The Atlantic - Latest Comments in That said

Re: That said

alternative buy viagra — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:06:46 -0000

buy online viagra where http://magic-pills-swicki.eurekster.com/Buy+Viagra+Online buy viagra online buy discount online viagra

Re: That said

buy cheap online uk viagra — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:12:14 -0000

buy kineret.siamforum.com viagra

Re: That said

Ted Carmichael — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 23:06:09 -0000

Megan - Did the Reason Mag skeptic accept the "reality of anthropogenic global warming?" Perhaps I read the wrong article, but it seems he came to accept only that global warming is occurring, and didn't, in fact, say we are the cause.

That may seem pedantic, but I happen to agree that things are warming up this cycle ... while still strongly disagree that GHG is the cause. Still, I read most of the comments on this post, and am very relieved to find a level of common sense, skepticism, and desire to find the truth that I rarely see in the main stream press on this issue.

I do have some decent environmental cred, since I'm fine with a reasonable carbon tax or pollution cap system. I live in North Carolina, so I'd be happy to see the Blue Ridge mountains actually start to look blue again. And, you know ... I like breathing. I'm even fine with an oil tax to help our foreign policy ... as long as it's configured to keep the price per barrel fairly steady, so that expensive research into alternative energy doesn't suddenly have it's price advantage swept away. (It wasn't so long ago that the price per barrel was $20, and it could easily go there again, IMHO.) A baseline price of $60 would probably be acceptable, since it's now around $80 ... but that's a whole 'nother debate.

The thing about global warming is, none of the data on AGW really support the theory that increased GHG actually precede global warming ... while a lot of data supports the theory that higher temperatures produce more CO2. So I would say that it's likely something else - probably that big ball o' fire we call the sun - is causing global warming, which releases more CO2's into the air, and gives a much more logical causal relationship.

By the way ... I'm not an environmental scientist. But I am a computer scientist, and I know a lot about computer models. You know ... the ones that are getting "more and more accurate" with their predictions but still can get it right? It's called over-fitting the data. Complex models can easily do that, especially if you "update" the model with more and more data, but don't give it a proper test period. Probably, a lot of these models will crash in the next few years as the natural cycles change, just like they did in the 1970's, and the 1940's before that.

But hey - I could be wrong. Which is a lot more than the global warming crowd seems able to admit.

Cheers,

Ted

Re: That said

EJ — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:02:06 -0000

dude, if you're still a climate change skeptic, it's time for a rethink.

You are no longer the woman for me. Plus, you're a little short.

Re: That said

aaron — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:45:45 -0000

Local organic food also means more spoilage cost (waste) and supply shocks.

Re: That said

MEH — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:04:46 -0000

TF,

see: "...if you're still a climate change skeptic, it's time for a rethink. When the science correspondent for Reason magazine comes over to the reality of anthropogenic global warming, it's safe to say that the skeptics have lost the debate."- MM

It's her Primary premise, not her, that atlas is upending.

Re: That said

Njorl — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:48:45 -0000

"Conservation seems to be an utterly silly way of solving the global warming problem, given that the only alternative to explosive growth is economic collapse. "

Recently, economic growth has ceased to be linearly related to energy consumption. They are still positively correlated, of course, and will continue to be so, but the amount of correlation will most likely continue to decline. With non-carbon emitting energy sources increasing market share by a few percent per year, we could have growth that exceeds that in gross global product while still reducing carbon emissions.

Re: That said

Yancey Ward — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:41:44 -0000

The entire debate about what to do about AGW is completely irrelevant. We will learn the effects 60-120 years from now. Anyone that seriously believes that the oil, the gas, and the coal will not produce well over 75% of the energy consumed on the planet during the next century is shockingly naive.

Re: That said

tfowler — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:07:22 -0000

Mark E Hoffer - Re: "way to do your own homework."

More like "way to attack the arguer, rather than the argument.

Re: That said

aaron — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:52:51 -0000

"Well, in fairness, Rob, the argument is rather something like that it DOES come in one big wave -- or a bigger wave, anyway. A relatively rapid change in overall temperatures is argued to increase the size and frequency of violent storms; combine that with a higher sea level, and suddenly an unpleasant but survivable typhoon is a much bigger typhoon with a massive storm surge."

Your point is well taken, but global warming may lead to a slight increase in storm intensity and lower frequency.

Re: That said

Kevin P. — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:45:22 -0000

So low tide would be higher and high tide would be even higher, reaching areas that previously were not affected by the tides.

Certainly this is the case. But today, tides cause differences in local sea level of several feet in many parts of the world. A change in mean sea level of 8 inches to 2 feet is still a fraction of the change in levels due to tides over time spans of several hours. And mayhem does not ensue in those few hours. If even the high tide level goes up by 8 inches to 2 feet, I doubt that mayhem would ensue or that mass environmental catastrophe would occur.

Re: That said

Earnest Iconoclast — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:35:15 -0000

While I'm not an AGW alarmist, I have to object to the comparison between a rise in sea level and the tides. Tides are an increase and decrease within a given range. If sea level rises due to global warming (or anything else), then the range of the tides moves up, too. So low tide would be higher and high tide would be even higher, reaching areas that previously were not affected by the tides.

If sea level rises 2 feet in 100 years, slowly, people will adapt. If sea level does rise quickly due to a massive catastrophic even in Greenland or Antarctica, then we would have a serious problem.

Re: That said

Kevin P. — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:11:34 -0000

brooksfoe:

Again, it's between 8 inches and 2 feet at least, but of course people will adapt. Miami Beach will disappear, but that's not the worst thing that's ever happened. The Everglades will probably be mostly gone. The most difficulty will be faced by places like the Mississippi, Ganges, Thames and Rhine deltas, where the rivers will cease to flow and will turn into estuaries and bays. It may be necessary to put a substantial part of Holland back under water. Venice will probably be beyond salvaging. The Mekong Delta in Vietnam, basically the entire southernmost part of the country, will largely disappear, damaging the country's ability to feed itself. But people will adapt.

Shouldn't some portion of these things happen at every spring tide? You are presuming that we can't adapt to prevent these things from happening - that we will just sit there and watch the waters rise helplessly.

Re: That said

aaron — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:09:06 -0000

But, at the upper edge of that range, we've never in recorded history seen any landscape change as big as a 2-foot rise in sea levels over 100 years would be. So don't kid yourself that this is no big deal.

Except the 1-foot in the past 100 years.

Re: That said

aaron — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:59:33 -0000

'til warmanistas deal with traffic (dispell the myth that slow acceleration is more efficient than smooth, fast acceleration; fund traffic light timing and make it available to drivers through gps; build more and better roads; install electronically controlled and coordinated traffic lights and speedlimit postings; etc.), I can't take anything they say the least bit serious.

Re: That said

Mark E Hoffer — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:53:51 -0000

atlas,

way to do your own homework. Th worm has long since turned @ Reason Magazine.

Personally, I think they're still living off the afterglow from the bright light that was V. Postrel. (note: she left) It's really too bad that she didn't/couldn't take the Title with her.

Re: That said

brooksfoe — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:43:21 -0000

To correct misimpressions:

sea levels will rise in the neighborhood of 20 cm - jenny and kevin p.

Actually, the 4th IPCC report has the most recent international consensus on likely sea level rise in the 21st century at 18 to 38 cm (low scenario) or 26 to 59 cm (high scenario). So 8 inches is at the very low end of the possible; the high end would be 2 feet. And that's excluding any catastrophic scenarios, like a much more rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet. Scientists note that with each new round of review, the IPCC's estimates keep getting higher, which is not a promising sign.

And you are saying that humans can't adapt to a mean level change of 8 inches that occurs over a century?

Again, it's between 8 inches and 2 feet at least, but of course people will adapt. Miami Beach will disappear, but that's not the worst thing that's ever happened. The Everglades will probably be mostly gone. The most difficulty will be faced by places like the Mississippi, Ganges, Thames and Rhine deltas, where the rivers will cease to flow and will turn into estuaries and bays. It may be necessary to put a substantial part of Holland back under water. Venice will probably be beyond salvaging. The Mekong Delta in Vietnam, basically the entire southernmost part of the country, will largely disappear, damaging the country's ability to feed itself. But people will adapt.

Re: That said

caveat bettor — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:13:52 -0000

I just created a global warming prediction market here:

http://globalwarming.inklingmarkets.com/

Please sign up and trade ($5,000 of play money). Let's hope we can get a real market up and running, and better inform our policy on global warming.

Re: That said

atlas — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:09:50 -0000

Persuing the Board of Trustees for Reason, and you'll find many men with a substantial financial stake in this argument. (The Koch bros, in particular)

Re: That said

atlas — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:59:30 -0000

I'll sidestep the semantics, but I do want to point out that the Reason Foundation receives their primary funding from American Petroleum Institute, Chevron, ExxonMobil, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motors, General Motors and Shell.

Read into it what you will.

Re: That said

Ed — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:47:21 -0000

Megan,

I'll second John Costello's comment-

http://www.climateaudit.com

is a fun read on the truly poor state of some of the science that is getting done. McIntyre is a classic "the empereor has no clothes" gadfly.

And, on the truly poor state of the data being used for the above science -

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php

Only about 13% of the weather stations in the HCN meet NOAA/NASA's own basic site criteria. Anthony Watt's powerpoint slideshow about this to CIRES/UCAR is hysterical.

Best of all, you can submit your own surveys and pics of the many unsurveyed stations in the Virginia and Maryland area. Or New York.

All the excitement of geocaching and blogging, combined!

Re: That said

Marc Resnick — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:19:47 -0000

And yet CNBC, a major cable network, had a debate on this morning pitting a global climate change skeptic against a more mainstream scientist. And the "hosts," mostly Joe Kernan, were on the skeptic's side. It is very disappointing to see people who appear to have intelligence and probably have a good deal of influence, taking such a naive view.

Re: That said

tfowler — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:06:49 -0000

The evidence that we have warmed in recent years is pretty overwhelming. Some of the data is questionable, but not all of it, and there is so much of it, that added together its pretty solid despite the occasional flaw.

OTOH why we are warming, how much we will warm, what the results of the warming will be, and what we should do about it, and what the costs and effects of these counter actions will be, are all very uncertain questions. That adds up to a very large reason to be skeptical about any quick and expensive response to global warming.

Re: That said

Kevin P. — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:57:47 -0000

jenny:

[sea levels will rise in the neighborhood of 20 cm. Which is to say, about 8 inches. In a century. which] would be a very bloody and expensive catastrophy.

There's already a hut there. When the family hut falls apart, you'll be a refugee if you're alive. If the oceans rise a few inches there will be a lot of refugees.

These arguments are silly. The ordinary phenomenon of the tides causes local sea levels to change by several feet in the course of a few hours. And you are saying that humans can't adapt to a mean level change of 8 inches that occurs over a century?

Even if the sea levels rise, as they have risen and fallen for millenia, there are many things that can be done to mitigate the effect, especially when there are decades to study and plan for them. The Dutch are very accomplished at building dykes and keeping the sea out. Restoring wetlands re-establishes buffer zones between the sea and human habitation. And ultimately, though it may seem cold to say this, a (slowly) rising sea level may force humans to relocate, in an orderly fashion from coastal zones where they shouldn't have established large scale habitation to begin with. I would think that environmentalists would be happy with this.

Re: That said

Noah Yetter — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:53:41 -0000

It's never been satisfactorily explained to me how we can distinguish our observed climate trends from statistical noise, given the tiny sample we have (i.e. roughly 50-100 years of accurate observations vs. geologic time) AND conclude this is due to human activity AND conclude that we must do this, this, and this to correct it AND that this is worth enduring a permanent global recession.

Thus I remain a skeptic.

BTW if anyone has links to any material that can conclusively show current observed trends are not statistical noise, I would genuinely like to see them.