Apparently Warren Meyer is unaware that we can measure anthropogenic CO[sub]2[/sub] through its isotope ratio and because of this, we can determine that fossil CO[sub]2[/sub] is entering the oceans at an increased rate rather than leaving it. Measurement directly contradicts his statement.
Citation: Quay et al. 2003. Changes in the [sup]13[/sup]C/ [sup]12[/sup]C of dissolved organic carbon in the ocean as a tracer of anthropogenic CO[sub]2[/sub] uptake. Global Biogeochemical Cycles Vol. 17, No. 1.
(N.B. ∂[sup]13[/sup]C is negative in these measurements because fossil fuels have more [sup]12[/sup]C than [sup]13[/sup]C.)
Citation: Druffel et al. 2003. Penetration of anthropogenic carbon into organic particles of the deep ocean. Geophysical Research Letters 30:1414.
The oceans releasing co2 and of course the methane releases from Siberia are all part of the catastrophic positive feedback loop due to AGW. It’s why climatologists are warning us of disaster in increasingly desperate tones.
Honestly - we should treat people like B84 with the same contempt we treat Holocaust Deniers. The AGW debate is over. The Fat Lady has sung (or in this case, farted). The only question now is what can we do or what are we prepared to do to limit the scope of the disaster we’re facing as a planet.
In that case, why didn’t the climate run away in the past when temperatures and CO2 levels were both (relatively) high? By your reasoning, the higher temperatures should have caused more CO2 to be released, which should have caused the temperatures to rise higher still, and so on.
No it isn’t. For example, if the debate were over, you should be able to have good answers to tough but reasonable questions concerning “AGW.” (I assume that by “AGW” you mean the same thing as me when I say “CAGW”)
For example, what in your opinion caused the rapid increase in temperatures in roughly the first half of the 20th century?
One day I’ll tell my grandchildren that there used to be ice in the north pole during summer and there were big white bears that lived on it. For them this debate will be over.
I already enjoy telling younger people about the dot com mania; the Salem Witch mania; the Dutch tulip bulb mania; and so forth. Inshallah, I will live long enough to laugh about the Global Warming Mania of the late 20th and early 21st century.
I’m not sure that I understand your question. The manias I cited had a large impact in the areas where they took place, so I would say they were impactful. Are they in the nature of, or do they contain a warning? I suppose one could look at them that way, but that’s obviously not the reason they took place.
I’ll admit it. Mostly I’m tickled at the link you inadvertently(?) draw between speculative markets and witchcraft accusations.
But I think that any event you could cogently and relevantly discuss with younger people (who, in all likelihood, don’t come from Salem, Holland, or Silicon Valley) have had a large impact beyond their geographical origins, or you wouldn’t be relating them anecdotally, even if you scoff at said impact. I could be wrong, and am willing to be corrected by your rebuttal.
What is the one reason all three of these events took place?
He’s muddying the waters. The Tulip Bulb thing was not ‘mania’ any more than the recent property bubble was.
It was a real catastrophic event at the end of a real lead-up-to-catastrophe-warnings-ignored process leading to disaster. Just like AGW. It undermines his case.
Kinda also like the real lead-up-to-catastrophe-warnings-ignored process leading to speculative investments in virtual companies and the acknowledged extremely political motivations of the beginning of the Salem massacres? Yeah.
OTOH, I’m glad to see that being leery of crisis-mongering CGW does not negate a conviction viz. sensible caution AGW. I arrived conflicted; thanks to the efforts of several posters in this and other AGW threads, I depart resolute (and much enriched for the experience). Kudos for staying the distance and repeating yourself ad infinitum for the sake of keeping the waters clear.
It was not inadvertent at all. Both such events fall into the larger category of group manias. Situations where groups of people collectively do something crazy.
It depends how define “large impact.” Certainly the Salem witch hunts were notorious enough that most educated people have heard of them. Same thing with the Dutch tulip bulb mania. Has humanity learned anything from those events? That’s a more difficult question.
In any event, I’m not sure how what you are saying contradicts anything I’ve said. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the manias I referred to were “impactful.” So what?
At heart, it’s a collective action problem combined with self-deception, and greed or fear. For example, suppose you were a resident of Salem back in the day. If you speak out against witchcraft, it will probably help your standing in the community, since it demonstrates your piety. Under such circumstances, it’s easy to fool yourself into believing in such nonsense. Why? Because it’s in your interests to do so. Most people have a tendency to believe what they want to believe.
Thus, the situation is ripe for people to start competing by exaggerating the “witchcraft” problem and taking stronger and stronger actions against witchcraft. Once the situation reaches a certain level, opportunists realize (consciously or subconsciously) that they can increase their individual wealth and power by jumping on the bandwagon and stoking the fires, so to speak.
And so the situation can grow and grow until – collectively – the community starts doing crazy things.
Similarly, with a speculative stock market bubble, individual (and corporate) investors bid up the price of stocks to insane levels. From the point of view of an individual investor, it’s not necessarily a monumentally stupid thing to invest in. After all, there is a decent chance that they will make money, perhaps a lot of money. And it’s easy enough to fool one’s self into thinking the odds are better than they are. But collectively? it’s complete madness.
Again, it’s a combination of greed/fear, self-deception, and groups behaving in ways which are collectively insane.
Here, the catastrophe is the loss of property (and possibly lives) resulting from throwing large amounts of precious resources away in order to achieve small reductions in CO2 levels.
brazil84: Where do you get your alarmist predictions of the economic effects of mitigating AGW? You might want to look here.
It is also curious that you think that the costs are so great given that if we were simply running out of fossil fuels rather than using mechanisms like cap-and-trade or a carbon tax to create artificial scarcity, I hardly think you would be predicting such dire consequences. You would instead probably be regailing us with heart-warming stories of how wonderful the market is at harnessing human ingenuity to solve problems in the least costly way.
And, of course, we are going to have to get off fossil fuels eventually because they are a finite resource. The only question is whether we do it before or after we have caused significant harm to our environment.
Among other things, from someone known as “Cecil Adams.”
I looked. The first part of the article suggests that the cost of mitigating CO2 is less than the cost of not doing so. Of course, that’s true if you assume that disaster will result from increased CO2 levels. An assumption which is false, as far as I can tell.
Second, there is a cite to a paper by the “environmental defense fund” which apparently makes assertions about the cost of “climate policy,” whatever that means. shrug.
In any event, I recall that you and I went through this argument before. You based your claim on supposed predictions made by by the IPCC. I went through the trouble of looking up the references and it turned out that the “predictions” were not predictions at all, but something else. I can’t remember what they were, but basically your claim did not stand up to scrutiny.
Look, if your wife brought your children’s college fund down to Atlantic City and blew it all, I’m sure you’d find a way to muddle through. It doesn’t change the fact that she wasted your money.
Okay, now you really lost me. How is that cogent to the issue of global warming? Are people building bomb shelters again? Or just trying to mitigate potentialities in a way that conserves resources at the same time?
That’s what I asked. You’ve answered. Your previous post indicated the impact was limited to the geography.
Believing what you want to believe, and believing based on rampant fear and/or greed, are two different items altogether. History suggests the latter does not typically equate to the former.
Parris didn’t want to lose his position as minister. He read a nifty book about witchcraft trials in Boston. Shortly after, his daughters started having hysterical fits. :rolleyes: People accused their neighbors not because they wanted to believe in witchcraft, but because it was far safer to do unto others before they could do unto you.
Exuberant investing predicated on the quick growth principle was based not on a “want” to believe, but on ignorance of viable business models.
What resources are being wasted, please? The initiatives with which I am familiar all stress cost-efficacy.
I misunderstood your original statement that the impact of these events was felt regionally to mean that these events were only impactful regionally.
Nope, my problem is with your assumption that collectively (your word), everyone believed that dot com investments were better than they actually were. That denies the existence of the “get in, get out” (CBS, Yahoo, etc) and “win the network effects race” strategies (Cisco, Amazon, etc).
Yep. With that qualifier “essentially,” this is basically a throwaway statement to mean whatever we can agree it means–ie., that people who made accusations always or never did so based on personal motive or personal belief.
Certainly not in a ploy to seize land in crowded villages, do away with rivals and/or detractors, or establish a power base on paranoia.
The historical records of the time show that when witchcraft trials took place in front of educated people or concerned wealthy or powerful accused, especially outside of the influence of Gov. Phips, juries moved to acquit.
So it seems that when more data is available upon which to make good decisions, and when people press to have this data available for examination, the masses will be less reactionary and maniacal.
So if we’re being swept up in world wide meltdown mania, where are the bomb shelters, again? And don’t point at the hybrids, or green roofs, or clean air campaigns. I want mania.
No it doesn’t. I specifically said that buying in was not necessarily monumentally stupid. The whole point is that individual decisions which are not crazy can lead to collective actions which are crazy.
I’m not sure what you are saying. Do you deny that many people really did believe in witchcraft at that time?
Well obviously, if you don’t believe there are any real costs associated with climate change, you won’t believe that the costs of mitigation are less than the costs of the climate change. But you would also just be basing this on your own personal opinion rather than the opinion of most of the scientists who have studied this.
As I recall, you just nitpicked it to death as is your M.O.
And, you still haven’t explained to me what you expect to do once fossil fuels really get scarce enough that we have to get off of them anyway.
Among other things, I claimed, in essence, that there would be signficant loss of property (and possibly lives) from abating CO2 emissions. Do you disagree with this or not?
It depends on what exactly this opinion is. Are there costs associated with climate change? Sure. Will CO2 emissions cause climate change with significant negative effects on human well being? In my opinion, no. And it’s never been substantiated to me that “most of the scientists” feel differently.
That’s nonsense. The studies simply didn’t say what you claimed that the IPCC claimed that they said. It was like a big game of telephone.
We’ll muddle through and switch to something else. Just like you would muddle through if you lost your job or your childrens’ college fund. Duh.
I have no idea what your point is.
