Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Obama Administration Considers Geo-Engineering to Cool the Planet
The Associated Press is reporting that President Barack Obama's science advisor John Holdren has brought up the idea of using geo-engineering as an emergency measure for cooling the planet should man-made global warming get out of hand. The AP says:
One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.
"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table." ...
...Holdren noted that shooting particles into the air — making an artificial volcano as one Nobel laureate has suggested — could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions. So such actions could not be taken lightly, he said.
Still, "we might get desperate enough to want to use it," he added.
Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide — the chief human-caused greenhouse gas — out of the air and store it. At first that seemed prohibitively expensive, but a re-examination of the approach shows it might be less costly, he said.
Naturally, Reason was ahead of the curve on the issue of geo-engineering the climate. In his 1997 article "Climate Controls," Gregory Benford outlined a number of possible technical fixes for cooling the planet including putting reflective dust or sulfur particles in the upper atmosphere and growing more trees to soak up carbon dioxide. On upper atmosphere particles, Benford wrote:
Spreading dust in the stratosphere appears workable because at those heights tiny particles stay aloft for several years. This is why volcanoes spewing dust affect weather strongly. The tiny motes that redden our sundowns reflect more sunlight than they trap infrared.
Even better than dust are microscopic droplets of sulfuric acid, which reflects light more effectively. Sulfate aerosols can also raise the number of droplets that make clouds condense, further increasing overall reflectivity. This could then be a local cooling, easier to monitor than carbon dioxide's global warming. We could perform such small, controllable experiments now. The amount of droplets or dust needed is a hundredth of the amount already blown into the atmosphere by natural processes, so we would not be venturing big dislocations. And we would get some spectacular sunsets in the bargain.
Whole prescient Benford article here. My 2008 column on the geo-engineering conference at the American Enterprise Insitute can be found here.
wingnutx|4.8.09 @ 1:00PM|#
Even better than dust are microscopic droplets of sulfuric
acid, which reflects light more effectively.
So all this time, acid rain was actually a good thing.
Even if it did
turn Kimberly's hair green.
Kyle Jordan|4.8.09 @ 1:02PM|#
"One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles
into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said
such an experimental measure would only be used as a last
resort."
Am I the only one that this sounds a little...bat-shit insane
to?
Granted I understand it's feasibility and that's it's use would be
in "extreme" scenarios but this still strikes me as worrisome.
|4.8.09 @ 1:03PM|#
Okay Bailey, fact it has been getting cooler every year since
1998. Fact, we have only been measuring temperature since the
1890s, and there questions about how accurately.
In the 1970s the "consensus" was that the earth was cooling, not
warming.
...In short there is no fucking man made global warming. It is a
crock of utter bullshit.
Why don't you understand that?
If your drinking stop, if your not drinking, start.
Fluffy|4.8.09 @ 1:07PM|#
We might get good results from a space mirror set at a point in
space where it can block or filter sunlight away from a significant
portion of the Earth's surface.
Such a mirror would have interesting military potential as
well.
Come the Revolution, we really want to have one of those. As well
as lots of EMP weapons. They'd make even better Liberation Weapons
than big hunks of moon rocks thrown through space.
NeonCat|4.8.09 @ 1:07PM|#
I like John Barnes's Mother of Storms solution myself,
which is a variant on Futurama's: take a comet, slice it up and
frisbee the pieces into the atmosphere over the tropics where they
break up into ice and snow.
Granted, our space capabilities aren't up to the challenge just
yet, but getting them there would have all kinds of benefits.
Flip|4.8.09 @ 1:08PM|#
"Still, "we might get desperate enough to want to use it," he
added."
Wow! Now there's change I can get behind.
|4.8.09 @ 1:09PM|#
I support geo-engineering the temperature down to our pre-industrial mean. On the condition that once we do GAIA WORSHIPERS SHUT THE FUCK UP. Even the massive expense of geo-engineering would be a small price to pay to be free of their fucking whining.
|4.8.09 @ 1:10PM|#
raivo pommer-www.google.ee
raimo1@hot.ee
DUMMES GELD
Es steht im Kleingedruckten, irgendwo ganz unten auf dem Prospekt:
"Das Zertifikat darf nicht in den U.S.A. oder an eine U.S.-Person
im Sinne der Regulation S des U.S. Securities Act 1933 verkauft
werden."
Nein, das Papier ist vor allem für deutsche Anleger gedacht, so wie
viele andere Zertifikate auch. Kein Wunder, dass auch von der
Pleite der US-Investmentbank Lehman Brothers besonders viele
Deutsche betroffen sind - hierzulande wurden besonders viele
Papiere der Bank verkauft.
Wer ein Zertifkat kauft, erwirbt damit keinesfalls einen Anteil an
einem Wert, also an einer Aktie oder einem Fonds. Stattdessen ist
solch ein Papier wie eine Wette. Gewettet wird auf die Entwicklung
von Aktien, Rohstoffen, Indizes oder Wechselkursen. Deutschland war
in den letzten Jahren das Land der Zertifikate. "Der Markt umfasst
hier aktuell knapp 400.000 Produkte, monatlich kommen teilweise bis
zu 40.000 neue auf den Markt", sagt Harald Rotter von der
Schutzgemeinschaft der Kapitalanleger (SdK). Im Dezember 2004
hatten die Deutschen 47,5 Milliarden Euro in die Papiere
investiert, auf dem Höhepunkt im September 2007 waren es fast 140
Milliarden Euro. Ein rasantes Wachstum.
|4.8.09 @ 1:12PM|#
Terry,don't waste you time.The fact they only have 50 or so years of data for a planet 4 billion years old doesn't matter.The 'smart people' are in control.
Dither|4.8.09 @ 1:16PM|#
"raivo pommer-www.google.ee. | April 8, 2009, 1:10pm | #
raivo pommer-www.google.ee
raimo1@hot.ee
DUMMES GELD
Es steht im Kleingedruckten, irgendwo ganz unten auf dem Prospekt:
"Das Zertifikat darf nicht in den U.S.A. oder an eine U.S.-Person
im Sinne der Regulation S des U.S. Securities Act 1933 verkauft
werden."
Nein, das Papier ist vor allem für deutsche Anleger gedacht, so wie
viele andere Zertifikate auch. Kein Wunder, dass auch von der
Pleite der US-Investmentbank Lehman Brothers besonders viele
Deutsche betroffen sind - hierzulande wurden besonders viele
Papiere der Bank verkauft.
Wer ein Zertifkat kauft, erwirbt damit keinesfalls einen Anteil an
einem Wert, also an einer Aktie oder einem Fonds. Stattdessen ist
solch ein Papier wie eine Wette. Gewettet wird auf die Entwicklung
von Aktien, Rohstoffen, Indizes oder Wechselkursen. Deutschland war
in den letzten Jahren das Land der Zertifikate. "Der Markt umfasst
hier aktuell knapp 400.000 Produkte, monatlich kommen teilweise bis
zu 40.000 neue auf den Markt", sagt Harald Rotter von der
Schutzgemeinschaft der Kapitalanleger (SdK). Im Dezember 2004
hatten die Deutschen 47,5 Milliarden Euro in die Papiere
investiert, auf dem Höhepunkt im September 2007 waren es fast 140
Milliarden Euro. Ein rasantes Wachstum."
Up yours, Kraut.
Rich|4.8.09 @ 1:17PM|#
Artificially attempting to start an ice age, great. This is a much better idea than having everyone move to the future lush, fertile grounds of northern Canada...
|4.8.09 @ 1:21PM|#
Hmmm. I'd like a cut of that money. I have a process that is a sure fire cure for AGW. I promise. Check back with me in 75 years and we'll see what progress has been made. Oh, but give me the money now...
SpongePaul|4.8.09 @ 1:21PM|#
WHAT THE FUCK! This is insane, am i still living on earth, or did i slip through a wormhole a while ago and end up in an alternate universe on Bizzaro Earth. That idea is BATSHIT CRAZY! Is This the comic books, do we really want to Fuck around with a 4 billion year old planet haphazzardly. for Fucks sake. I am sorry for the language i reserve writing actually swear words for extrem situations, and since this idea is so INANE and crazy, i feel a strong wording set was needed.
|4.8.09 @ 1:21PM|#
This method doesn't require humongous state controls being
enacted over large swaths of the economy and the way people live
their lives. It also doesn't condemn the third world* to eternal
energy poverty.
The lefties will reflexively condemn it.
* Impoverished nations, developing economies, whatever. I like
third world as a descriptive term.
|4.8.09 @ 1:22PM|#
The UN shooting particles into the air to control the worlds
climate really really sounds like a bad idea.
Just saying...
SpongePaul|4.8.09 @ 1:23PM|#
and yes i did mean INANE, not Insane at the end, its a word, look it up, LOL
Nick|4.8.09 @ 1:23PM|#
If we can just eco-engineer our way out of this, there is no need for any of us to "go-Green." From now on, I am pooping in the yard, leaving all my lights on, and eating endagered animals.
Jack|4.8.09 @ 1:30PM|#
So-called "global warming" is nothing but a fraud and a U.N. plot to institute International Socialism (a massive transfer of wealth from the productive First World to the parasites in the Third World) under the guise of "environmentlaism".
|4.8.09 @ 1:32PM|#
"It also doesn't condemn the third world* to eternal energy
poverty."
Except for the fact that they're goddam food won't grow. That might
be a problem.
Have these people not seen The Matrix?
|4.8.09 @ 1:35PM|#
GAIA WORSHIPERS SHUT THE FUCK UP
Well they only exist inside your skull so you have the power to
shut them up.
perilisk|4.8.09 @ 1:37PM|#
Cool, surely turning our oceans to acid is a minor drawback,
compared to correcting a small shift in temperature well within the
pre-human range of climate changes.
Speaking of the unmitigated hubris of some environmentalists (I
suspect the majority would be horrified by this proposal), I can't
wait for some budding Ozymandias to try use weather-control
technology to recreate The Day After Tomorrow in real life to get
everyone to see the severity of the situation.
|4.8.09 @ 1:39PM|#
Look at it this way, we might learn a lot about terraforming.... *gets knocked unconscious by beer bottles*
Orange Line Special|4.8.09 @ 1:43PM|#
Personally, I don't see any problems with the completely
intellectually dishonest hacks at Reason and the completely
intellectually dishonest hacks in the WH who are completely
politicized messing with the climate in ways that could result in
life ending on Earth.
Personally, I don't believe in thinking through all the
side-effects and having an open debate instead of one that involves
bullies of various sorts silencing the opposition through various
sleazy means.
Let's just do it NOW, and if anything bad happens I'm sure we'll
figure something out!
Go Reason! Go BHO!
|4.8.09 @ 1:49PM|#
Yes, Tony. There are no environmentalists who whine constantly about global warming. There are no liberal hacks who call us greedy and evil because we don't want to ride bikes to work and put a sweater on in the winter rather than turn up the heat. There's no one running around like Chicken Little screaming about CO2 emissions at all. No one, Tony. No one. It's was all a fancy daydream that you've snapped me out of.
|4.8.09 @ 1:56PM|#
SugarFree,
If you were even modestly informed of the reality of the GW
situation instead of being content to have your head firmly wedged
up the asses of Sean Hannity and Exxon you'd be running around
screaming too.
But you said Gaia worshipers. As if those of us who care about the
future of the human species are all just a bunch of spotted owl
activists.
jwest|4.8.09 @ 1:56PM|#
Wow this is just like western medicine practices - fix the
symptom instead of the sickness. I can't believe they would even
toy with the idea of mucking up the atmosphere just to preserve the
status quo of the current economy and infrastructure.
Instead of giving a leg amputee a prosthetic, its like John Holdren
is prescribing "just cut the other leg down to size."
|4.8.09 @ 1:58PM|#
just to preserve the status quo of the current economy and
infrastructure.
Yeah what's so special about the last 600,000 years? We got along
just fine before we existed as a civilization.
kinnath|4.8.09 @ 2:01PM|#
As I've said before: Nuclear Winter is the solution to
AGW.
Just pick your targets wisely.
Josh|4.8.09 @ 2:01PM|#
AHA! the diagram at last solves the conundrum of the melting polar ice cap: apparently the Sun has moved over the North Pole!
B|4.8.09 @ 2:03PM|#
Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of
so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide - the chief
human-caused greenhouse gas - out of the air and store
it.
You know what else is good for that?
TREES!
Warty|4.8.09 @ 2:04PM|#
If you were even modestly informed of the reality of the GW
situation instead of being content to have your head firmly wedged
up the asses of Sean Hannity and Exxon
Pretty good, but I've seen you do better. Once more, this time with
feeling.
|4.8.09 @ 2:04PM|#
What's frightening to me is that ANY country could arbitrarily decide to do this - or at least any country with the technological capabilities. Talk about planet-wide terrorism - what if North Korea decided that they'd bring on an ice age for us in the northern hemisphere by shooting pollution into the upper atmosphere a few times? Some damn fool idiot is power hungry enough to actually try it.
|4.8.09 @ 2:04PM|#
a massive transfer of wealth from the productive First World
to the parasites in the Third World
Ummm....
a massive transfer of wealth from the productive in the First
World to the parasites in the First World using the Third world as
a poster boy
Fixed
|4.8.09 @ 2:05PM|#
I can't believe they would even toy with the idea of mucking up the atmosphere just to preserve the status quo of the current economy and infrastructure.
What is sick about the current economy and infrastructure?
Zeb|4.8.09 @ 2:06PM|#
None of this shit is going to happen. And we are going to keep
using oil as fast as we can until it is gone.
I am pretty agnostic about global warming, but I am rooting for it
to be real. That way if disaster occurs, I have the satisfaction of
having been right. And if it doesn't, that's even better.
|4.8.09 @ 2:10PM|#
Warty,
Pretty good, but I've seen you do better. Once more, this time
with feeling.
It was OK for him. But he really tipped his hand with the Hannity
and Exxon schtick. And he, of course, is blissfully oblivious of
the hypocrisy of called me a Fox News Republican while whining
about me calling him a tree-hugger.
|4.8.09 @ 2:11PM|#
Why would homosexuals care about the future of the human species, considering they won't have any offspring involved? I only care about the future of the world because I will have children, possibly grandchildren, and great-grandchildren living in it.
|4.8.09 @ 2:14PM|#
Yes, you all just slipped into an alternate universe where Ron Bailey not only accepts man-made global warming, and "Reason" proposes massive publicly-funded infrastructure projects to fix same. Do not adjust your interwebs...
|4.8.09 @ 2:17PM|#
Why would homosexuals care about the future of the human
species, considering they won't have any offspring
involved?
Demonstrably false statement. I'm gay and I have a kid and a
grandkid, and I very much care about the future of the human
species.
Now, do you have something to contribute to the debate, or are you
just wanking in public?
|4.8.09 @ 2:18PM|#
chemtrails are real people...they mix something with the normal
jet-fuel.
they are trying to create an artificial SUNSCREEN
|4.8.09 @ 2:30PM|#
Oh, and Nick, I think you're confusing me with another poster
with a similar name. TONY consistently argues from a left-liberal
perspective. AFAIK, Tony hasn't identified as gay although I really
haven't been paying attention.
I consistently argue from a libertarian friendly position on
rights, and generally don't engage in discussions about libertarian
economics.
Hope this helps.
|4.8.09 @ 2:32PM|#
Nick,
The trick is that none of the environmentalists give a shit about
the human race. Global cooling, pollution, water shortages,
overpopulation, global warming and all the other enviro-panics are
just clubs to beat ideological opponents with. Ever notice how the
solution to every fucking one of them is for people to stop having
so many kids, have smaller houses or live in ant-like urban
colonies, ride their bikes to work, and and wear a hairshirt?
It's the same neo-Thoreauean pastoralism the left has been pushing
since the 60s. But it's not enough for them to go sleep in a shack
on a bed full of dried Lima beans. They want everyone else to share
in the misery.
Geo-engineering is a prime example of this. Rather than fix the
problem, they want to turn back the clock on modern civilization.
Rather than have the 3rd world turn into the 1st, they want us all
to settle for some gray, granola version of the 2nd.
Environmentalism is a out-growth of the collectivist desire to
control how people live. Instead of boot stamping on a human face
forever, it's a Birkenstock.
|4.8.09 @ 2:32PM|#
Tonio, it was a question, not a statement. Why does it mean I am
not contributing to the debate and why also would it mean I'm
jerking off in public? It was more poorly rephrased than
demonstrably false. Let's try again:
Why would anyone who does not have kids care about the future of
the human species?
|4.8.09 @ 2:35PM|#
Yeah, Tonio, I realized that identification error pretty much right after I hit send.
|4.8.09 @ 2:35PM|#
But you said Gaia worshipers. As if those of us who care
about the future of the human species are all just a bunch of
spotted owl activists.
Tony, you're being a totally passive-aggressive whiny little bitch.
If you can't take the occasional "tree-hugger" or "Gaia worshipper"
slam you need to find a happier, safer, hate-free place to hang
out.
And, yes, I've hung with you people, for much the same reasons as
(Tall?)Dave, and some of you are indeed Gaia worshippers.
Bite me very much.
Adam Bahm|4.8.09 @ 2:37PM|#
We already have what we need to start a nuclear winter. So what's all this fuss about global warming?
|4.8.09 @ 2:41PM|#
I won't make up my mind on this til I hear what Popular Mechanics has to say!! Hey---- they've already de-bunked FEMA camps and any 9-11 conspiracy theories!?
Menstrual Retardation|4.8.09 @ 2:42PM|#
"f you were even modestly informed of the reality of the GW
situation instead of being content to have your head firmly wedged
up the asses of Sean Hannity and Exxon you'd be running around
screaming too."
You were pitching this bullshit yesterday, Tony. Until you provide
one data point to support what you say (as I did yesterday),
please, STFU.
|4.8.09 @ 2:44PM|#
Nick,
Because you're an idiot. You used a demonstrably false premise "no
gay people have children" to launch into an ad-hominem attack "why
would you care" and directed your venom at the wrong person.
A real man would suck it up, apologize and move on. A prudent
jackal would slink away from the debate, tail between legs.
You're still here using my air. Begone...
Zeb|4.8.09 @ 2:45PM|#
"Why would anyone who does not have kids care about the future
of the human species?"
Well, maybe it is possible to care about people who are not your
direct offspring?
Clifford the Shaggy Cunt|4.8.09 @ 2:48PM|#
"Why would anyone who does not have kids care about the future
of the human species?"
Altruism, bitch.
Zeb|4.8.09 @ 2:49PM|#
And is anyone really concerned about the fate of the human species? After making it though ice ages, crossing the Pacific in canoes and surviving for thousands of years in some pretty harsh and uninviting places, the entire species of Homo sapiens is going to die because it gets a little warmer and there is some coastal flooding and changes in weather patterns? Really??
|4.8.09 @ 2:59PM|#
"Why would anyone who does not have kids care about the
future of the human species?"
Because I need the species around for quite awhile yet to develop
my anti-aging drugs and support me in my parasitical old age,
that's why.
Devolution|4.8.09 @ 3:02PM|#
"And is anyone really concerned about the fate of the human
species? After making it though ice ages, crossing the Pacific in
canoes and surviving for thousands of years in some pretty harsh
and uninviting places, the entire species of Homo sapiens is going
to die because it gets a little warmer and there is some coastal
flooding and changes in weather patterns? Really??"
That's about the long and short of it, Zeb.
Spoonman|4.8.09 @ 3:07PM|#
Know what might be less expensive to this? Adapting to a warmer world, which will happen anyways, as the government won't get off its ass soon enough to solve the problem.
|4.8.09 @ 3:15PM|#
SugarFree,
If global warming is allowed to proceed unchecked, your beloved 1st
world status quo will be a memory. If there is an evil cabal of
environmentalists disguising their powerlust in terms of saving the
planet, I've never met any of them. Maybe it's just that you
libertarian types can't possibly fathom that there are people who
don't see the world in terms of pure self-interest like you guys
do?
|4.8.09 @ 3:21PM|#
"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of
taking any approach off the table." ...
Except for Nuclear Power.
|4.8.09 @ 3:23PM|#
Hey Tony,
What's your position on nuclear power?
How do you feel about Yucca Mountain?
|4.8.09 @ 3:26PM|#
Maybe it's just that you libertarian types can't possibly
fathom that there are people who don't see the world in terms of
pure self-interest like you guys do?
Yes, everyone on your side is Polly Pureheart with only the bestest
intention ever.
Is there some place where peddling this bullshit works?
engineer|4.8.09 @ 3:42PM|#
Hazel,
I'm fairly certain that Tony is against nuclear power. If you can
say "If you knew how bad Global Warming REALLY is rather than being
a Fox News Republican you would run around screaming", you probably
also believe that every nuclear plant is a Chernobyl waiting to
happen.
engineer|4.8.09 @ 3:44PM|#
"Maybe it's just that you libertarian types can't possibly
fathom that there are people who don't see the world in terms of
pure self-interest like you guys do?"
Tony...you do realize that you don't have to beat the strawman,
right? Matches work just as well.
engineer|4.8.09 @ 3:45PM|#
Personally, I think any geoengineering project would be the kiss of death, as Murphy's Law clearly predicts that it would coincide with a natural lowering of temperatures and thus lead to an Ice Age.
|4.8.09 @ 3:50PM|#
Hazel,
I'm pro-nuclear power. I think that figuring out where to store
spent fuel rods is much less of a problem than figuring out how to
deal with global warming.
High Every Body|4.8.09 @ 3:53PM|#
Didn't we already visit this solution in one of the Highlander
movies?
No, wait, that was some other crazy scheme.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|4.8.09 @ 3:57PM|#
Dear Mr. Body,
I'm in a good mood today, so I'll grant you a reprieve, but causing
me to think of "The Sickening" is generally a two atomic wedgie
offense.
Just saying.
|4.8.09 @ 4:18PM|#
Seroiusly, if we accept that AGW is real, that it is undesirable, and admit that government attempts to eliminate it are going to be fruitless, shouldn't global engineering be considered as a viable solution?
|4.8.09 @ 4:25PM|#
If global warming is allowed to proceed unchecked, your
beloved 1st world status quo will be a memory.
Any chance you might actually defend this claim against the
rebuttals presented on prior threads before you make the same claim
on future threads?
engineer|4.8.09 @ 4:29PM|#
Y'know, back in the 70's, Paul Ehrlich recommended melting the
polar ice caps to prevent global cooling.
Just sayin', maybe there's a parallel and a lesson.
|4.8.09 @ 4:30PM|#
"Seroiusly, if we accept that AGW is real, that it is
undesirable, and admit that government attempts to eliminate it are
going to be fruitless, shouldn't global engineering be considered
as a viable solution?"
Either that or adapt. Man is contributing to global warming, but I
don't think it's as serious as Tony thinks. The technology is just
not here yet to rely on renewable energy sources. Nuclear power at
present is the way to go for electrical generation. This should be
our focus in the short term for reducing man's CO2 footprint. Other
than that, we're just going to have to adapt and hopefully there
will be improved technology to reduce greenhouse gases in the
future and reduce the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere and
methods to offset global warming and climate change.
|4.8.09 @ 4:39PM|#
"If global warming is allowed to proceed unchecked, your beloved
1st world status quo will be a memory."
If we tried to significantly reduce global warming by cutting down
on fossil fuel use, our beloved 1st world status quo will be a
memory. Any other form of energy is just too expensive or just
could not supply all the energy we need.
Tony-bot|4.8.09 @ 4:39PM|#
bookworm
For the crime of failing to ttake seriously the threat of AGW, you
must be sent to re-education camp, so you can learn the improtance
of environmental awarenssess.
engineer|4.8.09 @ 4:40PM|#
If we could find some way to convert self-righteous indignation into usable energy, Tony alone could power the world.
Gilbert Martin|4.8.09 @ 4:49PM|#
I suggest we put a carbon tax of $3 billion per ounce on the
breathing of environmental wackos.
Any of them that can't pay up would be summarily executed.
That should take care of the problem - in more ways than one.
|4.8.09 @ 5:11PM|#
I'm pro-nuclear power. I think that figuring out where to
store spent fuel rods is much less of a problem than figuring out
how to deal with global warming.
So why aren't you over on the GreenPeace forums, telling them what
a bunch of shitheadst hey are?
|4.8.09 @ 5:14PM|#
Any chance you might actually defend this claim against the
rebuttals presented on prior threads before you make the same claim
on future threads?
Here.
Knock yourself out.
|4.8.09 @ 5:19PM|#
So why aren't you over on the GreenPeace forums, telling
them what a bunch of shitheadst hey are?
How do you know I'm not?
|4.8.09 @ 5:30PM|#
Tony,
You mean
this...
A series of studies on the impacts of climate change have systematically shown that the older literature overestimated climate damages by failing to allow for adaptation and for climate benefits (see Fankhauser et al 1997; Mendelsohn and Newmann 1999; Tol 1999; Mendelsohn et al 2000; Mendelsohn 2001;Maddison 2001; Tol 2002; Sohngen et al 2002; Pearce 2003; Mendelsohn and Williams 2004). These new studies imply that impacts depend heavily upon initial temperatures (latitude). Countries in the polar region are likely to receive large benefits from warming, countries in the mid-latitudes will at first benefit and only begin to be harmed if temperatures rise above 2.5 °C (4.50 °F) (Mendelsohn et al 2000). Only countries in the tropical and subtropical regions are likely to be harmed immediately by warming and be subject to the magnitudes of impacts first thought likely (Mendelsohn et al 2000). Summing these regional impacts across the globe implies that warming benefits and damages will likely offset each other until warming passes 2.5C and even then it will be far smaller on net than originally thought (Mendelsohn and Williams 2004).
..or is there something else that informs you.
|4.8.09 @ 5:46PM|#
I also note that your "knock yourself out" link mentions the $12
per ton of CO2 social cost of carbon that I cited on the last
thread as the average cost given in the IPCC AR4.
So that's what you think the cost is? If so, how can you possibly
justify statements such as...
The efficiency of greenhouse gas emitting energy production
comes at the cost of environmental harm, which isn't priced into
the equation. If it were, we would rapidly find these sources quite
inefficient.
jtuf|4.8.09 @ 5:57PM|#
The year 2030: Humanity makes their annual payment of 100 billion to the High Climatologist so he will send the proper smoke into the air. Someone questions the wisdom of this tradition, because there has never been a controlled experiment to confirm the High Climatologist's claims. The surrounding people quickly hush him, least hurricanes and floods plague the land.
Syd|4.8.09 @ 7:31PM|#
Connie Willis's story "Blued Moon" is looking prescient. Prepare for the unlikely.
SunSpotCycle|4.8.09 @ 9:26PM|#
Now that the sunspot cycle is at a historic low, maybe the sun will do the cooling for us.
|4.8.09 @ 11:23PM|#
..or is there something else that informs you.
What is with you and your inability to recognize the importance of
context in this discussion? Citing every minority report or lone
dissenter you can find does not make for a complete examination of
the subject.
|4.9.09 @ 1:41AM|#
Tony,
You made yet another baseless claim about the economics of global
warming. I asked you yet again why you think your claims are true.
You pointed me to a Wikipedia article. I went to the section of
that article pertinent to economics and quoted from it.
If you don't believe the things you cite to support your case, what
exactly informs your position on the economics of global warming?
It's pretty clear it's not the IPCC. What is it?
Jim Treacher|4.9.09 @ 3:33AM|#
But missile defense is wacko? At least everybody agrees that nuclear missiles exist.
|4.9.09 @ 11:03AM|#
Citing every minority report or lone dissenter you can find does not make for a complete examination of the subject.
And failing to cite dissenters leaves one riding on a bandwagon
where everyone is singing "everybody agrees...nobody disputes"
Syd|4.9.09 @ 5:25PM|#
kinnath | April 8, 2009, 2:01pm | #
As I've said before: Nuclear Winter is the solution to AGW.
Just pick your targets wisely.
My solution is to nuke a likely volcano every couple of years.
|4.12.09 @ 7:12AM|#
raivo pommer-www.google.ee
raimo1@hot.ee
BLIND MONEY
The absolutism of the key tenets of neo-liberalism: privatisation,
deregulation, balanced budgets have all been rejected by all but
the most dogmatic. Apart from one that is: the primacy of free
trade.
Its status is basically sacrosanct. While banks are being
nationalized, bonuses recalled, and trillions of dollars of debt
racked up, while pretty much every other concept, belief or ideal
is being interrogated, contorted or just set aside, "Free trade is
good" continues to be presented as a totemic truth, ring-fenced
from debate or interrogation. Any questioning of this axiom is not
even on the G-20's agenda.
In fact the Free Trade brigade, which encompasses most mainstream
politicians, business leaders, and thinkers -- outside of France
that is -- seems to be on evangelical overdrive. "The solution to
the crisis is more free trade," says Brazilian President Luiz
Inácio Lula da Silva. China's Commerce Minister Chen Deming
announces that Beijing is "firmly opposed to trade protectionism,"
a sentiment often echoed by Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel,
while British Prime Minister Gordon Brown expressly warns against
abandoning "the gospel of free trade."
|4.12.09 @ 4:18PM|#
raivo pommer-www.google.ee
raimo1@hot.ee
NOKIA INDIA
Gearing up to meet the challenges of next generation mobile
services - 3G, the world's largest handset maker, Nokia, today
announced a
slew of new services like music online and location based services
to be made available on its new phones, to be launched
shortly.
"We are moving away from just devices to devices plus services plus
solutions. With the 3G mobile services set to make advent by the
middle of next year, we feel that revenue from non-voice services
is bound to increase significantly," Nokia India Ltd Vice-President
and General Manager D Shivakumar told reporters here.
Asked whether Nokia is planning to acquire some of the content
providers to enhance services, Shivakumar said "there is no plan
for any acquisition but it will be done through a collaboration
with the innovators."
He, however, said that there would be significant investment in
ramping up the facilities but declined to give details.
In fact, Nokia called upon Indian mobile and web application
developers to create innovative consumer applications exclusively
for the upcoming handset N97.
|4.14.09 @ 8:44AM|#
raivo pommer-www.google.ee
raimo1@hot.ee
Europe's largest bank, HSBC Holdings,
confirmed on Monday it was considering selling three of its major
office buildings and said it
had received interest from potential buyers.
HSBC, which recently raised nearly $19 billion in a rights issue,
said it may sell and lease-back office buildings in New York, Paris
and London, including its headquarters at Canary Wharf.
London's Sunday Telegraph reported that HSBC was considering
selling three of its biggest office buildings to raise 2.7 billion
pounds ($3.98 billion).
"We are taking a look at the market, yes," spokesman David Hall
said in Hong Kong.
"There are people interested in buying at an appropriate price,"
Hall said.
He declined to give further details.
HSBC bought back its building at Canary Wharf for 838 million
pounds from ailing Spanish property firm Metrovacesa at the end of
last year after the Spanish firm failed to refinance a loan secured
on the building.
Globally, banks battered by the financial crisis have been looking
to shed non-core assets in order to raise capital and improve their
balance sheets.
"HSBC has just raised funds from a rights issue and the possible
sale of offices could further boost its cash level and thus benefit
the bank in its future acquisitions," said Alex Tang, head of
research at Core Pacific-Yamaichi International.
The bank, which planned to shut most of its U.S. consumer lending
business, said last month that it was ready for acquisitions in its
traditional stronghold of Asia where many banks are pulling out to
focus on core markets.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245