Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

There are 20 comments on the Dec 14, 2008, Newsday story titled Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt.... In it, Newsday reports that:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#33682 Jan 19, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>It's not always about you.
What?!? I don't need your advise ok.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33683 Jan 19, 2013
You're a bitter man, Teddy.
Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#33684 Jan 19, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, the natural and annthropogenic forcings and the global climate response is "all based on the science" (of which I in fact have a fairly comprehensive understanding, thanks very much). You and I have no disagreement whatsoever on this front, as much as that seems to shock and disappoint you.
But when it comes to actually effecting real and significant CHANGES to the anthropomorphic forcings on a global scale - no, it's not "all based on the science." That is your delusion. Making such changes a reality is not even a little "based on the science." Such changes will come about because of public and private finance, engineering, economics, technology, management, and politics - or not at all. And speaking as someone who has spent a few decades engineering, managing, and organizing finance and public/political support for some of the most massive human changes to the planet to date, it pains me to have to tell you that in this arena - you have no clue, and your sanctimonious "science lessons" and baying for vague "action now!" are worthless.
Your role, as a scientist, in actually effecting real and significant CHANGES to the anthropomorphic forcings on a global scale, is to present the convincing scientific evidence on what the priority targets are - and then shut up and try to stay out of the way of those who actually know how to get it done. Analyze the measured effects of changes as they are implemented and give us progress reports, and advice on desirable course corrections we should consider. Make yourself useful.
Oh - and drop the ridiculous charade that your scientific knowledge and predictive power of this highly complex system is flawless, and incapable of error. It just makes you sound silly. Have the honesty to fess up as you revise and improve your analyses and tweak your models based on improved scientific understanding. We'll understand - it's your insistence on defending your "science" as unassailable dogma and your climatic models as perfect that's not understandable.
Buck up, son - as I think I've reassured you before - your youthful hubris and self-assurance is only a temporary condition - you'll grow out if it.
Selah.
Your last statement was correct, but uncalled for. Buck up yourself.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#33685 Jan 19, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, the natural and annthropogenic forcings and the global climate response is "all based on the science" (of which I in fact have a fairly comprehensive understanding, thanks very much).
LOL.

I stopped reading there.

Hadaway and shite.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33686 Jan 19, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.
I stopped reading there.
Hadaway and shite.
You read him very well at first blush when he appeared all of a sudden in the forum.

There are many guys like him. They misunderstand how well-trained scientists are today. They should remember how easy it was to land great jobs at their time due to racism.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33687 Jan 19, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text> Let's break it apart in my way.
[1] Ignorance is not bliss. Name calling aside.
Show me or point me to the fully realistic, affordable, politically feasible global plan of action and realistic calculations of the costs and projected results in terms of change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. I can be convinced.

All we've seen so far are calls for vaguely defined action with no specific implementation planning, useless jibber jabber at UN forums, and spurious cost-benefit calculations that completely ignore opportunity costs. That, and projections showing essentially nil reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentrations even in the most optimistic cases because of the extremely long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text> [2] There's no hurry in your venture into the cold. There are already flood maps out there you could use.
Seriously, let's get back to your
"a set of practical, affordable, politically feasible "actions" that can be taken in a meaningful timeframe and that will actually make any real difference in the future global average temperature trajectory."
What would be palatable as in % of GNP?
Too simplistic, as certain interventions have differing effects on future GDP growth. Also, opportunity costs of forced uneconomic allocations of GDP must be fully considered - 1% of GDP diverted into AGW mitigation initiatives means 1% of GDP that is consequently not spent on other things that improve the human condition, wealth, health, lifespan, etc.
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>I could start the list:
1. Prefer peace over warring. This plan would save $ trillions globally even in 20 years. Plus it reduces fossil-fuel usage and its harms.
And you?
Wonderful. Beautiful dream. I'm with you, bro - all the way.

I just have one small question - what's the specific concrete action plan you have in mind that will change hundreds of thousands of years of genetically-programmed human behaviors in 6 billion people - tribes and nations making war on each other for women, water, wealth, slaves, prestige, whatever?
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33688 Jan 19, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.
I stopped reading there.
Hadaway and shite.
Yes. Of course you did.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#33689 Jan 19, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me or point me to the fully realistic, affordable, politically feasible global plan of action and realistic calculations of the costs and projected results in terms of change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. I can be convinced.
All we've seen so far are calls for vaguely defined action with no specific implementation planning, useless jibber jabber at UN forums, and spurious cost-benefit calculations that completely ignore opportunity costs. That, and projections showing essentially nil reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentrations even in the most optimistic cases because of the extremely long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.
<quoted text>
Too simplistic, as certain interventions have differing effects on future GDP growth. Also, opportunity costs of forced uneconomic allocations of GDP must be fully considered - 1% of GDP diverted into AGW mitigation initiatives means 1% of GDP that is consequently not spent on other things that improve the human condition, wealth, health, lifespan, etc.
<quoted text>
Wonderful. Beautiful dream. I'm with you, bro - all the way.
I just have one small question - what's the specific concrete action plan you have in mind that will change hundreds of thousands of years of genetically-programmed human behaviors in 6 billion people - tribes and nations making war on each other for women, water, wealth, slaves, prestige, whatever?
You know what research is, so do some. Rather than simply whine about the lack of proposed solutions to greenhouse warming of the earth, why not look them up?

McKinsey is one of several organizations doing extensive work on this, including country-by-country cost/benefit analyses for numerous solutions: http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/sustai...

You might look up Nicholas Stern, Martin Weitzman or any number of other economists who have calculated efficient courses of action.

But first you'll have to climb out of that box in which your career so comfortably nestled you.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33691 Jan 19, 2013
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
You know what research is, so do some. Rather than simply whine about the lack of proposed solutions to greenhouse warming of the earth, why not look them up?
McKinsey is one of several organizations doing extensive work on this, including country-by-country cost/benefit analyses for numerous solutions: http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/sustai...
You might look up Nicholas Stern, Martin Weitzman or any number of other economists who have calculated efficient courses of action.
But first you'll have to climb out of that box in which your career so comfortably nestled you.
You've previously linked the McKinsey study last year, we've already discussed it before and its flawed methodology - lack of full opportunity cost analysis, and the authors' own admission of using incestuous data from a narrow circle of researchers all recycling the same single source data among themselves. Not a robust study.

Remember?

These are economists' theoretical studies of magically wished-into-place "solutions" without any treatment of the very large political and practical barriers to actually implementing them.

Academic. Not a practical or implementable action plan for which political or financial backing could be mobilized.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#33692 Jan 19, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a practical or implementable action plan for which political or financial backing could be mobilized.
You appear to place no $$ value on having a livable, healthy planet.

Like the fable's miser who killed the goose who laid the golden eggs -- in order to get all those golden eggs out now for himself.
PHD

Overton, TX

#33693 Jan 20, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
You appear to place no $$ value on having a livable, healthy planet.
Like the fable's miser who killed the goose who laid the golden eggs -- in order to get all those golden eggs out now for himself.
More useless scientific science fiction useless babble cut and paste BS. Will it ever end?
PHD

Overton, TX

#33695 Jan 20, 2013
It will not work walloped10 we know its you with more scientific science fiction useless cut and paste BS. Will it ever end?
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33696 Jan 20, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
You're a bitter man, Teddy.
Yes. I am. You noticed ...
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33697 Jan 20, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Your last statement was correct, but uncalled for. Buck up yourself.
Well - let's review the post I was responding to:

"... science, which you don't have a clue about ... anything else you have to say is worthless ... arrogant and stupid ... There really is no fool like an old fool."

Hmmm. No - I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there, Large - may I call you Large?

The last statement in my post that you found "uncalled for" was quite reserved in comparison.

FG may be a punk, but she's a very smart one - and clearly anyone who can dish it out like he does routinely can certainly take it. I doubt she's weeping her eyes out in hurt over anything I've posted to him.

But thanks for your concern. Always good to check oneself from time to time.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33698 Jan 20, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
You appear to place no $$ value on having a livable, healthy planet.
Like the fable's miser who killed the goose who laid the golden eggs -- in order to get all those golden eggs out now for himself.
You seem to place no reputational value on refraining from posting bullsh!t strawmen.

Homo sapiens has been exploiting resources for essentially short-term gain over long-run consequences for millenia, and will continue to do so indefinitely. It's what the species does, and why it has been so fabulously successful as a species. I do not judge - I merely observe.

So you're attacking my character and blaming me personally for the behavior of an entire species, merely because I make this simple observation?

Not guilty, your Honor.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#33699 Jan 20, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
Homo sapiens has been exploiting resources for essentially short-term gain over long-run consequences for millenia, and will continue to do so indefinitely.
Sometimes human beings pull up an put the long term consequences over short term gains.

The latest example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...

Before that, acid rain and CFCs.

Will human beings take the short term gains and screw up the environment for their grandchildren?

Well, there are plenty of greedy lying bastards who'd like to do so.
J Connor

Dallas, TX

#33700 Jan 20, 2013
We make decisions and those decisions have consequences. Look at the smog in Beijing this week and how much manufacturing they had to close down when they hosted the Olympics. We decide to buy things that are made in a country with no democracy (the opposite of Communist Dictatorship is democracy, not communist -capitalism)and no environmentalist group has a chance at changing anything over there...consequently from 1993 to 2013 global warming has gotten a lot worse. Buy American, where the average person can have something to say about how much pollution the manufacturing process creates, because you are either part of the problem or part of the solution. John C. UnitedAmericanConsumer dot com

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#33701 Jan 20, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to place no reputational value on refraining from posting bullsh!t strawmen.
Homo sapiens has been exploiting resources for essentially short-term gain over long-run consequences for millenia, and will continue to do so indefinitely. It's what the species does, and why it has been so fabulously successful as a species. I do not judge - I merely observe.
So you're attacking my character and blaming me personally for the behavior of an entire species, merely because I make this simple observation?
Not guilty, your Honor.
Which is why we will head into space on a massive scale. Too many resources out there. Too much money to be made.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33702 Jan 20, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Sometimes human beings pull up an put the long term consequences over short term gains.
The latest example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...
Before that, acid rain and CFCs.
Will human beings take the short term gains and screw up the environment for their grandchildren?
Well, there are plenty of greedy lying bastards who'd like to do so.
Yep, fair point. And there are certainly other examples - global treaties and agreements on protection of fisheries, e.g.- but it must be recognized that in each of these cases,

a) real and severe consequences (minimata disease, ozone depletion, dead lakes in the Northeast) were being demonstrably and inarguably experienced in the immediate present, not speculatively 50 or 100 years down the road, and

b) the "fix" was relatively simple and low-impact - remove some specific compounds from commercial use that each represented a trivial percentage of the total economy, and for which technology/product substitutions were readily available.

c) acid rain in particular doesn't represent an encouraging example of the kind of global cooperation required to address AGW, merely one of a single country - the US - mandating a readily-available technology (FGD) on power plants at minor incremental cost. Coal plants around the world continue to spew unregulated megatonnes of sulfur and nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere causing acid rain around the globe in places like most of eastern Europe from Poland northward into Scandinavia, southeastern coastal China, and Taiwan.(And let's not miss the opportunity the acid rain story affords to be reminded yet again how dangerously incompetent well-intentioned Governments are in picking and mandating technology; the US government's mandating catalytic converters on autos to cut unburned HC emissions and smog has had the undesirable side effect of substantially _increasing_ emissions of nitrogen oxides,_worsening_ the acid rain problem. Not to mention increasing releases of N2O, a greenhouse gas over three hundred times more potent than CO2, as I know you're aware).

So these examples of enlightened collective action on a global scale really don't even approach the kind of leap required to address AGW to any substantial degree - asking 6 billion people to stop combusting carbon-based fuels for which no adequate substitute presently exists or is even on the horizon, and just take the hit on their living conditions and economic well-being, to avoid conjectured predictions of bad consequences generations from now?(Yes, I know you're seeing red over my use of the term "conjecture" - An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information - but however certain and complete the scientific community may consider the science behind these predictions re: AGW to be, they are not 100% complete or certain, and an true scientist speaking honestly with integrity must and would freely admit they are properly said to represent conjecture, albeit highly reliable conjecture. Political activists and anti-globalist ideologues riding AGW as a stalking horse for other agendas, of course - not so much ...).

All of which is just to explain why I don't find in these examples much reason to think the kind of unprecedented leap in enlightened collective human action on a global scale required to bend the global T curve down to any significant degree is within the realm of reality. Experience tells us whatever action does manage to emerge from the well-intentioned global collective is as likely to create even bigger unanticipated woes in other areas ...

So - will human beings take the short term gains and screw up the environment for their grandchildren? Yes, Virginia - I'm afraid the preponderance of all the millenia of evidence says they probably will.

And yes, sadly greedy lying bastards have always been in plentiful supply in the real world, and always will be.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#33703 Jan 20, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
a) real and severe consequences (minimata disease, ozone depletion, dead lakes in the Northeast) were being demonstrably and inarguably experienced in the immediate present, not speculatively 50 or 100 years down the road,
It's MUCH more than "speculative" say virtuall ALL THE WORLD RENOWN SCIENCE AGENCIES.

Here is NASA stating how we know:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Here is the ROYAL SOCIETY of England and this is typical

http://royalsociety.org/policy/climate-change...

<<It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years.

Whilst the extent of climate change is often expressed in a single figure - global temperature - the effects of climate change (such as temperature, precipitation and the frequency of extreme weather events) will vary greatly from place to place.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 also leads to ocean acidification which risks profound impacts on many marine ecosystems and in turn the societies which depend on them.

The Society has worked on the issue of climate change for many years to further the understanding of this issue. These activities have been informed by decades of publicly available, peer-reviewed studies by thousands of scientists across a wide range of disciplines. Climate science, like any other scientific discipline, develops through vigorous debates between experts, but there is an overwhelming consensus regarding its fundamentals. Climate science has a firm basis in physics and is supported by a wealth of evidence from real world observations.
The problem is the OIL and COAL companies are starting a misinformation
campaign on global warming.

Here is Scientific American:

<< There is, in fact, a climate conspiracy. It just happens to be one launched by the fossil fuel industry to obscure the truth about climate change and delay any action...

As physicist and climate historian Spencer Weart told The Washington Post: "It's a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers." Well, probably they did, but point taken.>>

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.c...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Norfolk Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 10 min sonicfilter 1,220,147
News Virginia Beach man faces child neglect charges ... (Aug '10) 10 hr gman 63
Ntelos - Hampton Roads 14 hr BreezWay95 1
News Postal worker sentenced for dumping mail in Nor... Fri destroyer 1
News Outlaws Motorcycle Gang Indicted: 27 members of... (Jun '10) Fri destroyer 43
Single Mom wants benefits Fri destroyer 2
Does anyone else think the yearly car inspectio... (Nov '10) Apr 23 Elaine 24
More from around the web

Norfolk People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]