Global Warming's Terrifying New Math | Hacker News Reader

Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

rollingstone.com

22 pointsukdm24 comments

What about the economic feedback effects? By a deliberate policy of expensive energy, along with massive subsidies to unsustainable industries (see: biofuels, windmills) there is a net creation of poverty. If we look at the consequences of global warming, it's going to strike mostly in the poverty-stricken areas of the world. By denying economic development to those regions and by making it difficult for the developed world to grow further, we are condemning many people to avoidable misery.

Note that we're not talking about pollution that causes direct health problems (an often conflated issue in the environmentalist message today).

Today's first-world sub-economy is not limited by total energy output, but by consumer demand and private credit. Furthermore, production of high-energy products would be moved towards underdeveloped countries that aren't on the Annex I of the Kyoto Protocol: that is, countries that don't have any restrictions yet on their maximum CO2 output.

Yeah, non-Annex I countries would be screwed if they tried to export energy to developed countries. That could be one way it could backfire, I guess. Given our demand for petrol, the upcoming demand for coal in under-developed countries once we move our primary and secondary economies there, and the traditional "resource curse", I would argue they should worry about other, more interesting things, like corruption.

You don't convince me. Also, please explain what this "net creation of poverty" means.

How exactly is economic development being denied?

Certainly China is not held back by concerns of CO2 emissions. Growth of coal fired power stations and the associated health impacts are well known. China also has the largest wind energy sector in the world.

I'm somewhat sceptical about an article with the word "math" in its title that says, in the opening paragraph, that 3.7x10^(-99) is "a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe".

A great start to an article that I'm skeptical about in its entirety.

I would humbly argue that most global warming articles - pro or con - are likely not good for this site, as it's one of those politicized, polarized debates that never really goes anywhere.

Yes, this, exactly. It's hardly a scientific topic anymore. Not that there wouldn't be any science involved but it's become increasingly hard to tell the science from the political scare mongering, which is why - for the time being - I try to dismiss it altogether until the dust has (finally) settled and we're presented with actual facts and objective articles.

Unfortunately, you'll be waiting for a long time. Almost every scientific issue with a lot of money at stake will have a well funded opposition keen on clouding the debate as much as possible. They've gotten much better at it over the years. Instead of denying things, they instead attempt to create an impression of greater dissent than there actually is.

This is very effective. Even intelligent, well-informed people have a limit to the amount of time they can devote to simply understanding an issue. Mainstream media also leans toward presenting "the other side", which is admirable enough, but tends to give the impression of greater uncertainty than there often is on scientific issues.

And lastly, there is political scare mongering. Scientists tend to be conservative about their projections and use language that often appears to be equivocation ("we found no evidence of X", "early studies show some support X"...") This opens the door for people who don't equivocate, including people who want to undermine science because they don't like the conclusions and people who want to reach conclusions that go far beyond the evidence. This causes rifts which become fertile ground for people who seek to create the impression of dissent on issues that aren not controversial among scientists.

I recognize that it is exceptionally difficult to educate yourself on complex issues in science, especially when faced with people who are determined to confuse. If a physicist tried to explain to me how my microwave works, and another physicist was determined to convince me that the first explanation was bunk, I would ultimately not be able to tell truth from fiction. In the end, I would have to either go back to school and study for years, or decide who seems most credible.

This is why I am more likely to put much greater emphasis on opinions from respected research institutions (such as the mayo clinic). Not blind faith - they can be wrong. Just a greater inclination to listen and stronger emphasis as I shape my opinions.

In the end, I'd emphasize that this is a scientific issue, and that you are capable of ignoring pop media and going to the source to read up on the science on this issue if you are inclined to do so. Or, you could go on smoking a pack a day for the next 20 years as you wait for all the dust to settle on the highly controversial question of whether smoking correlates with lung cancer.

It is why I wish Gore never would have presented on it. Someone like Bill Gates or someone else otherwise removed would have made the discussions and decisions much easier.

I only read the first page, but I didn't like how it started: pointing to thousands of high temperature records in the last year as an indicator for global warming. As any AGW person can probably point out, ice ages occur in cycles and hence some global warming is probably natural. The real question is - is there man made global warming? I think the science says yes, I just don't like this article making a bad case for it and in fact feeding "the opposition".

Of course even if the global warming is all natural one could still ask if we should try to stop it, that is another matter.

And what is hard to believe for US citizens last summer was relatively COLD globally - only slightly above 1950-1980 average: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_la...

That's true ... here in Pennsylvania we didn't have as many blazing hot days again this summer. Last winter was milder than many previous ones.

So from my perspective it seems like the temperature swings have less amplitude but are centered around the same bias as they always were.

Note ... My opinion only. No data was harmed (or even used) to substantiate my impression.

Afaik global warming can actually mean it gets colder in some part of the worlds, because the climate zones change around.

"Of course even if the global warming is all natural one could still ask if we should try to stop it, that is another matter."

... or can we even stop it? As you noted, the earth was cycling through warm and cold periods well before humans could have an effect. Can we stop that if we want to? Or maybe we slow it imperceptibly? I tend to think we need to consider how we'll live "with" global warming. And perhaps how we'll live during the next ice age as well?

I think in theory it can be stopped. For example isn't there something like thermonuclear winter that follows nuclear war? I guess from all the dust in the atmosphere reflecting the sunlight?

That is of course not a viable solution, it only shows that apparently man made mechanisms can both heat or cool the atmosphere.

We've never actually created a thermonuclear winter but it was indeed a prediction. I think the problem is one of scale rather than technology ... can we do enough?

True, but I think there was a vulcanic explosion that caused several cold and miserable years? It was too far in our past, though, so again it is part speculation I think. Don't remember the specifics, I think it was during the 30 year war?

Destroying the ozone layer also helps cooling.

"If you put a price on carbon, through a direct tax or other methods, it would enlist markets in the fight against global warming... And you could do it all without bankrupting citizens – a so-called "fee-and-dividend" scheme would put a hefty tax on coal and gas and oil, then simply divide up the proceeds, sending everyone in the country a check each month for their share of the added costs of carbon."

I don't understand this point. So he wants to tax people, then give everybody the money taken back? Seems like a weasel response to me. Either you're willing to face the massive social fall-out from rigorous carbon taxes or you're not. You can't have your cake and eat it too with this one.

It's redistribution from heavier than average carbon users to lower than average carbon users.

He wants a working free market which requires companies to pay for all their costs. At the moment the oil and gas industry is massively externalizing costs that result from hydrocarbon output, if you stop that, for example with a tax that will drive up the production costs and in turn prices, those will reflect the actual costs.

This in turn will cause people to invest in things whose actual costs - especially over the long term in this case - are lower such as renewable or nuclear energy sources.

Obviously this is just economical theory, in practice the alternatives are not as advanced as we would like them to be and as innovation necessary doesn't happen instantly and will create delays in which people are forced to pay more overall to sustain their standard of living or they will have to reduce it.

In the short to medium turn this will be painful but I believe that this is the only way we will actually reach a useful solution.

Summary (page 1) - Whining that the politician's didn't do anything. When do they ever? And what did the author do to reduce his carbon footprint in the last 20 years? Is he better than the politicians? Perhaps the best way to reduce emissions would have been to not have everyone take a junket to Rio?

Anyway, this was too tiring to read in its entirety, so if someone would like to add summaries for the other pages, that would be great!

aside of the "math", after reading this article I came to conclusion that there is some swindle going on about "global carbon dioxide budget", a global swindle.

CO2 is not a problem : http://ludovicurbain.blogspot.be/2012/09/co2-is-not-problem....

Reply on news.ycombinator.com