Unintended consequences

[John Carson]

Oakman wrote:

I agree, John. But that does not justify the spreading of false doomsday scenarios - especially by those who stand to profit greatly by blaming global warming on CO2. A healthy planet, from my perspective also requires as little increase in sea level as possible. If the folks who believe that the artic icecap is melting at an alarming rate are correct, many people will die and entire civilizations may drown because we take steps that insure that gloabl warming increases in the mistaken belief that we are doing something to stop or at least ameliorate it.

The action against sulphate omissions was taken because they were causing serious problems: acid rain and a variety of health problems. The effect has been to moderate the effects of the industrial revolution; it has not been to reduce sulphates below their "natural" levels. If those arguing for large reductions in CO2 emissions are wrong, then we have two scenarios: A. Global warming is a myth. In this case, you don't need to worry about sea level rises. B. Global warming is real, but CO2 is not the major culprit that it is believed to be. This gives two sub-cases: (i) There is one or more other human causes that needs to be addressed. (ii) The warming is natural. In that case, if we want to stabilise temperature, then we need to look at artificial means to offset the natural causes. We should obviously choose the artificial means that has the least damaging side effects. I very much doubt that sulphate emissions would win the prize, but artificial means of reducing temperature have been little explored.

John Carson

[Oakman]

John Carson wrote:

The effect has been to moderate the effects of the industrial revolution;

But the industrial revolution may be what moderated global warming.

John Carson wrote:

If those arguing for large reductions in CO2 emissions are wrong, then we have two scenarios:

Perhaps, or there may be more. However, step one is to establish in the public's mind - and more importantly, the politicians' minds (unless that is an oxymoron) - that CO2 is not the culprit. That Al Gore is the faturous idiot we all suspected him of being, not the heir to Gandhi's saintliness that Stockholm proclaimed him to be. That we have to consider other mechanisms (whether to include increasing sulphates or having a nuclear war or spraying everything white is a different discussion that should follow). And 'twould be nice to take into account (in the western world, you can believe it's taken into account in China) that the same amount of electricty is produced by twenty cents worth of solar power, fourteen cents worth of wind power, or three cents worth of coal-generated power.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[John Carson]

Oakman wrote:

But the industrial revolution may be what moderated global warming.

I'm not aware of any serious scientist who has claimed that --- or even a non-serious scientist.

Oakman wrote:

Perhaps, or there may be more. However, step one is to establish in the public's mind - and more importantly, the politicians' minds (unless that is an oxymoron) - that CO2 is not the culprit. That Al Gore is the faturous idiot we all suspected him of being, not the heir to Gandhi's saintliness that Stockholm proclaimed him to be. That we have to consider other mechanisms (whether to include increasing sulphates or having a nuclear war or spraying everything white is a different discussion that should follow).

All based on the hypothesis that CO2 emissions are not important, which I believe to be false. If new scientific evidence leads to a revision of the prevailing scientific view, then policy responses will need to adjust accordingly. I never suspected Al Gore of being an idiot. A little pompous perhaps, but generally a pretty smart guy.

John Carson

[Oakman]

John Carson wrote:

I'm not aware of any serious scientist who has claimed that --- or even a non-serious scientist

It appears to me that the original NASA paper strongly suggests that the burning of coal - the power source for industry in the 19th century and still an important source of power in much of the world - did exactly that.

John Carson wrote:

All based on the hypothesis that CO2 emissions are not important

One that seems to explain the facts as well or better than the better publicised explanations.

John Carson wrote:

new scientific evidence leads to a revision of the prevailing scientific view, then policy responses will need to adjust accordingly.

I knew we'd come to an agreement. ;)

John Carson wrote:

I never suspected Al Gore of being an idiot.

Well, idiot may have been too strong a word - I think charlatan would be more accurate

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Tim Craig]

John Carson wrote:

I very much doubt that sulphate emissions would win the prize, but artificial means of reducing temperature have been little explored.

There was an article in Scientific American a few months ago on proposed methods of engineering the atmosphere to reduce global warming. One mentioned was to increase the sulfur content in jet fuel to put more sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere. It's felt that putting it in the stratosphere would keep it in place longer and case less acid rain but obviously, that hasn't been tested. The biggest downsides they mentioned to messing with the atmosphere or even putting things into space were the uncertainty of them working, possible unforseen side effects, and unless they're maintained, a major bounce when they begin to fail. Also, they don't address the root cause and may actually cause a delay in addressing the real causes.

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!

[John Carson]

Oakman wrote:

It appears to me that the original NASA paper strongly suggests that the burning of coal - the power source for industry in the 19th century and still an important source of power in much of the world - did exactly that.

:confused: Burning coal moderated global warming??

John Carson

[fred_]

Oakman wrote:

healthy planet, from my perspective also requires as little increase in sea level as possible.

I am curious why .. perhaps the planet doesn't need us and that is it's natural state?

[Oakman]

fred_ wrote:

I am curious why

For starters, I like to spend time at my sister's place on Pawley's Island. ;) And then I think that all the Brits would evacuate to Ottawa, and all the French to Montreal and then the US would get drawn into a civil war.

fred_ wrote:

perhaps the planet doesn't need us and that is it's natural state

Do fleas ask a dog if he needs them?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[fred_]

ROFLMAO

[MidwestLimey]

Oakman wrote:

John Carson wrote: All based on the hypothesis that CO2 emissions are not important One that seems to explain the facts as well or better than the better publicised explanations.

We have demonstrably altered the composition of the atmosphere, including increasing the concentration of CO2. As yet we don't know the exact outcome of this experiment, nevertheless it will have an effect. It seems, much as in US politics, there are two camps in extremis. Denial or Disaster. No one wants to admit the truth: We don't ###?#?# know what will happen.

10110011001111101010101000001000001101001010001010100000100000101000001000111100010110001011001011

[Oakman]

MidwestLimey wrote:

We have demonstrably altered the composition of the atmosphere, including increasing the concentration of CO2. As yet we don't know the exact outcome of this experiment, nevertheless it will have an effect. It seems, much as in US politics, there are two camps in extremis. Denial or Disaster. No one wants to admit the truth: We don't ###?#?# know what will happen.

I don't have any problem with any of that, except, perhaps, the singling out of the U.S.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface