My Name Is Sprayber And I'm A Control Freak!!

[Kassiopeia]

Originally posted by Tokamak
That sounds like Machevelli's The Prince.

Sorry Tokamak, first come first served (or something).

[Ned]

Blake, et al. Interesting. I was unaware that there was a real dispute concerning the time lag between a rise in temperature and a noticeable, let alone, significant effect on the massive glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland. So there are some scientists who have evidence? that this ice could all melt in a relatively short time due to a small rise in Earth's temperature.

I must admit that I am having a really hard time understanding the mechanisms for this. If there is an article on the topic somewhere on the Web, I would love to read it.

As to solutions for the rise in air temperatures, I suggest that we will have to look to technology to help us. Simply mandating reductions in emissions without relatively low cost alternatives is politically unacceptable. I give you California, where I live. If improving the envirnoment is a largely low cost excercise, people will support it. But once the power goes out because California has not built any power plants in living memory, then attitudes change.

I see in Japan a possible future solution: massive investiment in electric railways with electricity provided by clean power plants, wind farms, tidal harnesses and the like. However, America is structured on the car. This implies then that the short term solution here is alternative fuels or electric cars. Again, the problem is cost. Today the average America can afford two cars. They would be unlikely to support a government mandate that so raised the cost of cars to make this impossible.

Then there are countries like China and India. They are not today supportive of Kyoto because of the cost issue. This again suggests that we really need a technological breakthrough.

A lot of the other things mentioned in your post, Blake, simply will not happen. Therefore, I suggest, if there is no low cost way of reducing emissions, we are simply going to have to adapt to the changes.

Pessimistically, Ned

[Tokamak]

There are some things that can be done.

First off, CONSERVATION! Energy conservation maks too much sense to not use, unless you're a ultilities provider. The Bush administration has been more or less completely ignoring conservation, choosing instead to exploit our wildnerness and national monuments for more oil. Fortunatley, with the crisis in California abating, this policy is losing support, and both sides of Congress are looking at energy conservation.

The new hybrid-electric cars are a major step forward. In a few years, in will be cost effective for even your average Joe-Shmoe to buy one (I hope). Also, the gas-guzzling SUVs are going to be put onto a stricter emisions standard (they were previously being held to the same standards required for 16-wheeler trucks!).

Also, WIND POWER! Wind power is simply great. It's clean, cheap to set up, and is more durable than solar power. The relatively low overhead makes wind power the perfect choice for small isolated places (such as farms), which are far away from the national power grid. It costs electricity to move electricty, so the closer your power source is to you, the more efficient the transfer.

Vel has a forum devoted to these very topics in his webpage. look for the "environmental thinktank" forum.

[Blake]

Indeed, the cost could be huge. The question is, ultimately, can the cost be justified? What price do you put on a ruined planet?

Well, my answer is firstly that the cost of changing to "green" would be affordable, ie it would be possible to stop polluting. BUT quality of life would have to go down, with restrictions on travel, power metering, and an increase on taxes. Ultimately, would the cost of change now by lower than the cost of repairing/adapting to new earth? I dont think anyone can answer that question.

Just noticed Tokamaks post:
Yes, there are alternatives, BUT they are expensive, and I'm not sure if they can ever be affordable to everyone in a"user pays" society, at a minimum clean technology will need to be subsidised (or dirty technology taxed), while both of these would be considered a "step backwards" in todays society I think that for clean technology they would be justified, because said technology works for the greater good of mankind.


This is something I grabbed out of a FAQ on global warming which I found on the net (via a google search), if interested the URL is:

http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/outreach/gw_faq.pdf

Note it's a pdf.

Q. How will global warming affect the polar ice caps?
A. Polar ice caps are some of the largest surface features on our planet and any changes to them, however small, could have far-reaching effects. Melting due to global warming is expected to reduce the size and extent of the polar ice caps, even after taking into account the potential for more snow and ice accumulation atop the ice sheets due to increased precipitation. Melting of polar ice and land-based glaciers is expected to contribute to the one half foot to three-feet sea level rise projected by the IPCC for the 21st century. Shrinking ice caps may also cause changes in ocean circulation and even storm tracks. To be sure, not all of the melting currently occurring is due to global warming, and the melting of floating sea ice does not affect sea level. Further warming will likely accelerate the shrinkage of ice caps and glaciers, however.
Of particular concern is the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. A sudden collapse would raise sea levels 16–20 feet but the IPCC considers the likelihood of such a collapse before the year 2100 low.

That last paragraph should be of some interest, because if the unstable ice sheet collpases it is a sudden rise, with no time to prepare, probably resulting in a massive loss of life and farmland.

[Tokamak]

Originally posted by Blake

Just noticed Tokamaks post:
Yes, there are alternatives, BUT they are expensive, and I'm not sure if they can ever be affordable to everyone in a"user pays" society, at a minimum clean technology will need to be subsidised (or dirty technology taxed), while both of these would be considered a "step backwards" in todays society I think that for clean technology they would be justified, because said technology works for the greater good of mankind.

Currently, renewable emergy sources receive minimal subsidies, whereas fossil-fuel-based interests receive HUGE tax breaks.

The government already intervenes quite a bit in our society's energy policy. I think a more even-handed, long-term policy by the White House would go a long way.

If solar industries recevied the same kind of backing that oil does now, I bey that photovlotaic cells would be much better than they are now (currently, they are really not a viable mass-energy source ).

[Ned]

Blake, Thanks for the link. That last paragraph concerning the collapse of he West Antarctic ice sheet is apparently what worries the Japanese. Thank god that my house is about 50 feet above sea level.

Ned

[Avenoct]

Wowies! While I put the finishing touches on the structure of 'Aldebaran 1.beta.1', my new sequel to smac, some great posts! I am constantly amazed at the bright minds here on Apolyton. I felt I was gambling with my rant, but I'm glad Blake backed me up to a degree. Some good friends of mine own property, lived, on one of the Atlantic barrier islands, Ocracoke, for 23 years. They are selling out. The mean land hight is 5 feet above sea level. We share another friend who is a soon-to-retire geologist. She prompted them to sell out. In her opinion, sea levels will rise 3-8 feet over the next 50 years. That is really really fast. But whether it is 50 years or 250 years, it's going to happen. Unfortunately many of the worlds great cities are coastal, and quite a few are on level-coastal terrain. Just in the US, think about Miami, NYC, LA, Boston, even Chicago (if water tables follow the rise).
I can't say enough that I concur with Blake about the probable effects of global warming. On the other hand, I have to differ with everyone on the solutions. Long ago I was an idealist. Then I became a field scientist. One of my jobs was in 'Ecological Restoration', which I did for two years. Basically, my company (my boss's company..chuckle) uses the government laws about Wetland Preservation to make a profit doing glorified landscaping. When a company has to inflict damage on wetlands in the US, it is required, by law, to help create or restore 2-4 times the acreage of wetlands somewhere else. So, when a power company needs to wipe out 10 acres here for their new mega-power lines, they have to 'make' 40 acres somewhere else. What they do is buy an old farm and have a company like ours come in and 'restore' the area into wetlands. I thought that was just great. But then, while driving a bulldozer across a completely barren landscape with a B+B (Balled and Burlaped Tree) in the scoop, I had a realization. Here we were, using petroleum fuels (dozer), and lots of other resources, to wipe out a perfectly good 'old field habitat' and replace it with a terraformed landscape full of planted trees, seeded wild grasses and weeds, and irrigation channels. Nature surely would have done just fine if the land was simply 'set aside' instead of being terraformed. True, we made wetlands, in some cases changing back what was a landfilled farm into the swamp it once had been, but the naivite, the gall, to try to play god with nature, to expend resources to create resources, claiming to be 'Green', just shook me to the core. I quit.
Piecing those experiences with my early childhood conclusion that 'All human acts are selfish', I came to the conclusion that 'Modern' civilization is going to smash it's way forward no matter what the consequences. All the solutions you present Toka and Blake are possible. They just aren't going to happen.
It's like a Green paradox. While we are imperialist bastards, we have the knowledge and resources to affect great changes on the world, but we can't make them without becoming something other than imperialist bastards.:banned:
The White House isn't going to stand up to the mega-industries. It works For those industries. The more long-sighted a policy, the less practical in a political sense. The only changes that will be made are ones that increase profits in the short term, and hence the wealth of the few for the long term. I was glad when the US declined to sign Kyoto. It was a moment of inevitable honesty for the military-industrial complex variously called the 'US of A'. I was shocked in a way that there weren't more Green protests in the US, but really, underneath it all, most liberals know they owe their very existence to barbarous imperialism and are loathe to make anything but token challenges to the hand that feeds them. Don't get me wrong, I hate it. Simply, it would/will take a total revolution in this country (US) to overthrough the control of industry. I won't go point by point, but take 'clean cars' for example. The solution, in the short term, would be to Tax the hell out of cars, rebuild the rail system, encourage people to live next to where they work with incentives, and banish the rude sport 'Auto-Racing' from the planet (giggle). No one suggests that. The taxes wouldn't pass. We have a major problem in this country that people don't suggest the solutions they believe in, for fear of 'losing', or losing votes, or business, heaven forbid. In the long term, clean energy, population reduction, and sustainable agriculture. I just have to say agian...this country, under the current government, will never do these things. Now, I'm not going to be a hypocrite. I'm a coward and a liberal in lifestyle, if not in beliefs (which I think are actually considered radical). I'm not going to go out and start a revolution, but I'm telling you, that's what it will take.
As to science curing science....it's a Gordion knot. Worse. It's the myth of secular humanism. Worse still, it's mathematically unjustified. Almost all processes in nature are limited by the fourth dimension, time. What goes forward does not go backward! Complexities are not unraveled by simply reversing their order...rather they expand exponentially. I'm not saying that's what you propose in your technological solutions, just that it's the myth, and that the problems we take out of Pandora's box aren't going to be solved easily. They may be addressed, but it's like bandaging soldiers in a war of attrition. I'll just leave it at that.

Blake Indeed, the cost could be huge. The question is, ultimately, can the cost be justified? What price do you put on a ruined planet?

Well, my answer is firstly that the cost of changing to "green" would be affordable, ie it would be possible to stop polluting. BUT quality of life would have to go down, with restrictions on travel, power metering, and an increase on taxes. Ultimately, would the cost of change now by lower than the cost of repairing/adapting to new earth? I dont think anyone can answer that question.

I'll hazard an answer: Yes.
All these things are true. It's like in medicine..if you don't know the cause, treat the symptom first. First we reduce what we know and think are causing the problems, then we look for a solution. But that would require great sacrifices if done effectively. I don't think we're up to it. Government is simply not that powerful. You can't tell Joe Redneck not to have anymore brushfires...look at the Amazon. If we were a true Despotism, perhaps, not that I'm signing up!

Er, um, one more thing. Na, I'd better get back to Aldebaran...

-Smack

[Ned]

Blake, If you flip to the very next page on the article you linked, you will find that Ozone depletion is indeed cooling the upper atmosphere. This is consistent with the observed increase in snow on the Antarctic ice sheet. So what is actually going on is rather weird. The temperate areas of the world appear to be getting warmer while the South Pole appears to be getting colder - with more snow and ice buildup. What this portends is a fall in sea levels as ice builds up in Antarctica because, even if the North Polar Sea melts, this is sea ice. It adds nothing to sea levels.

Where this will all lead, I don't have a clue. But obviously, this is a lot more complicated that is presented in the press.

Ned

[Blake]

erm, not exactly.
Upper Atmosphere cooler = Less heat absorbed in upper atmosphere
= more heat absorbed at surface. So in fact that suggests that more heat is getting to the poles, which will result in more rapid melting.

This quote is about the increased snowfall (my bold):

Melting due to global warming is expected to reduce the size and extent of the polar ice caps, even after taking into account the potential for more snow and ice accumulation atop the ice sheets due to increased precipitation.

While the distinct possibility exists of an ice age being caused by global warming, I imagine that we'll continue to pollute fast enough that things just keep getting hotter. Altough your right about it being more complicated...

One thing I find quite disturbing is that global warming and sea level rises are talked about as fact, suggesting that global warming is now accepted as something which is going to happen. And, if your in low lying areas (or work the land) then tough, your screwed. Guess I was a little naive about the current reality of global warming.

[Ken Hinds]

In the long run will any of this make any difference? For much more than the last 12 thousand years we have been in an Intergalacial period and most likely will be for more than another 12 thousand. During that time the mean global temperature has been rising overall. Yes, there have been some local variations at both the upper and lower extremes but overall gobal temperatures have been going up and sea levels have been rising. The English channel once harbored great forests and it is now under water. Many former coastal cities in the mediterranian are now submerged. And many areas in Canada and Scandinavia that once were at sea level or under water are now dry land or well above the sea level because of rebound from the melting of the great Ice Sheets.

Eventually the cycle will complete and we will enter another period of glaciation and the Australian Desert will become a thriving grassland or an Ice Encrusted Plain or possibly both before the next interglacial period starts again.

Ken

[Blake]

On the long run we all get vaporized in the death throes of the sun

On the scale of human generations (about 30-50 years), yes, it does matter.

[Avenoct]

Stephen J. Gould once dismantled an assumption of mine that species extinction matters. Matters to what? Will life go on? Yep.
Frankly, I don't understand where you were going with that Ken. On the one hand, yes, the recent ice age and it's end changed as much or more of the surface of the planet than we are talking about seeing in the next 50 years. On the other hand, if some or most of the near-future changes are human-induced, we will be stepping out of 'pattern'. The implication, at least to me, is that we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. If what we 'know' is that CO2 emmissions, etc. are contributing to global warming, and we have a theory about that, and we further have many tangential ideas about what we might be affecting, that's the visible part of the 'berg. What lies beneath is the vastness of our myopic understanding, all the things we affect, but can't know.
Going back to species extinction...Most of the world's amphibian species live in the SE USA, due to some odd twist of fate. What happens if they, or some of them, harbor bacteria that would be crucial to the survival of related species in the future? By wiping out the amphibians, we preclude that possibility. Ok, that wasn't a good example. The points I'm trying to make are that:
1. Though the Earth has been battered by asteroids, frozen from head to toe, had several different atmospheres, it may not have ever seen this kind of change. Not that that 'matters', it's just quite possibly new.
2. There will never be enough evidence of the past to, in the present, predict the future. On the human scale, we can't make policy that will guarantee anything, but what we can try to do is limit the variables. I think that in the end, after fulfilling our biological imperatives, we desire the hope of a future for our progeny. Perhaps too often we wish that future to be 'better' for them, but just as often stubbornly want things to stay the same to preserve what we have..as if we can know that this X will be better than that Y yet to be.

It all makes a difference, but to whom, and for what?

The Earth will surely burn in the sun if we don't manage to dismantle it first. I'd just rather put that off as long as possible, eh?

-Smack

[Ned]

I understand the current split among countries other than the US on the Kyoto treaty is the insistance by the Europeans that Nuclear Power not be an option to reduce green house gasses.

The given is that Nuclear Power is the "cleanest" way, in the short term without the invention of some new technology, to produce massive amounts of power without otherwise harming the environment.

So on its face, the position of the Europeans appears absurd.

But it brings me to another point raised by Blake that I have been thinking about. He suggested that the solution to Global Warming is the acceptance of Socialism or other forms of totalitarianism and/or a significant reduction in standard of living by the currently developed countries. However, if the enviromentalists appear to be unwilling to make hard choices, how does one expect anyone else to accept reductions in freedom or quality of life to achieve the enviromentalist's goals.

Ask yourself this question: If someone told you you had to convert to a religion of their choice in order to solve the Global Warming problem, you probably would say the person was a lunatic. There are some things more important than saving the environment for "some forgotten future generation." In my view, since I am an American, at least one of these things is freedom.

Ned

[Avenoct]

.......mumbles.....'Secular Humanism'........'constructed premises'..........'our downfall'.

[Kassiopeia]

Ned! I absolutely agree with you!
Young people pretending to be "ecological" resist the use of nuclear power, though currently it is the only at least in some manner ecological thin politicians would actually agree to do. Nuclear waste is a pronlem at some degree, but if it's buried in rock it's at least less harmful then loads of greenhouse gases. Currently the only cost-effective way to prevent more gh-gases released to the atmosphere is nuclear power.
PS. Also it would be reasonable to fund fusion research. The way of the sun is the best way.