Climate: Winners and Losers

re: Climate: Winners and Losers

misterharban — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:34:54 GMT

Without disputing predictions for the possible effects of global warming -- especially on California -- it is worth noting that California has a long, long history of extended drought periods. Tree ring data indicates intense drought cycles from 500 to 800 A.D., 980 to 1250 A.D. and 1650 to 1750 A.D.. Even more ominous is the fact that during that period that the high rainfall totals of the mid-twentieth century occurred only three times. Modern inhabitants of California cannot imagine the extent of drought which has been a regular historical occurrence in that region.

Again, without disputing the effects of anthropogenic climate change, we settled a continent just in time to enjoy one of the relatively rare periods of mild climate and adequate rainfall. It has not always been like this. Even without anthropogenic effects, it will not always be like this. The drought that likely killed Virgina Dare in the Lost Colony lasted decades. The drought that we witnessed during the dustbowl in the 1930's was just one of many that have occurred regularly. This place has been visited regularly since human habitation with extreme regional droughts which lasted for decades.

Extreme climate change has been with us throughout our human history. Wineries in the northern British Isles where grapes don't grow now. Annual ice festivals on the Thames in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Ice on the Nile. A year where the world had no summer (1816)

While it may be warmer than it has been in the past 1000 years, it is not warmer than it has been in human history, or especially in human prehistory. And it has been much colder.

It is surely prudent to undertake measures which will reduce the potential for anthropogenic climate changes. But is equally prudent for us to simply look back on the climate history of the last 10,000 years or so and realize that sudden and extreme climate changes have been a part of the global fabric and will continue to be so. Over the long haul, we are equally challenged to understand the relationship between the way we live and the effects that climate changes of any kind may have on us. As we cleverly find ways to squeeze more and more from less of less of the resources which are available to us we can become more vulnerable to the same sudden climate changes which have already been recorded in our habitation of this planet.

re: Climate: Winners and Losers

pumapurr — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:40:13 GMT

misterharban writes: "It is surely prudent to undertake measures which will reduce the potential for anthropogenic climate changes" No, surely it isn't. Those "measures" cost huge amounts of real money and human resources that could be spent elsewhere on actual world good. Crippling economies and lining the pockets of so called "green" companies just to be on the "safe side" is DEMONSTRABLY bad. Not prudent. Climate change is a a classic case of chaos. There are so many unpredictable parameters, and so many unknows that you could NEVER prove your "solution" isn't going to effect a change OPPOSITE of what you desired. I do agree that the Earth does whatever it wants and breaks every rule every time you look at geologic history. It is UNpredictable. So...just relax and enjoy it.

re: Climate: Winners and Losers

misterharban — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:29:19 GMT

Pumapurr suggests that it is not prudent to undertake measures which will reduce the potential for anthropogenic climate change. To what degree? Do I buy Al Gores 10 year total conversion time frame? Absolutely not. Does Pumapurr really believe that there are no measures which would reduce the extent of green house gas production which would also bring along economic benefits? What about simply consuming energy more economically? Or is there simply some intrinsic economic benefit to burning carbon? In that case I wish I still had my father's 1959 Oldsmobile.

Proposals like Mr. Gore's obscure the possibility that somewhere on the spectrum between profligate waste and his outlandishly wasteful proposal to abandon facilities which still have economic value, lie economically and environmentally attractive opportunities to reduce carbon emissions and improve the way we live.

While I share a healthy dose of pumapurr's fatalism, my Scottish ancestry does not allow me to wait to die on a hot or cold day and in the mean time pass on opportunities which might be economically and economically attractive. I strongly believe that as long as environmental debates are dominated by people who cleave to the extremes, that no good thing will happen.

My environmental values are very simple. We can never really know what the future holds for us. But we must understand with certainty that squandering any of the resources that are available to us will never return as much prosperity as being good stewards of our planet.

re: Climate: Winners and Losers

pumapurr — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 04:00:18 GMT

misterhaben misses the point by assuming facts and processes which cannot be assumed. It is about chaos. It is not prudent because there is no proof that you are not accomplishing the opposite of what you seek.

For instance, if someone advises that green vampires may attack you, and you should invest in green vampire insurance, you may quibble about how much vampire insurance you should take. "Well, shouldn't I take some...well...just a bit?" No, because you have no proof of green vampires. And even if you you did, what if green vampires are attracted to the kind of people who take out vampire insurance? What if just thinking about green vampires makes vampires think of you? Then, any amount spent on vampire insurance may be a bad idea. And what if ignoring green vampires may, on balance, be the best remedy to them?

And that's the point about climate change. Increasing "greenhouse gases" may actually interact with a host of other factors to produce a cooling effect. Factors include the cyclical perturbation of the Earth's axis, the sunspot cycle, the variabilty of cosmic rays (which influence cloud formation at all-important altitudes, the up-and-down merry-go-round effect in the rotation of our galaxy, cycles of vuclanism which swamp anything gas-wise that mere humans can ever produce, geologic carbon cycles on Earth, vast floods of carbon stored in the crust and oceans and released chaotically, magnetic poles flipping, changing attributes of the Earth's magnetosphere, and those are just the ones we know about. It would be a good bet there are some we don't.

Any single one of those would override anything we could "plan". And all together they mean you are pulling on a string that goes into a ball of yarn you can hardly see and predicting whether it will loosen or tighten things up. You really have no idea. By the way, it may do neither.

But here's the clincher: If certain scientists with certain grants instructed you to triple carbon emissions to "save" the Earth, would you be so on point to defend them? What if they said a big ice age was "definitely" coming and we all needed to do our part by driving three or four SUVs to help warm the planet -- and the slogan was "everyone must consume more now. Help save mother Earth!!" I doubt you would give them the benefit of the doubt.

You would look into their predictions and conclude "No way! You can't possibly know that. It's too chaotic!" But of course you do seem to "know" that or think it''s so very reasonable when it's the opposite -- when it's about having and using less. Hmm...wonder why that's so darn appealing? I'll tell you why: because it isn't about the Earth at all. Never was. It's about self-deprivation. It's about denial of Earthly pleasures. It's about sacrafice and suffering and purity. It's as old as religion... because it is religion. Better to don a hair shirt and hit yourself with a board. At least they were honest about it.

re: Climate: Winners and Losers

misterharban — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:51:21 GMT

Pumapurr misses the point. The point being that if I can take some action which is economically more or less aligned my welfare with something which, at the present time, is more or less aligned with something that may serve a useful environmental objective, why not? While there certainly are differing opinions as to the extent of anthropogenic effects on climate change, I have not seen any support whatsoever for the proposition that introducing more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere serves any useful purpose.

There are, however, compelling economic reasons to reduce carbon emissions to the extent that we are wasteful (and we are) and to the extent that alternatives might comport with other pressing economic and political needs. The most immediate and compelling reason for reducing carbon emissions is that must pay for every pound of carbon we emit -- I know this to be a fact and am reminded every time I see $100 posted on my gasoline pump. I know it when I see my country plunging deeper and deeper into debt, ultimately borrowing money to pay for energy we cannot provide for ourselves.

I have a strong technical background and am probably more versed in the perturbations of the earth's axis, the solar cycle and all the other phenomena that pumapurr. And I understand and believe most of what is written on these matters. But we live in the here and now. And in the here and now we have become very wasteful of the resources that are available to us. We can argue until the cows come home about whether humans have any influence on the climate. I cannot share pumapurr's level of certainty that our actions are insignificant -- I guess I am simply humble enough to admit that I don't know. And given that I don't know, I can't share pumapurr's unmistakable conclusion that our wastefulness and failure to find better ways of sustaining our way of living do not make any difference.

Finally, I would observe that as each side of this argument finds its "technical experts" to support their preconceived notions, they should understand that the "experts" (on both sides) are for the most part techno-whores who, rather than perform for money, perform for recognition. We all have to do our best to sift through the half-facts that they produce and use that knowledge to do the best we can to advance the cause of humanity.

It is not about chaos. In pumapurr's world chaos simply becomes a fatalistic excuse for ignoring the possibility that we can find better ways to do things. We are not talking about green vampires which might or might not exist. We, or at least I am talking about seeking advances which will serve our economic and security interests and which may, at the very least, be less intrusive to the environment we live in.

re: Climate: Winners and Losers

pumapurr — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:49:49 GMT

misterharban gets credit for being a skeptic in regards to religious environmentalism. But he makes so many half wrong points, I will have to attack them one by one-

> Pumapurr misses the point. The point being that if I can

> take some action which is economically more or less aligned

> my welfare with something which, at the present time, is

> more or less aligned with something that may serve a useful

> environmental objective, why not?

Some action? What action? Denying yourself some little thing to make the world a "better" place? While indulging yourself in countless other ways in every aspect of your life? So you use less oil, but have a PERSONAL computer? (Ahh..or is it two, misterharbon?) That action is called hypocrisy. Everything has a "carbon footprint". Even...misterharbon. But don't off yourself to remedy that- we like your footprint just fine.

>While there certainly are

> differing opinions as to the extent of anthropogenic effects

> on climate change, I have not seen any support whatsoever

> for the proposition that introducing more greenhouse gases

> into the atmosphere serves any useful purpose.

Well, plants like find a nice purpose in them. You know those green things that grow better at higher CO2 concentrations? Remember how lush it was in the dino era. Lots more CO2 back then and it was hot. Plenty hot. And life just thrived.

> There are, however, compelling economic reasons to reduce

> carbon emissions to the extent that we are wasteful (and we

> are)

We are not wasteful. Compare ourselves to ye 19th century vasty coal burning. Compare that to wood and peat and dung at an even higher inefficiency in centuries past. We have gotten better and better and cleaner and cleaner. It's pretty damn good now. We are the LEAST wasteful humans in all of history. Could we do even better? Sure. And one could always be richer. But does that mean I should gripe that I'm poor when I already live in a mansion?

>and to the extent that alternatives might comport with

> other pressing economic and political needs. The most

> immediate and compelling reason for reducing carbon

> emissions is that must pay for every pound of carbon we emit

> -- I know this to be a fact and am reminded every time I see

> $100 posted on my gasoline pump.

Well worth it at triple the price. What price freedom? The freedom to roam, explore, discover, live? Drive to the Grand Canyon? Priceless. By the way, I suggest doing this - never miind the gas pump. You will never forget it.

> I know it when I see my

> country plunging deeper and deeper into debt, ultimately

> borrowing money to pay for energy we cannot provide for

> ourselves.

No, we can provide for ourselves. Ask a petroleum engineer. Not a politician, or "journalist", or blog spin doctor. Ask a guy who actually explores for BP. And there's nothing wrong with debt - any financial consultant will tell you it is foolhardy not to borrow against your assets. A certain amount of debt is desirable. Are you an economist? Because even professional economists argue over how much debt is good for a nation. Please don't tell me you know the answer because you read it in the newspaper. Do you think real economists draw their conclusions from what they might find there? Anyway, they all disagree.

> I have a strong technical background and am probably more

> versed in the perturbations of the earth's axis, the

> solar cycle and all the other phenomena that pumapurr.

I have a Liberal Arts degree, thus I know nearly nothing about nearly everything.

>And

> I understand and believe most of what is written on these

> matters. But we live in the here and now.

I like that part!

> And in the here

> and now we have become very wasteful of the resources that

> are available to us.

No. Again, we have been very efficient in the consumption of the resources, which are for practical purposes inexhaustible. The tar sands in Canada alone...but I'm sure you know all that- and I hope it is not too distressing.

> We can argue until the cows come home

> about whether humans have any influence on the climate. I

> cannot share pumapurr's level of certainty that our

> actions are insignificant --

Well, just going by billions of years of history including several mass extinctions, Earth seems to recover and quickly. But we are "special"? Outside nature I suppose?

> I guess I am simply humble

> enough to admit that I don't know.

Me too. But I'm not going to whip myself and others based on "I don't know".

>And given that I

> don't know, I can't share pumapurr's

> unmistakable conclusion that our wastefulness and failure to

> find better ways of sustaining our way of living do not make

> any difference.

You mean demonstrable success in sustaining billions(!) at a level of wealth and freedom unheard of in all recorded history? That's some failure. I could live with that. And I make no unmistakable conclusion. I could be gravely mistaken. So I only say probably. Perhaps we really will destroy the Earth by driving to the supermarket for a bag of chips. But I'd be as surprised as if I were awakened by Anubis in an afterlife. About equal chances I'd say.

> Finally, I would observe that as each side of this argument

> finds its "technical experts" to support their

> preconceived notions, they should understand that the

> "experts" (on both sides) are for the most part

> techno-whores who, rather than perform for money, perform

> for recognition.

No, they have families and dentist bills and they perform for grant$. Canadian scientists are very much on board to study ice thickness and seal populations ad infinitum- whether it needs doing or not. It is as economic boom and boon. It is an endless paycheck. Scientists are as human as they come. No angels have defected from heaven.

> We all have to do our best to sift through

> the half-facts that they produce and use that knowledge to

> do the best we can to advance the cause of humanity.

> It is not about chaos. In pumapurr's world chaos

> simply becomes a fatalistic excuse for ignoring the

> possibility that we can find better ways to do things.

We didn't go to the moon waiting for a better technology. I think we should always try to do things better. But at what cost? For instance, we can make cars more energy efficient- but at the cost of killing how many real people because they are made flimsier in this quest for doing "good". I value real lives above philosophy.

>We

> are not talking about green vampires which might or might

> not exist.

Understand, there are many who believe the rapture is coming. "The Earth is melting" claim holds the same silliness for them as the rapture does for others.

> We, or at least I am talking about seeking

> advances which will serve our economic and security

> interests and which may, at the very least, be less

> intrusive to the environment we live in.

I actually agree with that. Let's just not get carried away.

re: Climate: Winners and Losers

misterharban — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:20:44 GMT

Jesus pumapurr, I'm sorry I wasted any time responding to you. You are truly an idiot.

I spent my life exploring for and developing conventional and alternative energy sources including your precious tar sands. I have forgotten more about energy economics than you will ever know. And I have been able to contribute both personally and commercially to reducing, in a small way, carbon emissions in ways which also saved myself and others money without having to "off" anybody.

We consume more of every natural resource per capita than human beings at any time in history of the world. Period

As for the price of gas, I have enough money that I frankly don't care what it costs. I have generally chosen, however, to use it efficiently so I could see and do more and consume less. And I likely have seen and done more than you, unless you are very, very lucky. If you want to waste gasoline I would still recommend an economical car and taking the gasoline you save, pour it on your children and watch them burn. You will be doing Darwin and the world a favor and, after all, what difference does it make to you anyway -- sooner or later chaos will kill all of us.

And I can only assume that you can assure us that temperatures were higher than they are now when the dinosaurs roamed from personal experience and observation. You might best be served by pulling your dinosaur head out of your reptilian rear and consider that there may be a middle ground in these matters.

re: Climate: Winners and Losers

pumapurr — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:05:15 GMT

> Posted By: misterharban (August 20, 2008 at 1:20 AM)

> Jesus pumapurr, I'm sorry I wasted any time responding

> to you. You are truly an idiot.

Please don't quote my wife without permission.

> I spent my life exploring for and developing conventional

> and alternative energy sources including your precious tar

> sands. I have forgotten more about energy economics than

> you will ever know.

Aye, that's as may be. But you miss the forest for the trees. Lots of "experts" do.

>And I have been able to contribute both

> personally and commercially to reducing, in a small way,

> carbon emissions in ways which also saved myself and others

> money without having to "off" anybody.

And I save money by shopping at Walmart, so we're even. But, don't do us any favors. The world goes on quite the same with or without misterharban and his "contributions". Let's say you had never been born. And then we put that misterhaben-free Earth side-by-side with the one we have now. Let's have a double-blind comparison of these two Earths... hmmm... seems to be impossible to say which is which. Maybe you, and only you, could tell?

> We consume more of every natural resource per capita than

> human beings at any time in history of the world. Period

And that's a good thing. For the majority of the world consuming=happiness. My point is that we do it more efficiently and cleaner. Or would you like to go back to the technologies of the past centuries and try to support the present population? Very expensive and dirty. Very efficient and clean now and lots of enjoyable consuming. Consumption is what life is about. Good god, Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" must read as a tragedy to you: "Why, Scrooge could had picked a turkey that was 13% smaller! The waste! The horror of it all! As for that Fezziwig, he's truly an idiot. Everyone stop dancing! Stop I say! Put that carbon cake down and stop breathing so much." Now, that's your true contribution to this world. Calling all angels!

> As for the price of gas, I have enough money that I frankly

> don't care what it costs. I have generally chosen,

> however, to use it efficiently so I could see and do more

> and consume less. And I likely have seen and done more than

> you, unless you are very, very lucky. If you want to waste

> gasoline I would still recommend an economical car and

> taking the gasoline you save, pour it on your children and

> watch them burn. You will be doing Darwin and the world a

> favor

Just for that remark, I'm going to have another child! And she will have lots more too, and so on, and so on. So many more carbon footprints to make. So little time. You can't beat us misterharbon!

>and, after all, what difference does it make to you

> anyway -- sooner or later chaos will kill all of us.

Exactly, so enjoy it - and don't worry about it. Not one bit.

> And I can only assume that you can assure us that

> temperatures were higher than they are now when the

> dinosaurs roamed from personal experience and observation.

No, from reading things like this:

"At the peak of the Mesozoic, there were no polar ice caps, and sea levels are estimated to have been from 100 to 250 meters (300 to 800 ft) higher than they are today. The planet's temperature was also much more uniform, with only 25 °C (45 °F) separating average polar temperatures from those at the equator. On average, atmospheric temperatures were also much warmer; the poles, for example, were 50 °C (90 °F) warmer than today. The atmosphere's composition during the Mesozoic was vastly different as well. Carbon dioxide levels were up to 12 times higher than today's levels..."

> You might best be served by pulling your dinosaur head out

> of your reptilian rear and consider that there may be a

> middle ground in these matters.

I do, but you must understand your "middle ground" differs from lots of other people's "middle grounds". Yours is not any holier ground. And I like the dinosaur joke- although avian rear would have been more correct.

re: Climate: Winners and Losers

misterharban — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:55:09 GMT

Pumapurr;

You've said it all.

Good luck to you and the world as you continue to breed and feed.

Sorry, Darwin -- you were wrong.

re: Climate: Winners and Losers

pumapurr — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:26:08 GMT

Thanks for your time misterharban. I enjoyed reading all of your opinions and who knows if I won't be influenced by them?

cheers,

-pumapurr