[Dean's World] Dave Price: Global Warming

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Dave Price:
Global Warming
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1175630261.shtml


   There seem to be three relevant assertions regarding the issue:
   1) The global temperature is rising, especially in the last ten years.
   This is accepted by almost everyone.
   2) Global warming is anthropogenic, driven primarily by man-released
   greenhouse gasses, especially CO2.
   This is now widely accepted, but not uncontroversial, with a [1]vocal
   minority of scientists pointing to other factors like [2]the solar
   cycle as potentially having a major influence as well.
   3) Global warming's effect are overwhelmingly a net negative for
   humans and other life on Earth.
   This, for me, is the problematic assertion, as itâs also the least
   examined and hardest to prove. Estimates of sea level rise over the
   next century range from 100 meters (disastrous) to less than a foot
   (not even mildly inconvenient), but with the IPCC finding a maximum
   level of rise of less than one meter, which doesnât seem to pose any
   great risk (no, [3]Al Gore, half of Florida [4]is not going to be
   underwater), I think the doom-mongering on this issue is a bit
   overblown. Other putative negative effects are similarly inconclusive,
   such the predicted âworst hurricane season everâ that failed to
   materialize last year. Another obfuscating factor is the âclinicianâs
   biasâ in news coverage of global warmingâs effects: if Gaia bleeds, it
   leads, and sometimes the connection to climate [5]makes little sense.
   And very little attention is paid to possible benefits of global
   warming. Such benefits might include: longer growing seasons, greater
   arable areas, expanded natural habitats and greater biodiversity (most
   life needs warmth; there are no rain forests in the Arctic), and
   reduced devastation from possible incidents of sudden global cooling
   (such as a nuclear/volcanic winter event). It's worth noting that
   historically [6]even mild global cooling has been [7]devastating,
   while [8]warming has generally been highly beneficial. While the
   possibility of cooling may be lower than that of warming, there is a
   concept in risk management which says the worse the potential outcome,
   the lower probability we should accept for it (This is easy to
   understand: we accept a high probability of being mildly
   inconvenienced by security at the airport rather than accept the very
   small chance that we will be killed on our flight by armed terrorists
   because there is no security).
   At the same time, it would be irresponsible to assert there is no
   possible danger from global warming, and as [9]Glenn points out, we
   should be limiting pollution anyway on general principle. But with
   cost estimates for Kyoto in the trillions, itâs important to be sure
   the cure isnât worse than the disease -- [10]or just silly (are those
   solar helicopters?).
   So, under the deluge of rhetoric on this issue, what's a rational
   empiricist to do?
   Well, I think it's useful to draw a distinction between two kinds of
   activities intended to curb global warming: things we should probably
   be doing anyway because they have other benefits, and things that we
   would not do except for the putatively anthropogenic, putatively
   harmful warming of Earth. Falling into the first category would be
   efforts to increase our use of nuclear power and fund more research
   into less-polluting alternative fuels. In the latter category we have
   CO2 emissions controls such as the [11]Kyoto Protocol and similar
   efforts âencouragingâ people to use less energy (which notably even Al
   Gore refuses to consider doing voluntarily) through coercive means
   like taxation; we would not normally do these things as they are
   otherwise wasteful and injurious to personal freedom and economic
   prosperity. (I will ignore carbon offsets entirely until someone
   proves to me they function as more than modern [12]indulgences)
   I think our best bet, for the time being at least, is to restrict our
   efforts to the first category while we gather more data. If the
   temperatures start to decrease as we approach the solar minmum, we can
   breathe a sigh of relief â and who knows, maybe weâll even have
   [13]reason to be thankful for those elevated CO2 levels.

References

   1. http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
   2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
   3. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000ICL3KG/bookstorenow58-20
   4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reefer_madness
   5. http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/prices_rising_faster_than_seas/
   6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
   7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1315-1317
   8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
   9. http://instapundit.com/archives2/002240.php
  10. http://en.rian.ru/world/20070403/62999935.html
  11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
  12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence
  13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter