the other, all stopping their exports of oil. In that situation, a worldwide economic collapse is guaranteed, and one far worse than even the Great Depression.

Unless, of course, we can get off of our dependence upon oil. And this is where it makes good economic sense to pursue global warming with a vengeance: it puts us in a much more stable situation all around. We would no longer have to worry about our economy depending upon a specific, finite natural resource whose supply could be suddenly reduced by a significant fraction.

Never mind the dire consequences of letting global warming continue unopposed.

 

[mheslep]

Here's the real worry when it comes to limited fossil fuels: hoarding. Every nation on Earth right now is basically increasing its use of fossil fuels...

Not every. Mainly just the developing nations.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbblpd_a.htm" , million bbl/day
2005:20.8
2006:20.7
2007:20.7
2008:19.5
2009:18.7

Western Europe is seeing similar declines in overall use.

...so that we don't end up waiting 50 years to start reducing our emission of coal.

US coal consumption is also slightly declining in the last couple of years.

 

[Chalnoth]

Not every. Mainly just the developing nations.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbblpd_a.htm" , million bbl/day
2005:20.8
2006:20.7
2007:20.7
2008:19.5
2009:18.7

Western Europe is seeing similar declines in overall use.

Because of the economic collapse. Without significant legislation to combat fossil fuel use, it will start increasing again (if supplies allow) once the economy begins recovering again.

US coal consumption is also slightly declining in the last couple of years.

For the same obvious reason.

 

[mheslep]

Because of the economic collapse. Without significant legislation to combat fossil fuel use, it will start increasing again (if supplies allow) once the economy begins recovering again.


For the same obvious reason.

The decline goes back to 2005 as shown. Efficiency improvements and and wind power are starting to have an effect. Yes as the economy starts to recover there will be an increase from this big a dip, but it's very arguable that developed nations won't increase beyond pre recession levels.

 

[Chalnoth]

The decline goes back to 2005 as shown. Efficiency improvements and and wind power are starting to have an effect. Yes as the economy starts to recover there will be an increase from this big a dip, but it's very arguable that developed nations won't increase beyond pre recession levels.

Well, technically they probably won't be able to, because world oil supplies probably aren't going to be capable of increasing beyond pre-recession levels.

But I don't think you can call that a measurable decline.

 

[mheslep]

Well, technically they probably won't be able to, because world oil supplies probably aren't going to be capable of increasing beyond pre-recession levels.

But I don't think you can call that a measurable decline.

Can't call what measurable? The time span of ~5 years? EIA numbers are bad?

Edit, more:
US Oil consumption back to 1995, from EIA:

That's about 1% per year from 97 to '07, and flat or decreasing from '03 to '07

World wide:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/emissions/usa.dat
World, European and US carbon emissions (ie roughly equivalent to all fossile consumption). European and US have declined since peaking in 2005.

 

[Andre]

Just an observation,

There are two different subjects here, the (in)sensitivity of climate to variation of concentrations of greenhouse gasses and the political-economical features of energy management. There is a lot to say for the reasoning: 'we must manage our resources better, politically and economically, hence therefore AGW must be true. I believe that this fallacy is called 'wishful thinking'. Truth is not going to adapt to what we desire.

 

[mheslep]

Just an observation,

There are two different subjects here, the (in)sensitivity of climate to variation of concentrations of greenhouse gasses and the political-economical features of energy management. There is a lot to say for the reasoning: 'we must manage our resources better, politically and economically, hence therefore AGW must be true. I believe that this fallacy is called 'wishful thinking'. Truth is not going to adapt to what we desire.

Agreed. If the real common ground goal is to get off imported oil, let us simply say the goal is to get off imported oil.

 

[Chalnoth]

European and US have declined since peaking in 2005.

By your own numbers, emissions leveled off in 2005, but didn't really decline until the economy started to contract.

 

[Chalnoth]

Just an observation,

There are two different subjects here, the (in)sensitivity of climate to variation of concentrations of greenhouse gasses and the political-economical features of energy management. There is a lot to say for the reasoning: 'we must manage our resources better, politically and economically, hence therefore AGW must be true. I believe that this fallacy is called 'wishful thinking'. Truth is not going to adapt to what we desire.

Uh, that's not the argument. The argument is that hey, if we work hard to solve this problem over here (global warming), we also automatically solve these other problems. In other words, it's a statement that the economic impact of fighting global warming isn't nearly as dire as many of the AGW denialists would have you believe.

 

[mheslep]

By your own numbers, emissions leveled off in 2005, but didn't really decline until the economy started to contract.

Declining or level, either way, only the developing world is "increasing its use of fossil fuels", and that was true before the recession.

 

[Chalnoth]

Declining or level, either way, only the developing world is "increasing its use of fossil fuels", and that was true before the recession.

Given the long-term consumption variation, there is as yet no reason to believe this wasn't just a temporary variation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EIA_petroleum_consumption_of_selected_nations_1960-2005.png

 

[mheslep]

Given the long-term consumption variation, there is as yet no reason to believe this wasn't just a temporary variation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EIA_petroleum_consumption_of_selected_nations_1960-2005.png

Yes there is. The dips in the past correlate with drops in GDP and/or oil shortages, 2005-7 does not. Also energy intensity has fallen, and energy per person has been flat to declining for some time now.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec1_2.pdf

 

[Chalnoth]

Yes there is. The dips in the past correlate with drops in GDP and/or oil shortages, 2005-7 does not. Also energy intensity has fallen, and energy per person has been flat to declining for some time now.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec1_2.pdf

One of the problems with current GDP measurements, as opposed to those of two decades previous, is that we are increasingly using a more and more skewed measure of the GDP. The people at this website have gone back and re-estimated the GDP, taking out the subjective measures, like imputations, which the government adds to the estimation of the GDP (and other economic measures):
http://www.shadowstats.com/charts_republish#gdp

According to this, the economy has been increasingly declining since around 2004.

In any case, though, it'd be really nice if you were correct, that we were already starting to contract our oil usage while still growing economically. I'm just not sure it's true. It doesn't actually make much sense given Bush's policies.

 

[mheslep]

. I'm just not sure it's true. It doesn't actually make much sense given Bush's policies.

Much of the difference is simple technology advances and markets reacting to the energy prices - hybrid cars, better wind turbines, etc. Shale gas reserves discoveries depressing the price of natural gas allowing it to displace coal.

Regarding government policies and the major policies actually in place, causing change today (as opposed to what Obama say's he might do), I don't see that much difference:
- PTC. We had the energy production tax credit in place during Bush that pushed the US into becoming leading producer of wind generation in the world by '08, and is continuing to increase the lead.
- R&D. Obama has bumped energy research spending, but Bush was already several $B a year.
- Drilling. Bush / Congress talked up some offshore, but we never actually saw any (new).
- Nuclear. Down the road effects only. No current effect from either administration. Bush leaned in favor, Obama leaning against.