Huge CO2 concentrations in the past
Lubos Motl
Some weird people argue that 400 ppm (parts per million) of CO2 (carbon
dioxide) may be a critical point in which life will start to disappear,
and all this stuff.
It is known that the concentration was as large as >6,000 ppm half a
billion years ago, and it was steadily measured in thousands of ppm as
early as 50 million years ago - see the decreasing CO2 chart at
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
See also
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
Mammals were around, the temperatures were roughly 2-3 degrees higher than
today, and everyone was happy. 65 million years ago, when nothing special
happens with the CO2 concentrations - see the graphs around - mass
extinction of the dinosaurs took place and mammals started to dominate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal
You may call me a racist - but this shift in power was a good thing, too. ;-)
The point of my text is the following:
Given the scientific data we have, it's pretty safe to say that whoever
argues that 700 ppm (or even 400 ppm??) of CO2 is dangerous for the
existence of life is a complete moron.
______________________________________________________________________________
E-mail: lu...@matfyz.cz fax: +1-617/496-0110 Web: http://lumo.matfyz.cz/
eFax: +1-801/454-1858 work: +1-617/384-9488 home: +1-617/868-4487 (call)
Webs: http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/ http://motls.blogspot.com/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Joshua Halpern
> It seems appropriate to create a special thread.
>
> Some weird people argue that 400 ppm (parts per million) of CO2 (carbon
> dioxide) may be a critical point in which life will start to disappear,
> and all this stuff.
>
> It is known that the concentration was as large as >6,000 ppm half a
> billion years ago, and it was steadily measured in thousands of ppm as
> early as 50 million years ago - see the decreasing CO2 chart at
>
> http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
>
> See also
>
> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-2.htm
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
>
> Mammals were around, the temperatures were roughly 2-3 degrees higher than
> today, and everyone was happy. 65 million years ago, when nothing special
> happens with the CO2 concentrations - see the graphs around - mass
> extinction of the dinosaurs took place and mammals started to dominate.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal
>
> You may call me a racist - but this shift in power was a good thing, too. ;-)
>
> The point of my text is the following:
>
> Given the scientific data we have, it's pretty safe to say that whoever
> argues that 700 ppm (or even 400 ppm??) of CO2 is dangerous for the
> existence of life is a complete moron.
Lubros, Lubros, we are not at the stage of your beloved string theory,
that predictions are anything that agrees with anything you say.
And, as a matter of fact boyo, no one ever said that 700 or even 400 ppm
was dangerous for the existence of life you complete moron.
What we do worry about is whether 700 or even 400 will be dangerous for
our current civilizations.
As to string theory:
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/locana?subid=3776229
This argument makes it clear where the whole subject is going to end up.
The standard scientific method of deciding whether a theory is true or
not by figuring out its implications and comparing them to observations
is no longer operative. In the case of string theory there's a new
method. You just believe because authorities tell you to, and from now
on the activity of professional theorists will consist solely in the
construction of elaborate scenarios designed to explain why you can't
ever predict anything. Feynman's line that: "string theorists don't make
predictions, they make excuses" has been changed from a criticism into a
new motto about how to do science.
josh halpern
James Annan
> It seems appropriate to create a special thread.
>
> Some weird people argue that 400 ppm (parts per million) of CO2 (carbon
> dioxide) may be a critical point in which life will start to disappear,
> and all this stuff.
>
> It is known that the concentration was as large as >6,000 ppm half a
> billion years ago, and it was steadily measured in thousands of ppm as
> early as 50 million years ago - see the decreasing CO2 chart at
>
> http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
>
> See also
>
> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-2.htm
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
>
> Mammals were around, the temperatures were roughly 2-3 degrees higher than
> today, and everyone was happy.
That first graph puts global temperatures at 10C higher (the others
don't have temperature at all).
James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
Lubos Motl
> That first graph puts global temperatures at 10C higher (the others
> don't have temperature at all).
That's right. 100 million years or so, the temperature was roughly 10
degrees higher than today. It was the perfect climate in which the mammals
were born.
The Kyoto protocol, for comparison, wants to reduce the temperature in
2100 by 0.1 degree (which would costs trillions of dollars) - 100 times
less than the change that is still likely to improve our lives.
The Kyoto advocates have no sense of scale. They only know how to sit in
their airconditioned rooms and subscribe regulations meant to weaken
capitalism. One of the biggest threats for this modern civilization is
that these bizarre people will be gaining influence.
yelling_i...@yahoo.com
doubt that an estiamte for that amount but I am always interested in
seeing the methodology used for these types of cost projections.
Coby Beck
news:Pine.LNX.4.31.05021...@feynman.harvard.edu...
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, James Annan wrote:
>
>> That first graph puts global temperatures at 10C higher (the others
>> don't have temperature at all).
>
> That's right. 100 million years or so, the temperature was roughly 10
> degrees higher than today. It was the perfect climate in which the mammals
> were born.
Can you explain why you think this is relevant? As far as I understand, the
promary dangers of AGW to existing life forms (as opposed to life itself, I
agree life will prevail) are in the *rate* of change, not in the degree of
change. I think this is common knowledge. Do you think otherwise?
Some of the other dangers of AGW are to existing infrastructure of
civilization, ie cities submerged by rising sea levels and large scale human
deaths from loss of agriculture due to drastic changes in weather patterns.
You do acknowledge that 10C higher global temperatures would melt a lot of
polar ice, don't you? Hence the danger to existing cities.
Do you think there will be no drastic changes in weather patterns with a 10C
change in global average temperature?
Hoping you can enlighten me as to why you (and others) point to climate
millions of years ago in the context of today's AGW issues.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
Lubos Motl
> > That's right. 100 million years or so, the temperature was roughly 10
> > degrees higher than today. It was the perfect climate in which the mammals
> > were born.
>
> Can you explain why you think this is relevant?
Sure. It is relevant because we're discussing the effect of the
temperatures on the biosphere, and therefore the first piece of data one
needs to know is how life looked like at different temperatures and
different CO2 concentrations.
Can you provide me with an alternative explanation why you apparently
think that these facts about the history of life and climate are
irrelevant - except for the obvious explanation that you don't quite know
how to use your brain?
> As far as I understand, the promary dangers of AGW to existing life
> forms (as opposed to life itself, I agree life will prevail)
I am personally a mammal. Even if you were not a mammal ;-), I assure you
that the mammals are those that have developed most, and other organisms
were even more similar to their present forms.
> are in the *rate* of change, not in the degree of change.
We in Massachusetts (and the rest of this world) are used to the
temperature changes of up to 20 degrees per day. The annual or daily
fluctuations are bigger by several orders of magnitude than the rate that
you use to scare others.
It's not just about the weather. People like you have no idea about the
climate variations (and other variations) in general. For example, in the
now-largely-discredited papers, Mann et al. argued that the average annual
temperatures in the last 1000 years fluctuated roughly by 0.2 degrees. Now
it is estimated to be about 0.9 degrees. Although no one can really know
the right scale, the temperatures naturally fluctuate much much more than
the people like you are able to imagine. They have always fluctuated, and
they always will. They are also getting a contribution from human
activity as well as from volcanos (perhaps even under the oceans) and from
other natural sources, and there is absolutely nothing wrong about it.
"Colder temperature" is something different from "good ethics" even though
obviously most of the people like you are making these irrational
connections between totally different things.
> I think this is common knowledge. Do you think otherwise?
Definitely, I think otherwise. This "common knowledge" is a complete
silliness. Everyone who can distinguish 1 degree from 20 degrees knows
why. Even if the annual rate of climate change sped up by an order of
magnitude, it would not be a problem at least for decades. Moreover, the
current civilization is even more resilient against all such natural
variations than the mammals 100 million years ago. The idea that the human
civilization is more vulnerable against the climate change (or any other
originally natural effect for that matter) than the generic mammals in
the past is a striking misunderstanding what the term "civilization"
means. I don't need to ask you whether you suffer from this
misunderstanding because the answer is *obviously* Yes, you do.
The richer and more technologically advanced our civilization is, the more
resilient against the natural pressures it becomes. Just compare what the
earthquakes and tsunami can do with a developed vs. underdeveloped worlds.
I think that you've never spent a week in the wild nature, because you
would know whether the civilization makes survival harder or easier.
> Some of the other dangers of AGW are to existing infrastructure of
> civilization, ie cities submerged by rising sea levels and large scale human
> deaths from loss of agriculture due to drastic changes in weather patterns.
These things are obviously just a fantasy from movies for
not-very-demanding audience. I personally prefer science and reality over
religious speculations. It is completely clear that no threatening
anthropogenic contributions to the increase of the sea levels exist in the
current world. The people always liked to live near the oceans, most of
them live 20 km or closer from the sea, and they have always had problems
with the power of the sea. Some cities are sinking, some cities are going
up - also due to plate tectonics. I wonder whether you also want to stop
plane tectonics or the human contributions to it.
> You do acknowledge that 10C higher global temperatures would melt a lot of
> polar ice, don't you? Hence the danger to existing cities.
10C higher temperatures, which is something expected in 300 years if we
continue the same way, would indeed melt some ice. The rest of your
reasoning is pretty pathetic. The rise of the sea level per year is
completely negligible and even hardly measurable - regardless whether it
is natural or not. It's like if you take the tsunami and divide it to
10,000 years. Nothing. No danger whatsoever.
If I want to solve the situation with a cottage that was built too close
to the ocean, I will either demolish the cottage and build a new one, or
build some protection around it. Only a complete idiot - or a terrorist -
would solve this cottage's situation by shutting of 50,000 factories and
power plants in order to lower the sea level visibly. The economical
difference between these two approaches is roughly tens orders of
magnitude - your proposals how to behave when the sea level increases
somewhere are roughly 1,000,000,000 times more expensive than a rational
reaction.
> Do you think there will be no drastic changes in weather patterns with a 10C
> change in global average temperature?
This is a completely vacuous question because the answer is a tautology.
Change of 10C in the global temperature means that the weather in average
will be 10C hotter. Why do you use vague words such as "drastic changes"
if you can use the quantitative data (such as 10C)?
If the weather in 2200 is 10C warmer (and it will probably be just 1C
warmer), on Feb 12th 2200 they will have e.g. 10C instead of 0C in Boston,
which will be pretty nice. At a point in Africa they will have 50C, which
will be too warm, so I suppose that in that case people and animals will
migrate to Canada, Siberia, Scandinavia, mountains and perhaps Antarctica
where it may be more pleasant, maybe. I have no idea and I don't care.
What I am sure is that it does not mean any disaster. We (or they will)
have 200 years to move a bit towards the poles, if it will be necessary -
and it's very far from clear whether it will be.
It's just completely irrational to be using the current technology to
"solve" similar "problems" of the people in 2100. As Crichton said in his
example, imagine what sort of "problems" in 2000 people in 1900 would be
thinking about. There was probably a large increase of transportation, so
they would worry where would we get all the horses and what we would be
doing with all the horseshit. It's simply impossible to plan 100 years
into the future and estimate what their most important problems will be.
Anyone who believes that he or she is so smart that he or she can do it -
and organize the life of the people in 2100 - is a pompous fool. The
people in 2100 or 2200 will be viewing you as medieval morons who wanted
to bring the world to a new Dark Age. Stupid religious people with a
pathetic 2000 technology who did not want to allow new technology to grow.
> Hoping you can enlighten me as to why you (and others) point to climate
> millions of years ago in the context of today's AGW issues.
Because I am thinking in scientific terms as opposed to short-term
fashionable nonsenses such as Nazism or global warmism. Global warmism is
a movement led by the people who don't understand the real world outside
their offices, who have absolutely screwed ideas about the principles that
are important for the world and those that are not important, and who
extrapolate their questions from their air-conditioned offices 100 years
into the future even though they don't even know what was going on 100
years ago and who don't know that their fad will go away in 2 years or so.
All of these environmental stupidities that you terrorize the world with
have a lifetime of 3 years in average. All these weird doomsday
predictions have been kind of ruled out, and those that are popular today
will be falsified in 2 years. 5 years ago, people used to believe that the
temperature graph in the last 1000 years looked like a "hockey stick".
Many stupid people who prefer to believe just believed it - a consensus of
all the "priests" - and you see, today we know that it's just garbage. No
published paper after today will lead to a graph that would resemble a
hockey stick.
The same thing holds for all the other nonsenses that you propagate
around. Their lifetime is inversely proportional to the intelligence of
the general public - the lifetime of all these ideas depend on the
inability of the people to find problems with them quickly, and to
propagate these findings efficiently among the public.
My focus is to understand how the Universe, Earth, climate, life work, as
opposed to the political fashionable movements how to damage a corporation
already in the next year. I think that the global warmists are mostly
idiots - who however like to picture themselves as very important and
smart people - this is the kind of arrogant morons that I just can't
stand.
In other words, I know very well that (and why) the doomsday scenarios of
Jehovah's Wittnesses or Global Warming witnesses - or any other group of
not-terribly reasonable people who need some kind of religion for that
matter - are wrong and have always been wrong. I know roughly, but much
more accurately than them what the real dangers for our civilization are,
and what is the timescale on which one should consider the threats for the
"current life forms".
For the big geophysical and biological questions, humans are not that
important. For the short-term about the human civilization, we should be
using common sense and economic thinking and counting. The global warmists
are using neither proper science with the available data from various
timescales etc., nor economy. They are using some kind of perverse and
politicized mixture that always closes their eyes if the data are
inconvenient for their politics - and this is why I despise these people.
It's sort of fun that you have even invented an acronym AGW. Do you really
think that "AGW" is so important that it should have its own acronym?
Best
Lubos
Lubos Motl
Sure, it's the most conservative estimate. You can find estimates that are
as large as 18 quadrillions of dollars (originally a report released by
Reuters)
http://www.recyclefirst.com/article.asp?ID=20
http://www.environmentnepal.com.np/articles_d.asp?id=184
http://commonsensewonder.com/mtarchives/003993.shtml
http://www.iisd.ca/climate-l/Climate-L_News_18.txt
The number of pages counting the trillions of dollars for Kyoto is above
5,000:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22trillions+of+dollars%22+kyoto
Example, a news from Reuters
http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-shchedrov061104.htm
I personally don't care much which of those calculations are published -
everyone just guesses anyway, regardless of the journals. But there are
certainly many publications that calculate these trillions of dollars. For
example, on
http://www.weathernotebook.org/transcripts/2002/10/15.php
you learn about a study that calculate the multi-trillion costs and
unmeasurable positive results of Kyoto. The study is published in the
August, 2002 edition of Ecological Economics.
If you want to know how I estimate these costs, well I mostly consider the
fact that a 3% growth will be reduced roughly to 2% - a simple counting of
the effect on various industries. This means that even in the optimistic
case that it won't start a recession, the economy in 2100 won't be 16
times stronger than today, but just 6 times stronger. They will lose 10
times the current world's economy every year - which is half a quadrillion
dollars. In 36 years, you get those 18 quadrillion dollars by the counting
above.
This counting is very oversimplified, and it kind of assumes that it will
take years for people to realize that these policies are a suicide. I am
optimistic - in my opinion it will be clear as early as this year that
Kyoto is a disaster.
Vendicar Decarian
"Lubos Motl" <mo...@feynman.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.31.05021...@feynman.harvard.edu...
> as large as 18 quadrillions of dollars (originally a report released by
> Reuters)
And lets not forget that the same economic doomsters were claiming that a
CFC ban would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars and kill 1/4 of the
worlds population.
All Republicans are liars.
David Ball
<mo...@feynman.harvard.edu> wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Coby Beck wrote:
>
>> > That's right. 100 million years or so, the temperature was roughly 10
>> > degrees higher than today. It was the perfect climate in which the mammals
>> > were born.
>>
>> Can you explain why you think this is relevant?
>
>Sure. It is relevant because we're discussing the effect of the
>temperatures on the biosphere, and therefore the first piece of data one
>needs to know is how life looked like at different temperatures and
>different CO2 concentrations.
>
>Can you provide me with an alternative explanation why you apparently
>think that these facts about the history of life and climate are
>irrelevant - except for the obvious explanation that you don't quite know
>how to use your brain?
Because it has nothing to do with TODAY. This is a red herring
you are raising and therefore fallacious. There is no doubt that life
would continue on the planet even if temperatures soar by 10C. The
question is what the impact of those increases on life TODAY would be.
Perhaps it is some deficiency in brain-power that you suffer from that
the obvious escapes you.
>
>> As far as I understand, the promary dangers of AGW to existing life
>> forms (as opposed to life itself, I agree life will prevail)
>
>I am personally a mammal. Even if you were not a mammal ;-), I assure you
>that the mammals are those that have developed most, and other organisms
>were even more similar to their present forms.
Non-sequitur. Read what was written and see if you can bring
your limited grey-matter to bear on the problem: "As far as I
understand, the promary dangers of AGW to existing life forms (as
opposed to life itself, I agree life will prevail)" You'll notice the
use of the term, "dangers to EXISTING life forms...". Think about it.
>
>> are in the *rate* of change, not in the degree of change.
>
>We in Massachusetts (and the rest of this world) are used to the
>temperature changes of up to 20 degrees per day. The annual or daily
>fluctuations are bigger by several orders of magnitude than the rate that
>you use to scare others.
Non-sequitur. We aren't talking about daily or even seasonal
variations in small areas of the globe. We aren't even talking
specifically about temperatures. We are talking about patterns of
WEATHER changing. Please learn the basics.
>
>It's not just about the weather.
That's exactly what it's about. Changing the weather and all
of the downstream effects that that entails.
>People like you have no idea about the
>climate variations (and other variations) in general.
People like you replace science with fallacy and all one needs
to do is look at the repeated use of red herrings and non-sequiturs in
your posts to see it.
>For example, in the
>now-largely-discredited papers, Mann et al. argued that the average annual
>temperatures in the last 1000 years fluctuated roughly by 0.2 degrees.
Discredited by whom? You? Don't make me laugh. I suspect you
haven't the wit to even understand what MBH did, let alone posture
about whether the paper has been discredited. In order to do that,
you'd have to show that there is no hockey stick shape. Too bad,
you're busted on this one since multiple independent studies confirm
its existence.
>Now
>it is estimated to be about 0.9 degrees.
By whom? Be specific. I do hope you plan on referencing
multiple independent studies and not a single paper that told you what
you wanted to hear.
>Although no one can really know
>the right scale, the temperatures naturally fluctuate much much more than
>the people like you are able to imagine.
You certainly have the "imagine" part covered.
>They have always fluctuated, and
>they always will.
It's interesting to note that in your earlier posturing you
made some claim about people like "you". In this case, it can safely
be stated that people like you apparently don't understand the basics.
We are not talking about fluctuations. Those are a given. This is
merely another red herring on your part. This issue is WHY they are
fluctuating and HOW MUCH they will down the road.
>They are also getting a contribution from human
>activity as well as from volcanos (perhaps even under the oceans) and from
>other natural sources, and there is absolutely nothing wrong about it.
Hmmm... An interesting attempt at downplaying. The majority of
the observed warming is anthropogenic.
>
>Definitely, I think otherwise. This "common knowledge" is a complete
>silliness. Everyone who can distinguish 1 degree from 20 degrees knows
>why.
More fallacy.
>Even if the annual rate of climate change sped up by an order of
>magnitude, it would not be a problem at least for decades.
So in your view it is better to be reactive than proactive.
Interesting. Tell me, do you brake your car before reaching an
intersection or wait until the last second to apply them, then hope
that you don't slide into the oncoming traffic?
>Moreover, the
>current civilization is even more resilient against all such natural
>variations than the mammals 100 million years ago.
Well, if you insist on looking at the issue in such simplistic
terms, I'm sure you'll be able to rationalize it. This is a GLOBAL
problem. That means everything is affected, not just humans.
>The idea that the human
>civilization is more vulnerable against the climate change (or any other
>originally natural effect for that matter) than the generic mammals in
>the past is a striking misunderstanding what the term "civilization"
>means. I don't need to ask you whether you suffer from this
>misunderstanding because the answer is *obviously* Yes, you do.
You're suffering from something, though a sudden attack of
reality isn't on the list.
<remainder deleted>
I could go on poking holes in your idiotic arguments, but what would
be the point. You apparently don't have the wit to understand the
basics so I suspect I'd be wasting my time explaining them to you.
winston
> ......
>
>Can you provide me with an alternative explanation why you apparently
>think that these facts about the history of life and climate are
>irrelevant - except for the obvious explanation that you don't quite know
>how to use your brain?
>
>
......
>I am personally a mammal.
>
>
......
>>are in the *rate* of change, not in the degree of change.
>>
>>
>
>We in Massachusetts (and the rest of this world) are used to the
>temperature changes of up to 20 degrees per day. The annual or daily
>fluctuations are bigger by several orders of magnitude than the rate that
>you use to scare others.
>
>It's not just about the weather. People like you have no idea about the
>climate variations (and other variations) in general.
>
>
.......
>"Colder temperature" is something different from "good ethics" even though
>obviously most of the people like you are making these irrational
>connections between totally different things.
>
>
.......
>These things are obviously just a fantasy from movies for
>not-very-demanding audience. I personally prefer science and reality over
>religious speculations. It is completely clear that no threatening
>anthropogenic contributions to the increase of the sea levels exist in the
>current world. The people always liked to live near the oceans, most of
>them live 20 km or closer from the sea, and they have always had problems
>with the power of the sea. Some cities are sinking, some cities are going
>up - also due to plate tectonics. I wonder whether you also want to stop
>plane tectonics or the human contributions to it.
>
>
......
>Only a complete idiot - or a terrorist -
>
............
>As Crichton said in his
>example
>
........
>The
>people in 2100 or 2200 will be viewing you as medieval morons who wanted
>to bring the world to a new Dark Age. Stupid religious people with a
>pathetic 2000 technology who did not want to allow new technology to grow.
>
>
>
>>Hoping you can enlighten me as to why you (and others) point to climate
>>millions of years ago in the context of today's AGW issues.
>>
>>
>
>Because I am thinking in scientific terms as opposed to short-term
>fashionable nonsenses such as Nazism or global warmism. Global warmism is
>a movement led by the people who don't understand the real world outside
>their offices, who have absolutely screwed ideas about the principles that
>are important for the world and those that are not important, and who
>extrapolate their questions from their air-conditioned offices 100 years
>into the future even though they don't even know what was going on 100
>years ago and who don't know that their fad will go away in 2 years or so.
>
>All of these environmental stupidities that you terrorize the world with
>have a lifetime of 3 years in average. All these weird doomsday
>predictions have been kind of ruled out, and those that are popular today
>will be falsified in 2 years. 5 years ago, people used to believe that the
>temperature graph in the last 1000 years looked like a "hockey stick".
>Many stupid people who prefer to believe just believed it - a consensus of
>all the "priests" - and you see, today we know that it's just garbage.
>
.......
>My focus is to understand how the Universe, Earth, climate, life work, as
>opposed to the political fashionable movements how to damage a corporation
>already in the next year. I think that the global warmists are mostly
>idiots - who however like to picture themselves as very important and
>smart people - this is the kind of arrogant morons that I just can't
>stand.
>
>In other words, I know very well that (and why) the doomsday scenarios of
>Jehovah's Wittnesses or Global Warming witnesses - or any other group of
>not-terribly reasonable people who need some kind of religion for that
>matter - are wrong and have always been wrong. I know roughly, but much
>more accurately than them what the real dangers for our civilization are,
>and what is the timescale on which one should consider the threats for the
>"current life forms".
>
>For the big geophysical and biological questions, humans are not that
>important. For the short-term about the human civilization, we should be
>using common sense and economic thinking and counting. The global warmists
>are using neither proper science with the available data from various
>timescales etc., nor economy. They are using some kind of perverse and
>politicized mixture that always closes their eyes if the data are
>inconvenient for their politics - and this is why I despise these people.
>
>It's sort of fun that you have even invented an acronym AGW. Do you really
>think that "AGW" is so important that it should have its own acronym?
>
>Best
>Lubos
>
>
<Note: some content by Lubos snipped for my own guilty pleasure>
Can I be the first to observe that Lubos has become to sci.environment
what James Harris (JSH) - see James' blog at
http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/ and check his crank.net listing
linked there! - has been for years to sci.math? It's schadenfreude I
know, but I look forward to Lubos' posts perhaps more than to anyone
else'. Sorry you professionals and serious guys. Of course if I thought
either James or Lubos could be helped without their biting the hand that
helped them (trying to kill the messenger, if you prefer) I'd do it. I
am not a monster (James is not really the world's greatest
mathematician, Lubos may be a string theorist but how would you know?)
Phil Hays
>If you want to know how I estimate these costs, well I mostly consider the
>fact that a 3% growth will be reduced roughly to 2% - a simple counting of
>the effect on various industries. This means that even in the optimistic
>case that it won't start a recession, the economy in 2100 won't be 16
>times stronger than today, but just 6 times stronger. They will lose 10
>times the current world's economy every year - which is half a quadrillion
>dollars. In 36 years, you get those 18 quadrillion dollars by the counting
>above.
Unmentioned is an assumption that warming the climate has zero cost to
the economy. Suppose the cost of adaption was 2% of current economic
activity: that would make the cost of no action over the next 36 years
at 36 quadrillion dollars.
--
Phil Hays
Phil-hays at posting domain (- .net + .com) should work for email
James Annan
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, James Annan wrote:
>
>
>>That first graph puts global temperatures at 10C higher (the others
>>don't have temperature at all).
>
>
> That's right. 100 million years or so, the temperature was roughly 10
> degrees higher than today.
So when you said:
"the temperatures were roughly 2-3 degrees higher than
today"
you were just pulling a number out of your arse, that you knew to be false?
Lubos Motl
> Can I be the first to observe that Lubos has become to sci.environment
> what James Harris (JSH) - see James' blog at
> http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com/ and check his crank.net listing
> linked there! - has been for years to sci.math? It's schadenfreude I
> know, but I look forward to Lubos' posts perhaps more than to anyone
> else'.
Thank you, it pleases me tremendously. However, I would be even happier if
you were able to think about the topic - which is the climate in this
case. The only meaningful and on-topic part of your posting was copied
from my text. While I appreciate that you were able to learn how to choose
"reply" so that the original message is copied, and you also learned how
to attack others even if you don't have a glimpse of an argument, you
should try to have bigger goals. ;-)
Unfortunately, my reply does not include any factual content because it is
a reply to another reply that did not include any meaningful information
either, and it is hard to respond so that something is suddenly created
from nothing. ;-)
Cheers
Coby Beck
news:Pine.LNX.4.31.05021...@feynman.harvard.edu...
>
>> > That's right. 100 million years or so, the temperature was roughly 10
>> > degrees higher than today. It was the perfect climate in which the
>> > mammals
>> > were born.
>>
>> Can you explain why you think this is relevant?
>
Look. If you are at all interested in a useful discussion you can not chop
every one of my paragraphs into isolated sentences and then proceed to
pretend there was no context. If you have a point to make, it is only
weakened by such a cheap tactic.
> [snip]... except for the obvious explanation that you don't quite know
> how to use your brain?
Ah. So you probably don't have a point to make...
Well, against my better judgement I will try to answer any substance in your
post in a reasonable and non-inflammatory manner and assume that you are
interested in evidence and logic. Other parts of your post I'm afraid I
answered in kind.
Now reconstructing some of th context you unfairly snipped, I said:
=======
> you said:
>> That's right. 100 million years or so, the temperature was roughly 10
>> degrees higher than today. It was the perfect climate in which the
>> mammals
>> were born.
>
>Can you explain why you think this is relevant? As far as I understand,
>the
>promary dangers of AGW to existing life forms (as opposed to life itself, I
>agree life will prevail) are in the *rate* of change, not in the degree of
>change. I think this is common knowledge. Do you think otherwise?
======
you answered (immediately after the first sentence):
> Sure. It is relevant because we're discussing the effect of the
> temperatures on the biosphere, and therefore the first piece of data one
> needs to know is how life looked like at different temperatures and
> different CO2 concentrations.
As you can see you ignored my point (and specific question) that it is the
rapid change that is the problem.
you went on:
> Can you provide me with an alternative explanation why you apparently
> think that these facts about the history of life and climate are
> irrelevant
though I had already done that in the portion you inserted your reply in
front of. I think it is irrelevant to say there was lots of life 100my ago
at +10C because the threat to life as it now exists is the rapidity of the
change.
When, several paragraphs later, you did acknowledge my point about rapid
change you said:
> We in Massachusetts (and the rest of this world) are used to the
> temperature changes of up to 20 degrees per day. The annual or daily
> fluctuations are bigger by several orders of magnitude than the rate that
> you use to scare others.
I can not take this seriously unless you reply clearly that you really do
believe that global mean flucuations in climate on the scale of decades are
no different from daily flucuations of highs and lows in terms of their
effect on life. I could have said "scale of MYr's" too, because at the
moment it is *your* reference to 100Myr ago we are trying to discuss. So,
do you believe they are the same?
> It's not just about the weather.
> People like you have no idea about the
> climate variations (and other variations) in general. For example, in the
> now-largely-discredited papers, Mann et al. argued that the average annual
> temperatures in the last 1000 years fluctuated roughly by 0.2 degrees.
Close. It's not at all about the weather.
You undoubtably won't believe me, but I would like to see and read some
papers that discredit Mann et al. Not McIntyre and McKitrick, I am aware of
them. You can pick a number that you feel supports the
"largely-discredited" statement and provide that many references.
> Now
> it is estimated to be about 0.9 degrees. Although no one can really know
> the right scale, the temperatures naturally fluctuate much much more than
> the people like you are able to imagine. They have always fluctuated, and
> they always will. They are also getting a contribution from human
> activity as well as from volcanos (perhaps even under the oceans) and from
> other natural sources, and there is absolutely nothing wrong about it.
Do you believe that there may be large volcanic eruptions under water that
we are not aware of?
No one I am aware of disputes that there are natural flucuations. Do any of
the papers you have read that discredit Mann et al. claim that the degree
and speed of the late 20th cent. warming has a natural precedent? It would
only help your position if it were not a point in history that was
accompanied by a mas extinction.
Regardless, all of the above is a distraction from my issue with your claim
that as it was really hot 100Myr ago, there is no reason to worry now.
> "Colder temperature" is something different from "good ethics" even though
> obviously most of the people like you are making these irrational
> connections between totally different things.
I have no clue what this means. But if I may comment, your continual use of
phrases like "people like you" does not help your arguments, rather it
detracts from them.
[context restored]
>>> That's right. 100 million years or so, the temperature was roughly 10
>>> degrees higher than today. It was the perfect climate in which the
>>> mammals
>>> were born.
>>
>>Can you explain why you think this is relevant? As far as I understand,
>>the
>>promary dangers of AGW to existing life forms (as opposed to life itself,
>>I
>>agree life will prevail) are in the *rate* of change, not in the degree of
>>change. I think this is common knowledge. Do you think otherwise?
>> I think this is common knowledge. Do you think otherwise?
>
> Definitely, I think otherwise. This "common knowledge" is a complete
> silliness.
There is ample evidence that rapid climate changes have caused mass
extinctions. Simply calling it "silly" is not much of an argument.
> Everyone who can distinguish 1 degree from 20 degrees knows
> why. Even if the annual rate of climate change sped up by an order of
> magnitude, it would not be a problem at least for decades. Moreover, the
Again, now that the context is restored, it is clear that your argument has
no relevence. Your answer to my contention that 100Myr ago is irrelevant to
today's problem is to say "there will be no problem for decades"?
> current civilization is even more resilient against all such natural
> variations than the mammals 100 million years ago.
I won't quibble here, you may be right in the big picture (100's of years).
But I would like to know what exactly you think you prove by constantly
mentioning "mammals 100 million years ago" You do know that the vast
majority of those species no longer exist, don't you? That is to say that
they did not survive through all of these large climate shifts, so there is
no support for your contention that 10C is not a problem.
> The idea that the human
> civilization is more vulnerable against the climate change (or any other
> originally natural effect for that matter) than the generic mammals in
> the past is a striking misunderstanding what the term "civilization"
> means. I don't need to ask you whether you suffer from this
> misunderstanding because the answer is *obviously* Yes, you do.
(you really read alot of incorrect crap into what I write...you are
referring to me when you anwer my post and say "you" aren't you?)
No, I do not think today's humans are more vulnerable than eons ago mammals.
So what does that prove? There is no logical connection between your
assertions and the issues. The pertinent question is just how vulnerable we
are not whether we are more or less vulnerable than your irrelevant
referenced mammals.
Don't you know that we eat other life forms, so their vulnerability affects
ours?
But again this is obfuscation and distraction, you still have not made any
case for the question as to why it is reassuring today that the climate has
varied tremendously over the epochs. It has not varied that much in human
history.
>> Some of the other dangers of AGW are to existing infrastructure of
>> civilization, ie cities submerged by rising sea levels and large scale
>> human
>> deaths from loss of agriculture due to drastic changes in weather
>> patterns.
>
> These things are obviously just a fantasy from movies for
> not-very-demanding audience.
So your position is either: 10C will not raise the sea level more than a
foot or two (IMP, already trouble for a lot of places but we can let it go)
or that many metres of sea level rise isn't enough to cover any land with
cities on it. This too, I can not take seriously, like your analogy between
climate variation and daily high to low swings. Is there another meaning I
did not get?
> I personally prefer science and reality over
> religious speculations.
If this were true, you would provide some science to support your contention
that 10C will not alter weather or raise the sea level many metres.
>> You do acknowledge that 10C higher global temperatures would melt a lot
>> of
>> polar ice, don't you? Hence the danger to existing cities.
>
> 10C higher temperatures, which is something expected in 300 years if we
> continue the same way, would indeed melt some ice. The rest of your
> reasoning is pretty pathetic.
Look, it's pretty simple: melting polar ice raises sea level. Cities whose
elevations are lowere than the new sea level will be below sea level. I
think the numbers are not controversial, only the certainty of it happening.
You contend that +10C is not a problem and defending by telling me that "2 +
2 = 4" is pathetic reasoning. Not useful discourse.
> The rise of the sea level per year is
> completely negligible and even hardly measurable - regardless whether it
> is natural or not. It's like if you take the tsunami and divide it to
> 10,000 years. Nothing. No danger whatsoever.
> If I want to solve the situation with a cottage that was built too close
> to the ocean, I will either demolish the cottage and build a new one, or
> build some protection around it. Only a complete idiot - or a terrorist -
> would solve this cottage's situation by shutting of 50,000 factories and
> power plants in order to lower the sea level visibly. The economical
> difference between these two approaches is roughly tens orders of
> magnitude - your proposals how to behave when the sea level increases
> somewhere are roughly 1,000,000,000 times more expensive than a rational
> reaction.
Who are you talking to? What proposals? How did you get 1 a factor of
billion? 300 years or 10Kyrs, you switch in mid-stream. Can't you see that
what you are writing is utter nonsense? You even tried to characterize me
as a "terrorist" Is this your idea of rational scepticism of current
scientific findings?
>> Do you think there will be no drastic changes in weather patterns with a
>> 10C
>> change in global average temperature?
>
> This is a completely vacuous question because the answer is a tautology.
> Change of 10C in the global temperature means that the weather in average
> will be 10C hotter. Why do you use vague words such as "drastic changes"
> if you can use the quantitative data (such as 10C)?
When I said weather patterns I meant day to day and seasonal flucuations of
temperature and annual and seasonal precipitation.
Do you think there will be no drastic changes in weather patterns with a 10C
change in global average temperature?
> If the weather in 2200 is 10C warmer (and it will probably be just 1C
> warmer), on Feb 12th 2200 they will have e.g. 10C instead of 0C in Boston,
> which will be pretty nice. At a point in Africa they will have 50C, which
> will be too warm, so I suppose that in that case people and animals will
> migrate to Canada, Siberia, Scandinavia, mountains and perhaps Antarctica
> where it may be more pleasant, maybe.
> I have no idea and I don't care.
Now this is the first intellectually honest thing you have said. And it
shows on both counts.
>> Hoping you can enlighten me as to why you (and others) point to climate
>> millions of years ago in the context of today's AGW issues.
Nothing you say below has anything to do with my question.
> Because I am thinking in scientific terms as opposed to short-term
> fashionable nonsenses such as Nazism or global warmism. Global warmism is
> a movement led by the people who don't understand the real world outside
> their offices, who have absolutely screwed ideas about the principles that
> are important for the world and those that are not important, and who
> extrapolate their questions from their air-conditioned offices 100 years
> into the future even though they don't even know what was going on 100
> years ago and who don't know that their fad will go away in 2 years or so.
See? So why do you think climate millions of years ago is relevant to
assessing the impact of GW today?
> All of these environmental stupidities that you terrorize the world with
um...actually, I just asked you what I thought was a simple question. Sorry
to have terrorized you so.
> [snip lots of ranting]
You know, I still have no idea who you think you are talking to. If you
would calm down long enough to actually listen to "one of those people" that
you despise so much for whatever reason, you might have something to offer.
As it is you just make your self look like just another nut, left-wing,
right-wing who cares, just a nut.
> It's sort of fun that you have even invented an acronym AGW. Do you really
> think that "AGW" is so important that it should have its own acronym?
Firstly, you give me too much credit, I picked AGW up from others here.
Secondly, I hardly think acronyms are doled out according to the
"importance" of what it stands for. It's just shorthand, not a badge of
honor. BTW, (there's an important phrase) frivolous arguments like that
really detract from any real point you might actually get around to making.
Vendicar Decarian
"Lubos Motl" <mo...@feynman.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.31.05021...@feynman.harvard.edu...
> fact that a 3% growth will be reduced roughly to 2% - a simple counting of
> the effect on various industries.
Worst case estimates are 2% reduction total, not per year.
Snicker. Hell, Bush has already reduced American worth by 30% over his
simple 4 year term.
Economic Collapse is the desired goal of the NeoCon Republican party.
yelling_i...@yahoo.com
methodology that we could follow. I have gone through a number of
these and the funny thing is that without exception they all ignore any
benefits of implementation of Kyoto. I thought you might actually have
a fact or number.
Regards,
Yelling.
Lubos Motl
> So when you said:
>
> "the temperatures were roughly 2-3 degrees higher than
> today"
>
> you were just pulling a number out of your arse, that you knew to be false?
I admit I've made a simplification - a kind of typo. The sentence about
the age of first mammals (100+ million years ago) should have been "When
mammals were born, the temperatures were 10C higher than today, and when
humans were born, the temperatures were 2-3 degrees C higher than today -
it was the period of middle Pliocene 3 million years ago, the last
"global warming"."
The point is not changed. The higher temperatures and CO2 concentrations
are perfectly appropriate for life, especially our species.
Joshua Halpern
I suspect he is eating lunch with Sally and Soon
josh halpern
Coby Beck
news:Pine.LNX.4.31.05021...@feynman.harvard.edu...
>
>> Do you have a reference for your cost of Trillions of dollars. I don't
>> doubt that an estiamte for that amount but I am always interested in
>> seeing the methodology used for these types of cost projections.
>
> Sure, it's the most conservative estimate. You can find estimates that are
> as large as 18 quadrillions of dollars (originally a report released by
> Reuters)
Why am I hearing Dr Evil laughing in my head right now...?
James Annan
> The point is not changed. The higher temperatures and CO2 concentrations
> are perfectly appropriate for life, especially our species.
I don't believe anyone has claimed anything to the contrary.
Vendicar Decarian
> are perfectly appropriate for life, especially our species.
Given 100,000 year of evolution to adjust, you would be quite correct.
Otherwise....
Scientists agree world faces mass extinction
August 23, 2002 Posted: 11:43 AM EDT (1543 GMT)
By Gary Strieker
CNN
(CNN) -- The complex web of life on Earth, what scientists call
"biodiversity," is in serious trouble.
"Biodiversity includes all living things that we depend on for our
economies and our lives," explained Brooks Yeager, vice president of
global programs at the World Wildlife Fund in Washington, D.C.
"It's the forests, the oceans, the coral reefs, the marine fish, the
algae, the insects that make up the living world around us and which we
couldn't do without," he said.
Nearly 2 million species of plants and animals are known to science and
experts say 50 times as many may not yet be discovered.
Yet most scientists agree that human activity is causing rapid
deterioration in biodiversity. Expanding human settlements, logging,
mining, agriculture and pollution are destroying ecosystems, upsetting
nature's balance and driving many species to extinction.
There is virtual unanimity among scientists that we have entered a period
of mass extinction not seen since the age of the dinosaurs, an emerging
global crisis that could have disastrous effects on our future food
supplies, our search for new medicines, and on the water we drink and the
air we breathe. Estimates vary, but extinction is figured by experts to be
taking place between 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural "background"
extinction.
At the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro 10 years ago, world leaders
signed a treaty to confront this crisis. But its results have been
disappointing. According to Yeager, "It hasn't been a direct kind of
impact that some of us had hoped for."
One hundred eighty-two nations are now parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity. The United States is the only industrial country
that has failed to ratify it. But there is wide agreement that the treaty
has had virtually no impact on continuing mass extinction.
The treaty is more like a political statement than a plan of action,
setting very broad goals instead of real targets, and leaving it to
national governments to decide how to reach them.
Many developing countries in tropical areas, where the most species of
plant and animal can be found, wanted nothing in the treaty that could
limit their freedom to exploit natural resources.
So the treaty was framed as a political compromise to balance three
principles: conservation, sustainable development and fair sharing of the
benefits of biodiversity.
In the process, critics say, the operation of the treaty has lost its
focus. It's been distracted from science and conservation by other issues,
such as "biopiracy" - determining who profits from genetic resources --
and "biosafety" -- controlling trade in genetically modified organisms,
such as seeds, with built-in pesticides. Many pressure groups have forced
governments to address the issues of "biopiracy" and "biosafety."
Debbie Barker, co-director of the California-based International Forum on
Globalization, says, "You cannot really separate preservation and
sustainability and conservation and biodiversity without addressing, for
example, important new technologies like genetic engineering or genetic
modification."
That may be true, but many scientists and conservationists say almost all
the work at the treaty's conferences has been focused on these hot-button
issues, including "biopiracy" and "biosafety", during the past decade. The
result, they say, has been a lost opportunity to address the real crisis.
The member nations still stand by the treaty, but at a conference earlier
this year at The Hague they issued a statement admitting humans are still
destroying biodiversity at an unprecedented rate.
Lubos Motl
> > The point is not changed. The higher temperatures and CO2 concentrations
> > are perfectly appropriate for life, especially our species.
>
> I don't believe anyone has claimed anything to the contrary.
The most efficient way to show that your belief is once again wrong is
simply to wait - I am sure that someone will post something like that "a
higher temperature means a mass extinction". ;-)
The previous guy who wrote it and whom I mentioned was Coby Beck on Feb
12, 9:16 am:
> As far as I understand, the promary dangers of AGW to existing life
> forms ...
These things are ridiculous because most species on the Earth remained
almost unchanged genetically in the last 3 million years. They can stand
daily temperature variations of 10C or so, and they are genetically ready
to survive any temperatures that existed in the last 3 million years
which definitely includes average temperatures higher by 2-3 degrees.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>Lubos Motl wrote:
>> The point is not changed. The higher temperatures and CO2 concentrations
>> are perfectly appropriate for life, especially our species.
>I don't believe anyone has claimed anything to the contrary.
Of course +10 oC would melt the icecaps, which would cause inconvenience.
-W.
--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
David Ball
<mo...@feynman.harvard.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, James Annan wrote:
>
>> > The point is not changed. The higher temperatures and CO2 concentrations
>> > are perfectly appropriate for life, especially our species.
>>
>> I don't believe anyone has claimed anything to the contrary.
>
>The most efficient way to show that your belief is once again wrong is
>simply to wait - I am sure that someone will post something like that "a
>higher temperature means a mass extinction". ;-)
Why is it that every time you make a post your self-described
intellect goes right out the window. A higher temperature could well
mean a significant increase in extinction rates. That does not
preclude life. It merely means that the life existing TODAY may not be
the life that exists TOMORROW.
>
>The previous guy who wrote it and whom I mentioned was Coby Beck on Feb
>12, 9:16 am:
>
>> As far as I understand, the promary dangers of AGW to existing life
>> forms ...
>
>These things are ridiculous because most species on the Earth remained
>almost unchanged genetically in the last 3 million years. They can stand
>daily temperature variations of 10C or so, and they are genetically ready
>to survive any temperatures that existed in the last 3 million years
>which definitely includes average temperatures higher by 2-3 degrees.
Hmmm...The Hudson Bay polar bear population is already under
severe stress because they don't eat from break-up to ice-up. In order
to survive, they must put enough fat on during the winter hunting
season. Altering the time of break-up and freeze-up, by almost a
month, means that many young adult bears are not surviving and those
that do are severely underweight. This is a complex issue. It is not
one where you can make statements about surviving within a certain
range of temperatures. The real issue is how well can we survive
within that range.
James Annan
Lubos Motl wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, James Annan wrote:
>
>
>>>The point is not changed. The higher temperatures and CO2 concentrations
>>>are perfectly appropriate for life, especially our species.
>>
>>I don't believe anyone has claimed anything to the contrary.
>
>
> The most efficient way to show that your belief is once again wrong is
> simply to wait - I am sure that someone will post something like that "a
> higher temperature means a mass extinction". ;-)
The statements are not in contradiction, despite your feeble attempts to
build a straw-man out of them.
_Life_ will certainly survive the coming temperature rise. But the rate
of change will wipe out species as it eliminates entire habitat regions.
Of course, mankind is already pretty good at wiping out species without
the need for climate change.
James Annan
w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
> James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Lubos Motl wrote:
>
>
>>>The point is not changed. The higher temperatures and CO2 concentrations
>>>are perfectly appropriate for life, especially our species.
>
>
>>I don't believe anyone has claimed anything to the contrary.
>
>
> Of course +10 oC would melt the icecaps, which would cause inconvenience.
But only over the next 1000 years, over which time we could surely adapt.
Ian St. John
> w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
>
>> James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Lubos Motl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> The point is not changed. The higher temperatures and CO2
>>>> concentrations are perfectly appropriate for life, especially our
>>>> species.
>>
>>
>>> I don't believe anyone has claimed anything to the contrary.
>>
>>
>> Of course +10 oC would melt the icecaps, which would cause
>> inconvenience.
>
> But only over the next 1000 years, over which time we could surely
> adapt.
Six billion could not 'adapt' to losing most of the farmland in the 40% of
land that would be newly minted shallow seas, nor could the technological
civilisation live after losing most of the most heavily populated and
industrialised areas. Even over a millenium, expecially when faced with
declining resources including energy.
While something would be left, it would be more a rotting corpse than a
'evolved animal'.
Not that I expect a 10C rise in temperature or the melting of the polar ice
sheets. I expect that we will only have to deal with a smaller increase, the
melting of the Greenland ice sheet, and maybe a meter or two from decline in
the WAIS.
>
> James
James Annan
Ian St. John wrote:
> James Annan wrote:
> > w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
> >
> >> James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Lubos Motl wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> The point is not changed. The higher temperatures and CO2
> >>>> concentrations are perfectly appropriate for life, especially
our
> >>>> species.
> >>
> >>
> >>> I don't believe anyone has claimed anything to the contrary.
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course +10 oC would melt the icecaps, which would cause
> >> inconvenience.
> >
> > But only over the next 1000 years, over which time we could surely
> > adapt.
>
> Six billion could not 'adapt' to losing most of the farmland in the
40% of
> land that would be newly minted shallow seas, nor could the
technological
> civilisation live after losing most of the most heavily populated and
> industrialised areas. Even over a millenium, expecially when faced
with
> declining resources including energy.
That all seems highly speculative to me - starting with "six billion",
as I see no reason to expect the Earth's population to be stable over
such an icredibly long time scale. I think perhaps you are forgetting
how rapidly societies can change. Indeed all the evidence suggests that
population is likely to decline as societies develop. OTOH, climate
(and other environmental) changes in less than 100 years are likely to
cause a major upheaval.
James
Coby Beck
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, James Annan wrote:
>
>> > The point is not changed. The higher temperatures and CO2
>> > concentrations
>> > are perfectly appropriate for life, especially our species.
>>
>> I don't believe anyone has claimed anything to the contrary.
> The previous guy who wrote it and whom I mentioned was Coby Beck on Feb
> 12, 9:16 am:
>
>> As far as I understand, the promary dangers of AGW to existing life
>> forms ...
You have not even quoted the entire sentence, this is a fragment. As
presented it does not even say that there *are* dangers. What gall, and
what contempt you must hold for your audience.
The quote was: "As far as I understand, the promary dangers of AGW to
existing life forms (as opposed to life itself, I agree life will prevail)
are in the *rate* of change, not in the degree of change."
(http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/e29bd1972adb10d9)
It is perfectly clear from this, and even more so from the context of the
posting, that there is no claim whatsoever that higher temperatures and co2
concentrations are not appropriate for life as you dishonestly assert.
As it seems by all other clues, save your posts here, that you are in fact
an intelligent person, you have zero intellectual integrity.
It is also pretty certain that you have no intelligent position WRT global
warming or you would have got around to sharing it by now.
> These things are ridiculous because most species on the Earth remained
> almost unchanged genetically in the last 3 million years. They can stand
> daily temperature variations of 10C or so, and they are genetically ready
> to survive any temperatures that existed in the last 3 million years
> which definitely includes average temperatures higher by 2-3 degrees.
The fallacy of this argument is to assume that individual species exist with
complete independence from their environment. It assumes that individual
species do not require environmental niches in which to thrive, not just
survive. It once again tries to conflate climate and weather, laughably
pretending that the effect of 10C rise from morning to afternoon
temperatures is equivalent to 10C rise in global mean temperature.
I do not know if in fact most species that existed 3 million yrs ago still
exist today, but I sure won't take this man's word for it.
Ian St. John
> Ian St. John wrote:
>> James Annan wrote:
>>> w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>> James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lubos Motl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> The point is not changed. The higher temperatures and CO2
>>>>>> concentrations are perfectly appropriate for life, especially our
>>>>>> species.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe anyone has claimed anything to the contrary.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course +10 oC would melt the icecaps, which would cause
>>>> inconvenience.
>>>
>>> But only over the next 1000 years, over which time we could surely
>>> adapt.
>>
>> Six billion could not 'adapt' to losing most of the farmland in the
>> 40% of land that would be newly minted shallow seas, nor could the
>> technological civilisation live after losing most of the most
>> heavily populated and industrialised areas. Even over a millenium,
>> expecially when faced with declining resources including energy.
>
> That all seems highly speculative to me - starting with "six billion",
Six billion is the current 'starting point'. Speculation is all we have of
the future and it is usually based on 'now', not some hypothetical future.
Basing a future scenario on a future scenario seems a bit incestuous.
> as I see no reason to expect the Earth's population to be stable over
> such an icredibly long time scale. I think perhaps you are forgetting
> how rapidly societies can change.
Other than technology, there is no real 'evolution' of society out there.
The current declining empires are really not much different from the
declining roman empire, and possibly the mospotamian and indus valley
societies. The point is that technology is the MOST vulnerable to such
drastic changes.
Most cities keep a few days food at most, and maybe a days water. Even
simple disruptions in the chain can cause massive failures. Given the
stresses of a civilisation waiting for disaster and finding it, you cannot
expect a 'deux ex machina' to salvage anything.
The one constant in our 'western' socieity is that almost nothing gets done
before the crisis and by then it is too late, so we go through cycles of
decline and rebuilding. But there will not be the resrouces to rebuild a
technological civilisation and the dominant form of power will continue to
be self centered greed, so there will be little motivation for united
action. It would probably consist of scrambing for what is left by those
who have the best remaining technology until the 'best remaining' is little
more than rocks and sticks. Just look at how the U.S. is scrabbling for oil
security and to hell with the planet..
> Indeed all the evidence suggests
> that population is likely to decline as societies develop. OTOH,
> climate (and other environmental) changes in less than 100 years are
> likely to cause a major upheaval.
Just one of many challenges that will not be met.
>
> James
David Ball
<still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think if you read Ian's post again, you'll see he is
referring to the loss of a significant portion of farmland. Given that
many parts of the world do not see enough food as it is, the loss of
farmland is going to add further to the hardship. Yes, some adaptation
will occur, but those societies least able to adapt are the very ones
feeling the strain now. Perhaps that's what's so galling about all
this: it's a problem created by have countries yet the first and most
serious impacts will be with the have-nots.
James Annan
David Ball wrote:
> I think if you read Ian's post again, you'll see he is
> referring to the loss of a significant portion of farmland. Given
that
> many parts of the world do not see enough food as it is, the loss of
> farmland is going to add further to the hardship. Yes, some
adaptation
> will occur, but those societies least able to adapt are the very ones
> feeling the strain now. Perhaps that's what's so galling about all
> this: it's a problem created by have countries yet the first and most
> serious impacts will be with the have-nots.
I still don't see that this 1000-year problem is a particularly
pressing one (I'm not saying it is a good thing). This is one case in
which some of the sceptics do have a valid point: there are many urgent
environmental and humanitarian problems, climate change will generally
add to them but they already exist even without it. Education and the
resulting population reduction would (probably, will) help us to reduce
the footprint of human demands on the planet over the longer time
scale. Over the next 100 years, the speed of climate change is likely
to pose significant challenges, but as for the importance of a gradual
sea level rise over 1000 years, all bets are off as far as I'm
concerned.
James
Vendicar Decarian
"Lubos Motl" <mo...@feynman.harvard.edu> wrote
> The most efficient way to show that your belief is once again wrong is
> simply to wait - I am sure that someone will post something like that "a
> higher temperature means a mass extinction". ;-)
No need to post what has been repeatedly stated by Biologists.
No need to state the obvious.
"Lubos Motl" <mo...@feynman.harvard.edu> wrote
> These things are ridiculous because most species on the Earth remained
> almost unchanged genetically in the last 3 million years.
We don't have much 3 million year old DNA to analyze there Lubos. So on
that basis your assertion is quite laughable.
Further, it is not at all clear that adaptation from the environmental
conditions of 3 million years ago needs significant genetic change. More
likely the genome of each organism needs a series of small changes at
specific locations.
Now while there is evidence of genetic adaptation in rapidly reproducing
organisms like bacteria and to a lesser degree, insects, on time scales of
years to decades, we can expect such adaptation to occur at rates that are
roughly proportional to the reproduction frequency of the organism in
question. Larger organisms with frequencies on the order of a decade will
therfore have response times that are at best on the order of 100 to 1000
years. Far too sluggish for significant climate adaptation. Organisms like
trees will be an order of magnitude slower still.
Now, perhaps your moral compas is such that you value bacteria more than
you value more complex organisms like Elephants and Polar Bears, but if so,
you most certainly are nuts.
"Lubos Motl" <mo...@feynman.harvard.edu> wrote
> They can stand
> daily temperature variations of 10C or so, and they are genetically ready
> to survive any temperatures that existed in the last 3 million years
> which definitely includes average temperatures higher by 2-3 degrees.
Poppycock. Even with a simple .5'C change, species are already being
observed to be migrating north to maintain their "desired" temperature
range.
<ANY> additional stress on an organism in an ecosystem <NECESSARILY>
places downward pressure on that organism's abundance within that system.
Stress <ALWAYS> has a negative impact on an organisms ability to survive,
although of it's competition is damaged further, this particular organism
might still come out ahead. Yet in total the ecosystem is diminished.
I strongly suggest you learn some basic ecology Mr. Motl. You don't have
a clue.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>But only over the next 1000 years, over which time we could surely adapt.
It would probably be a bit quicker with +10.
Lloyd Parker
Lubos Motl <mo...@feynman.harvard.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, James Annan wrote:
>
>> So when you said:
>>
>> "the temperatures were roughly 2-3 degrees higher than
>> today"
>>
>> you were just pulling a number out of your arse, that you knew to be
false?
>
>I admit I've made a simplification - a kind of typo. The sentence about
>the age of first mammals (100+ million years ago) should have been "When
>mammals were born, the temperatures were 10C higher than today, and when
>humans were born, the temperatures were 2-3 degrees C higher than today -
>it was the period of middle Pliocene 3 million years ago, the last
>"global warming"."
>
>The point is not changed. The higher temperatures and CO2 concentrations
>are perfectly appropriate for life, especially our species.
Sure, if we go back to the kind of life humans had then. You'd probably
fit in.
>__________________________________________________________________________
Coby Beck
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, David Ball wrote:
>
>> Why is it that every time you make a post your self-described
>> intellect goes right out the window. A higher temperature could well
>> mean a significant increase in extinction rates.
>
> losing the belief in Allah can also mean a significant increase of your
> children's death. Using the word "rates" does not make your stupidity any
> more reasonable. One must have some arguments or data which you obviously
> don't have.
There is ample historical record supporting the correlation of mass
extinctions and rapid climate change. It is simple biological fact that
organisms develope into environmental niches and if these niches dissappear
the organisms must adapt or die. Adaptation is not a sure outcome and the
rapidity of the loss of habitat will negativly effect their chances. Your
first sentence above is most likely just a lie that you don't even believe
yourself but is surely incorrect and conspicuous in the absence of any
supporting material whatsoever. Not to mention, the essence of hypocrisy
given your demand for arguments or data. The rest of that paragraph is
incoherent gibberish.
>> Hmmm...The Hudson Bay polar bear population is already under
>> severe stress because they don't eat from break-up to ice-up.
>
> You can see that the growth of the sea levels in the Netherlands during
> the industrial era is roughly 3% of the rise in the last 7000 years
This has no relevance whatsoever to sea ice and its effect on polar bears.
> All the scary comments you make are unjustified and only very stupid
> people take you seriously.
Non seqitur followed by ad hominum, hmm...maybe you have nothing intelligent
to offer the discussion.
>> In order to survive, they must put enough fat on during the winter
>> hunting season.
>
> Blah blah blah.
Pity you didn't stop there, the rest is downhill.
> It's completely obvious that one can compensate for a
> change of the average temperature by moving closer to the pole by a couple
> of miles, or by moving the season closer to the winter, and things work
> just like before.
Another laughable argument, even more so in the specific context of polar
bears. Firstly, lets make up a sane number. 10C will shift climatic zones
by hundreds of miles, not a couple. Moving the polar bear population
hundreds of miles closer to the pole will put much of their range in the
middle of the arctic ocean, an ocean now clear of any sea ice. But the kind
of logic you are exhibiting in your arguments probably will conclude they
will grow gills and be just fine.
Your suggestion to "move the season" closer to winter conveniently forgets
that you will get opposite shifts on each side of winter, hence a shortening
of the winter and most likely (with +10C increase in global mean) a winter
that never gets as cold. Since you are undoubtably capable of figuring this
out for yourself, the only conclusion one can draw is that your argument is
an attempt to deceive rather than illuminate.
> Your comments are irrational.
The mind boggles.
David Ball
<mo...@feynman.harvard.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, David Ball wrote:
>
>> Why is it that every time you make a post your self-described
>> intellect goes right out the window. A higher temperature could well
>> mean a significant increase in extinction rates.
>
>It may also mean a slowdown of excinction rates. According to your logic,
>losing the belief in Allah can also mean a significant increase of your
>children's death. Using the word "rates" does not make your stupidity any
>more reasonable. One must have some arguments or data which you obviously
>don't have.
That's possible, but unlikely, since extinction rates are
affected by loss of habitat. Increasing temperatures are likely going
to accelerate the loss of habitat.
>
>> Hmmm...The Hudson Bay polar bear population is already under
>> severe stress because they don't eat from break-up to ice-up.
>
>You can see that the growth of the sea levels in the Netherlands during
>the industrial era is roughly 3% of the rise in the last 7000 years
>
> http://www.climateaudit.org/
>
>All the scary comments you make are unjustified and only very stupid
>people take you seriously.
Ah, trolling at its finest. I offered you a clear-cut example
of possible extinction based on secondary effects of temperature
increase and what do you do? You offer me a link to McKittrick's
idiot's guide to science website. You made the erroneous claim that
survival was possible even after a 10C increase in temperature.
>
>> In order to survive, they must put enough fat on during the winter
>> hunting season.
>
>Blah blah blah. It's completely obvious that one can compensate for a
>change of the average temperature by moving closer to the pole by a couple
>of miles, or by moving the season closer to the winter, and things work
>just like before. The spatial temperature variation with the latitude is
>much much more than your "scary" predicted changes of various parameters.
>
Blah, blah, blah. It's completely obvious that you need to
take your head out of the orifice you have it inserted it. When you
can understand the basics, feel free to offer them. Until then, shut
up. What you have to say on these matters is completely incorrect,
peurile and border on the assinine.
Lloyd Parker
Lubos Motl <mo...@feynman.harvard.edu> wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Coby Beck wrote:
>
>> > That's right. 100 million years or so, the temperature was roughly 10
>> > degrees higher than today. It was the perfect climate in which the
mammals
>> > were born.
>>
>> Can you explain why you think this is relevant?
>
>temperatures on the biosphere, and therefore the first piece of data one
>needs to know is how life looked like at different temperatures and
>different CO2 concentrations.
How did human civilization look? How did life adapt to _rapid_ changes?
>
>Can you provide me with an alternative explanation why you apparently
>think that these facts about the history of life and climate are
>irrelevant - except for the obvious explanation that you don't quite know
>how to use your brain?
Yes. (1) Human civilization didn't exist then. (2) The change was more
gradual, so species could adapt.
>
>> As far as I understand, the promary dangers of AGW to existing life
>> forms (as opposed to life itself, I agree life will prevail)
>
>I am personally a mammal. Even if you were not a mammal ;-), I assure you
>that the mammals are those that have developed most, and other organisms
>were even more similar to their present forms.
>
>> are in the *rate* of change, not in the degree of change.
>
>We in Massachusetts (and the rest of this world) are used to the
>temperature changes of up to 20 degrees per day.
Idiot alert!
>The annual or daily
>fluctuations are bigger by several orders of magnitude than the rate that
>you use to scare others.
>
>It's not just about the weather. People like you have no idea about the
>climate variations (and other variations) in general. For example, in the
>now-largely-discredited papers, Mann et al. argued that the average annual
>temperatures in the last 1000 years fluctuated roughly by 0.2 degrees. Now
>it is estimated to be about 0.9 degrees.
No it isn't.
>Although no one can really know
>the right scale, the temperatures naturally fluctuate much much more than
>the people like you are able to imagine. They have always fluctuated, and
>they always will.
Globally, they've fluctuated over a much slower rate.
>They are also getting a contribution from human
>activity as well as from volcanos (perhaps even under the oceans) and from
>other natural sources, and there is absolutely nothing wrong about it.
No they aren't.
>
>"Colder temperature" is something different from "good ethics" even though
>obviously most of the people like you are making these irrational
>connections between totally different things.
>
>> I think this is common knowledge. Do you think otherwise?
>
>Definitely, I think otherwise. This "common knowledge" is a complete
>silliness. Everyone who can distinguish 1 degree from 20 degrees knows
>why. Even if the annual rate of climate change sped up by an order of
>magnitude, it would not be a problem at least for decades.
Like social security?
>Moreover, the
>current civilization is even more resilient against all such natural
>variations than the mammals 100 million years ago. The idea that the human
>civilization is more vulnerable against the climate change (or any other
>originally natural effect for that matter) than the generic mammals in
>the past is a striking misunderstanding what the term "civilization"
>means. I don't need to ask you whether you suffer from this
>misunderstanding because the answer is *obviously* Yes, you do.
>
>The richer and more technologically advanced our civilization is, the more
>resilient against the natural pressures it becomes. Just compare what the
>earthquakes and tsunami can do with a developed vs. underdeveloped worlds.
>I think that you've never spent a week in the wild nature, because you
>would know whether the civilization makes survival harder or easier.
OK, you going to give Bangla Desh the billions it will need to relocate?
>
>> Some of the other dangers of AGW are to existing infrastructure of
>> civilization, ie cities submerged by rising sea levels and large scale
human
>> deaths from loss of agriculture due to drastic changes in weather
patterns.
>
>These things are obviously just a fantasy from movies for
>not-very-demanding audience. I personally prefer science and reality over
>religious speculations. It is completely clear that no threatening
>anthropogenic contributions to the increase of the sea levels exist in the
>current world.
But what are you going to do when it does rise?
>The people always liked to live near the oceans, most of
>them live 20 km or closer from the sea, and they have always had problems
>with the power of the sea. Some cities are sinking, some cities are going
>up - also due to plate tectonics. I wonder whether you also want to stop
>plane tectonics or the human contributions to it.
>
>> You do acknowledge that 10C higher global temperatures would melt a lot
of
>> polar ice, don't you? Hence the danger to existing cities.
>
>10C higher temperatures, which is something expected in 300 years if we
>continue the same way, would indeed melt some ice. The rest of your
>reasoning is pretty pathetic. The rise of the sea level per year is
>completely negligible and even hardly measurable - regardless whether it
>is natural or not.
Not in the next 100 years it is not. It is going to be very significant.
>It's like if you take the tsunami and divide it to
>10,000 years. Nothing. No danger whatsoever.
>
>If I want to solve the situation with a cottage that was built too close
>to the ocean, I will either demolish the cottage and build a new one, or
>build some protection around it.
So how many Bangla Deshi are you going to take in as refugees?
>Only a complete idiot - or a terrorist -
>would solve this cottage's situation by shutting of 50,000 factories and
>power plants in order to lower the sea level visibly.
Which nobody has advocated, making you a liar.
>The economical
>difference between these two approaches is roughly tens orders of
>magnitude - your proposals how to behave when the sea level increases
>somewhere are roughly 1,000,000,000 times more expensive than a rational
>reaction.
>
>> Do you think there will be no drastic changes in weather patterns with a
10C
>> change in global average temperature?
>
>This is a completely vacuous question because the answer is a tautology.
>Change of 10C in the global temperature means that the weather in average
>will be 10C hotter. Why do you use vague words such as "drastic changes"
>if you can use the quantitative data (such as 10C)?
>
>If the weather in 2200 is 10C warmer (and it will probably be just 1C
>warmer), on Feb 12th 2200 they will have e.g. 10C instead of 0C in Boston,
>which will be pretty nice. At a point in Africa they will have 50C, which
>will be too warm, so I suppose that in that case people and animals will
>migrate to Canada, Siberia, Scandinavia, mountains and perhaps Antarctica
>where it may be more pleasant, maybe. I have no idea and I don't care.
>What I am sure is that it does not mean any disaster. We (or they will)
>have 200 years to move a bit towards the poles, if it will be necessary -
>and it's very far from clear whether it will be.
You need to take a class in climatology.
>
>It's just completely irrational to be using the current technology to
>"solve" similar "problems" of the people in 2100. As Crichton said in his
>example, imagine what sort of "problems" in 2000 people in 1900 would be
>thinking about. There was probably a large increase of transportation, so
>they would worry where would we get all the horses and what we would be
>doing with all the horseshit. It's simply impossible to plan 100 years
>into the future and estimate what their most important problems will be.
>
>Anyone who believes that he or she is so smart that he or she can do it -
>and organize the life of the people in 2100 - is a pompous fool. The
>people in 2100 or 2200 will be viewing you as medieval morons who wanted
>to bring the world to a new Dark Age. Stupid religious people with a
>pathetic 2000 technology who did not want to allow new technology to grow.
>
>> Hoping you can enlighten me as to why you (and others) point to climate
>> millions of years ago in the context of today's AGW issues.
>
>Because I am thinking in scientific terms
No, you're thinking in right-wing political terms.
>as opposed to short-term
>fashionable nonsenses such as Nazism or global warmism.
Idiot alert^2.
> Global warmism is
>a movement led by the people who don't understand the real world outside
>their offices, who have absolutely screwed ideas about the principles that
>are important for the world and those that are not important, and who
>extrapolate their questions from their air-conditioned offices 100 years
>into the future even though they don't even know what was going on 100
>years ago and who don't know that their fad will go away in 2 years or so.
Idiot alert^3.
>
>All of these environmental stupidities that you terrorize the world with
>have a lifetime of 3 years in average.
Idiot alert^4.
>All these weird doomsday
>predictions have been kind of ruled out, and those that are popular today
>will be falsified in 2 years. 5 years ago, people used to believe that the
>temperature graph in the last 1000 years looked like a "hockey stick".
>Many stupid people who prefer to believe just believed it - a consensus of
>all the "priests" - and you see, today we know that it's just garbage. No
>published paper after today will lead to a graph that would resemble a
>hockey stick.
>
>The same thing holds for all the other nonsenses that you propagate
>around. Their lifetime is inversely proportional to the intelligence of
>the general public - the lifetime of all these ideas depend on the
>inability of the people to find problems with them quickly, and to
>propagate these findings efficiently among the public.
>
>My focus is to understand how the Universe, Earth, climate, life work, as
>opposed to the political fashionable movements how to damage a corporation
>already in the next year.
So go off and become a hermit.
>I think that the global warmists are mostly
>idiots -
No, you are, and the true idiots are usually too dumb to realize it.
>who however like to picture themselves as very important and
>smart people - this is the kind of arrogant morons that I just can't
>stand.
>
>In other words, I know very well that (and why) the doomsday scenarios of
>Jehovah's Wittnesses or Global Warming witnesses - or any other group of
>not-terribly reasonable people who need some kind of religion for that
>matter - are wrong and have always been wrong. I know roughly, but much
>more accurately than them what the real dangers for our civilization are,
>and what is the timescale on which one should consider the threats for the
>"current life forms".
Sure you do.
>
>For the big geophysical and biological questions, humans are not that
>important. For the short-term about the human civilization, we should be
>using common sense and economic thinking and counting. The global warmists
>are using neither proper science with the available data from various
>timescales etc., nor economy.
Oh I see. All the thousands of scientists are wrong, and only you see
through this vast conspiracy.
>They are using some kind of perverse and
>politicized mixture that always closes their eyes if the data are
>inconvenient for their politics - and this is why I despise these people.
You know what? I don't care what an ignoramus, liar like you thinks of
science. Go back to your right-wing talk groups.
>
>It's sort of fun that you have even invented an acronym AGW. Do you really
>think that "AGW" is so important that it should have its own acronym?
Are you this stupid genetically, or do you work at it?
>
>Best
>Lubos
Lubos Motl
> Why is it that every time you make a post your self-described
> intellect goes right out the window. A higher temperature could well
> mean a significant increase in extinction rates.
It may also mean a slowdown of excinction rates. According to your logic,
losing the belief in Allah can also mean a significant increase of your
children's death. Using the word "rates" does not make your stupidity any
more reasonable. One must have some arguments or data which you obviously
don't have.
> Hmmm...The Hudson Bay polar bear population is already under
> severe stress because they don't eat from break-up to ice-up.
You can see that the growth of the sea levels in the Netherlands during
the industrial era is roughly 3% of the rise in the last 7000 years
All the scary comments you make are unjustified and only very stupid
people take you seriously.
> In order to survive, they must put enough fat on during the winter
> hunting season.
Blah blah blah. It's completely obvious that one can compensate for a
change of the average temperature by moving closer to the pole by a couple
of miles, or by moving the season closer to the winter, and things work
just like before. The spatial temperature variation with the latitude is
much much more than your "scary" predicted changes of various parameters.
Your comments are irrational.
Lloyd Parker
Lubos Motl <mo...@feynman.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>> Do you have a reference for your cost of Trillions of dollars. I don't
>> doubt that an estiamte for that amount but I am always interested in
>> seeing the methodology used for these types of cost projections.
>
>Sure, it's the most conservative estimate. You can find estimates that are
>as large as 18 quadrillions of dollars (originally a report released by
>Reuters)
>
> http://www.environmentnepal.com.np/articles_d.asp?id=184
> http://commonsensewonder.com/mtarchives/003993.shtml
> http://www.iisd.ca/climate-l/Climate-L_News_18.txt
>
>The number of pages counting the trillions of dollars for Kyoto is above
>5,000:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=%22trillions+of+dollars%22+kyoto
>
>Example, a news from Reuters
>
> http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-shchedrov061104.htm
>
>I personally don't care much which of those calculations are published -
>everyone just guesses anyway, regardless of the journals. But there are
>certainly many publications that calculate these trillions of dollars. For
>example, on
>
> http://www.weathernotebook.org/transcripts/2002/10/15.php
>
>you learn about a study that calculate the multi-trillion costs and
>unmeasurable positive results of Kyoto. The study is published in the
>August, 2002 edition of Ecological Economics.
No estimate this large has ever appeared in a reputable publication by
experts not connected with right-wing, industry, or libertarian groups.
>
>If you want to know how I estimate these costs, well I mostly consider the
>fact that a 3% growth will be reduced roughly to 2% - a simple counting of
>the effect on various industries.
OK, your stupidity is showing again.
>This means that even in the optimistic
>case that it won't start a recession, the economy in 2100 won't be 16
>times stronger than today, but just 6 times stronger. They will lose 10
>times the current world's economy every year - which is half a quadrillion
>dollars. In 36 years, you get those 18 quadrillion dollars by the counting
>above.
>
>This counting is very oversimplified,
Yes, as I'd expect from a moron.
>and it kind of assumes that it will
>take years for people to realize that these policies are a suicide. I am
>optimistic - in my opinion it will be clear as early as this year that
>Kyoto is a disaster.
>__________________________________________________________________________
bz
> It's completely obvious that one can compensate for a
> change of the average temperature by moving closer to the pole by a
> couple of miles,
Some of what you say makes sense but are you sure that only a couple of
miles would do it? I have lived in both the north and the south of Baton
Rouge and I am pretty sure that a difference of 10 miles had very little
effect on the average temperature. A few hundred miles, might, but a
'couple of miles' is surely insignificant unless local features of the
terrain dominate the temperatures.
In addition, I have problems mapping all the points north of the equator
to points a few miles to their north. It seems like there are 'less
points' the further north I go, or the points map to points that are
'closer together'.
So, everything has to get smaller. As you get closer to the pole, the
problem gets worse. I can't quite figure out how to make such a move, in
the real world.
Also, many of the 'land points' fall into the sea, into lakes, rivers or
even swamps. Some people may not like to swim around all day.
Also, those to my north may object to my moving onto their property. They
may not want to be forced to move to their north.
Of course, given time and government help, I might sell my property to
someone. Current elevation is about 50 feet above MSL. So it may someday
be valuable beachfront property. Of course, Parts of Baton Rouge are only
35 or 40 feet above MSL.
And parts of New Orleans are actually below sea level now. I think those
property values would certainly go down as the water levels come up.
> or by moving the season closer to the winter, and things work
> just like before.
Try as I might, I can't figure out how to move 'the middle of the summer,'
in Baton Rouge, 'nearer to the winter.'
It might make a good name for a SF book, however. Kind of like 'Door into
Summer'-- 'Move the season closer to winter'. I wonder what the plot would
be.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
Phil. Felton
> It seems appropriate to create a special thread.
>
> Some weird people argue that 400 ppm (parts per million) of CO2 (carbon
> dioxide) may be a critical point in which life will start to disappear,
> and all this stuff.
>
> It is known that the concentration was as large as >6,000 ppm half a
> billion years ago, and it was steadily measured in thousands of ppm as
> early as 50 million years ago - see the decreasing CO2 chart at
>
> http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
>
> See also
>
> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-2.htm
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
>
> Mammals were around, the temperatures were roughly 2-3 degrees higher than
> today, and everyone was happy. 65 million years ago, when nothing special
> happens with the CO2 concentrations - see the graphs around - mass
> extinction of the dinosaurs took place and mammals started to dominate.
Of course you're literally talking about a different planet: continental
distribution totally different, no polar ice caps, lack of seasonality, etc.
The dominant plants were the gymnosperms: ferns, cycads, conifers etc., flowering
plants (angiosperms) as we know them today
were just getting started (CO2 concentration almost certainly a factor). Mammals
were a minor player and only got going
when the major extinction of about half the species occurred. It's fair to say
that the era of the mammals/flowering plants coincided
with the drop in CO2, and the change to a more modern continental distribution,
it's deceptive to suggest that 'nothing special' happened at that time.
Increase in CO2 levels would favor some species of plants over others (in general
not the crop plants). To suggest that everything was rather similar
to the present day but just warmer is disingenuous.
Phil.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal
>
> You may call me a racist - but this shift in power was a good thing, too. ;-)
>
> The point of my text is the following:
>
> Given the scientific data we have, it's pretty safe to say that whoever
> argues that 700 ppm (or even 400 ppm??) of CO2 is dangerous for the
> existence of life is a complete moron.
> ______________________________________________________________________________
Joshua Halpern
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, David Ball wrote:
>
>
>> Why is it that every time you make a post your self-described
>>intellect goes right out the window. A higher temperature could well
>>mean a significant increase in extinction rates.
>
> It may also mean a slowdown of excinction rates. According to your logic,
> losing the belief in Allah can also mean a significant increase of your
> children's death.
Given the attitude towards apostates in Islamic countries, this is
an absolutely and demonstrably true statement. Therefore I take
it you are agreeing with David Ball.
> Using the word "rates" does not make your stupidity any
> more reasonable.
I suggest you tone it down. The general practice is that if you
want to speak in this manner you get off university or company
owned computers and post from an ISP. Believe it or not you are
placing yourself in jeopardy. Consider this a friendly warning.
josh halpern
winston
> Lubos Motl wrote:
> ...........
>
>> Using the word "rates" does not make your stupidity any
>> more reasonable.
>
>
> I suggest you tone it down. The general practice is that if you
> want to speak in this manner you get off university or company
> owned computers and post from an ISP. Believe it or not you are
> placing yourself in jeopardy. Consider this a friendly warning.
>
> josh halpern
Are you smart enough Lubos to accept excellent advice when it's offered you?
winston
Roger Coppock
atmospheric CO2 concentrations create climate
problems which effect human life long before CO2
has a major direct effect on human life. (I don't
have access to much research on other animals.)
In humans, biological effects of atmospheric CO2
are detected as low as 2,000 PPM. The Heating Air
conditioning Ventilation Control recommended limit
for office and school buildings is 1,000 PPM. The
automobile and aircraft industries have several
standards with limits between 2,000 and 5,000 PPM.
(I have tried to find what NASA's standard is, without
any success.) In humans, these levels cause
headaches, hypertension, and lethargy. As the
background outdoor CO2 concentration rises, these
indoor limits are harder to maintain. (A cost, I am sure
that Mr. Lomborg hasn't factored.)
CO2 is fatal to humans at about 50,000 PPM. Pregnant
women, infants, and the infirm may be harmed by
levels as low as 20,000 PPM.
The following CO2 MSDS sheet
http://www.chem.tamu.edu/class/majors/msdsfiles/msdsco2.htm
lists these levels and standards:
EXPOSURE LIMITS:
CARBON DIOXIDE, GAS:
CARBON DIOXIDE:
5000 ppm (9000 mg/m3) OSHA TWA
10000 ppm (18000 mg/m3) OSHA TWA (vacated by 58 FR 35338, June 30,
1993)
30000 ppm (54000 mg/m3) OSHA STEL (vacated by 58 FR 35338, June 30,
1993)
5000 ppm ACGIH TWA
30000 ppm ACGIH STEL
5000 ppm (9000 mg/m3) NIOSH recommended TWA 10 hour(s)
30000 ppm (54000 mg/m3) NIOSH recommended STEL
Vendicar Decarian
"winston" <fich...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> Are you smart enough Lubos to accept excellent advice when it's offered
you?
Clearly he isn't.
Alastair McDonald
"Vendicar Decarian" <V...@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:5TuQd.36$V56...@read1.cgocable.net...
I seems to me the advice came too late, as have my warnings :-(
See "Ice free North Pole"
Cheers, Alastair.
charliew2
"Lubos Motl" <mo...@feynman.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.31.05021...@feynman.harvard.edu...
> It seems appropriate to create a special thread.
>
> Some weird people argue that 400 ppm (parts per million) of CO2 (carbon
> dioxide) may be a critical point in which life will start to disappear,
> and all this stuff.
>
> It is known that the concentration was as large as >6,000 ppm half a
> billion years ago, and it was steadily measured in thousands of ppm as
> early as 50 million years ago - see the decreasing CO2 chart at
>
> http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
So ... is the graph generally accepted as being representative of
temperatures and CO2 concentrations of the past?
>
> See also
>
> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-2.htm
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
>
> Mammals were around, the temperatures were roughly 2-3 degrees higher than
> today, and everyone was happy. 65 million years ago, when nothing special
> happens with the CO2 concentrations - see the graphs around - mass
> extinction of the dinosaurs took place and mammals started to dominate.
>
Alastair McDonald
"charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:1115kik...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Lubos Motl" <mo...@feynman.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.31.05021...@feynman.harvard.edu...
> > It seems appropriate to create a special thread.
> >
> > Some weird people argue that 400 ppm (parts per million) of CO2 (carbon
> > dioxide) may be a critical point in which life will start to disappear,
> > and all this stuff.
> >
> > It is known that the concentration was as large as >6,000 ppm half a
> > billion years ago, and it was steadily measured in thousands of ppm as
> > early as 50 million years ago - see the decreasing CO2 chart at
> >
> > http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
>
>
> So ... is the graph generally accepted as being representative of
> temperatures and CO2 concentrations of the past?
It is based on this diagram which is the best we have at present
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/276/5312/544/F1?ck=nck
However, if you can see that diagram then you will find that the range of
error is enormous.
HTH,
Cheers, Alastair.
w...@bas.ac.uk
There are no direct measurements, as there are for the last 400 kyr (now
800 kyr). Going back 500 Myr the estimates become increasingly uncertain.
Some of them depend on running climate models to estimate how much CO2
is needed to counter faint-young-sun.
Lubos Motl
> There are no direct measurements, as there are for the last 400 kyr (now
> 800 kyr). Going back 500 Myr the estimates become increasingly uncertain.
> Some of them depend on running climate models to estimate how much CO2
> is needed to counter faint-young-sun.
Nope, this is not how my data was found. The data I mentioned are
justified by these proxies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
These include boron and carbon isotope ratios in certain types of marine
sediments, and the number of stomata observed on fossil plant leaves.
While these measurements give much less precise estimates of carbon
dioxide concentration than ice cores, there is evidence for very high CO2
concentrations (>3,000 ľL/L) between 600 and 400 Myr BP and between 200
and 150 Myr BP.[4] (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-2.htm)
On long time-scales, atmospheric CO2 content is determined by the balance
among geochemical processes including organic carbon burial in sediments,
silicate rock weathering, and vulcanism. The net effect of slight
imbalances in the carbon cycle over tens to hundreds of millions of years
has been to reduce atmospheric CO2.
______________________________________________________________________________
Alastair McDonald
> On 16 Feb 2005 w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
>
> While these measurements give much less precise estimates of carbon
> dioxide concentration than ice cores, there is evidence for very high CO2
> and 150 Myr BP.[4] (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-2.htm)
That figure makes my point; "the range of error is enormous."
Cheers, Alastair.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>> There are no direct measurements, as there are for the last 400 kyr (now
>> 800 kyr). Going back 500 Myr the estimates become increasingly uncertain.
>> Some of them depend on running climate models to estimate how much CO2
>> is needed to counter faint-young-sun.
>Nope
*Some* of them I said - not all of them. See (somewhat):
http://earth.usc.edu/geol150/variability/co2.html
>, this is not how my data was found. The data I mentioned are
>justified by these proxies:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
>(http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-2.htm)
The very long period stuff is, says IPCC (which of course we all trust
very well) is geochemical.
You might want to read the last sentence of:
http://c3c4.utah.edu/Snowbirdsymposium/abstracts/Berner.html