Joanne Nova:
Believers really do have trouble with numbers. Today 400 is apparently a lot like zero.
Since when was 400 years a gap that anyone called “close”? Especially when we are talking about a molecular effect that works in microseconds (or hey, even less).
Newspapers today are full of the spin that an Antarctic survey by Pedro et al, that found CO2 only lagged temperature by a mere tiny 400 years ‘… “addressed the argument of “climate sceptics” that CO2 increases did not lead to temperature rises because the temperature rise must come first.’ [The Australian]. Didn’t the editor notice that a lag of 400 years is still a lag? Did the journalist (Rosanne Hunt) not realize that even if the lag was measured in hours it still means temperature drives carbon dioxide, and not the other way around? This is nonsense on stilts. The Australian only published 6 lines, and one of them is barking.
The “lag” might be small on this scale, but it’s long compared to a taxpayers lifespan. Graph from the Australian Antarctic DivisionThe Australian Government (Antarctic Division) says it “closes the gap” and “Their findings suggest that feedbacks in the climate system – in which warming is linked to natural carbon dioxide increase, driving further warming – may operate faster than previously thought.”
But wait, if we only have to wait 400 years for this feedback to kick in, it won’t be disastrous in 2020, it will be 2345 before it starts (that’s the post WWII coal fired boom in emissions, plus 400). I just can’t see the electorate getting too worked up about it.
The gap was estimated to be 800 years previously.
FACTS
It’s like Kryptonite to Liberals
I believe that we’ve discussed this before.
Past is past. Present is present. Future is future.
In the past, there have always been warm/cool cycles, mostly thought to be driven by variations in earth’s orbit around the sun. CO2 didn’t initiate climate change before, because there were no events comparable to what is now ongoing (the massive release of long-sequestered carbon — hundreds of millions years’ worth of sequestered carbon — over less than two centuries).
In the past, the earth would warm (unrelated to CO2). This heats the ocean. The ocean contains massive, dissolved CO2. As the ocean heats, the CO2 bubbles out of the ocean and into the atmosphere (just like pouring a can of beer in a pan and heating it up on the stove). So the CO2 rise FOLLOWS temperature rise, but, once risen, the CO2 rise sustains and amplifies the temperature rise. This is what “feedback” refers to.
What’s happening now is unprecedented. CO2 is being released, in massive quantities, as a result of human activities. This time, CO2 rise is leading temperature rise, but, once temperature starts to rise, the CO2 feedback loop (from the ocean, as opposed to from burning hydrocarbons) will kick in (over the 400 year time line) and make things even worse. To make things still worse, we are deforesting at a massive rate, and this releases still more CO2, which had been in equilibrium. All of these factors are what have most climate scientists so concerned.
P.S. Also in the news today was clear documentation that expansion of government funded health care saves lives:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1202099
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Numerous times, Larry, and it seems that no one is budging. The thing that is changing is the environmentalist, AGW crowds attacks on the scientists speaking out as skeptics.
Consider this, Larry;
-The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of around 2ppm per year.
-The amount of CO2 contributed to the atmosphere by human activity, best guess by noted scientists, is around 5-10% of the total released to the atmosphere every year.
-Using those numbers, a rough estimate of around .2 ppm yearly increase is due to man (not exact, I realize, but in the absence of accurate measurement devices, is the best guess possible).
Now, out of that .2 ppm increase, it is spread(mostly) between deforestation and fossil fuel burning. The rate of deforestation is around 8 million to 10 million hectares a year, or, .2%.
It is disingenuous, and misleading, to claim that the entire amount of CO2 increase per year is due to human fossil fuel use. It is also disingenuous to push for a scheme of “carbon credits” that enrich a select few, and claim that it is “for the common good”. That right there should be an indication that instead of kneejerk reactions leading to bad law that the science, ALL of it, should be well-debated prior to action, if any, being done.
johngalt
hi,
I kind of strongly think about those multiplcated wind towers,
which kill birds by millions, have a warming effect on climate, maybe have something to do with the rise of CO2, I have read recently they produce a warming effect at the soil base. plus I’m JUST THINKING THAT THE BIRD POPULATION HAVE ALSO THEIR TAKE ON CO2,
and if exterminated by that millions number, surely also release that CO2 BY MUCH,
YOUR TAKE ON THAT?
edit; I also think they WIND TOWERS INCREASE THE WIND DISASTERS, MAKING THEM MORE DESTRUCTIVES,
NAMING HURRICANES TORNADOS, AND OTHERS
WIND DISASTERS, WE EXPERIENCE
Whoa there Nellie Belle LOL. Seriously off topic landmine there. Truly hard to ignore such a statement.
I’d say that the expansion of any health care – not necessarily having to be funded by “the government” – would save lives too. You’ll notice a ton of caveats in your NEJM study, not the least of which points out that:
If there is greater intensity of care and longer hospital stays for insured over uninsured, it matters not whether it’s government or private insurance. Thus your statement that “government funded health care saves lives” is pretty darned bogus.
The question has never been mortality rate reduction and insurance. The question is can loading up the nation’s population on government funded health care be fiscally sustained. No – it cannot.
Using the CMS figures for insured and uninsured population in 2010 – which oddly enough cites 338.4 million people, despite a 2010 census count of 308,700 approx – we have a labor force of approx 44% losing the fiscal battle of sustaining just 35-37% of the rest of the nation on government healthcare. dang those ponzi schemes….
By 2020, with the planned expansion of Medicaid, 41% of the population will be on government funded healthcare which must be sustained by only 46% of the anticipated labor force… and that may be a rosy figure for employment these days.
If we can’t sustain the 35-37% today, how will we sustain41% of the population in 2020, Larry? It’s a burden the taxpayers cannot bear.
But then, I’ll see your NEJM report, and I’ll raise you another NEJM report… the solution as proposed by Julian J.Z. Prokopetz, B.A., and Lisa Soleymani Lehmann, M.D., Ph.D. last week. That being a “…the development of a central state or federal mechanism to confirm the authenticity and eligibility of patients’ requests, dispense medication, and monitor demand and use” for physician assisted suicide. Yup… one of your favored sources comes up with this stuff.
I guess if you already know in advance that the current standards of government care will be fiscally unsustainable, you might as well create a government suicide assist entity to lessen the fiscal burden, eh?
I’ve said this to you before, time and time again. Your father’s Medicare will not be the Medicare of the future. It’s fiscally impossible to sustain. Thus the IPAB “death panel”, that will usurp Congress in order to keep the payouts and budgets under control. Paying out less and less will result in lower participation rates until the central government will have no choice but to go to single payer. Then again, dat’s da grand plan.
But hey… since I’ve followed the landmine this far off topic (my apologies to Curt and community) I’ll attempt to return to it now. Since the same people that are pushing this 3rd unsustainable entitlement program are the same ones that are sure we’re all gonna die from AGW, what do they care about a little debt? No one will be around to demand payment.
LOL….Oh man…thanks for that, hadn’t laughed like that on this blog in awhile. THAT is the way to return a hijacked thread to the topic at hand.
Always glad to give you a grin, Curt. Hope it made up for the diversion. But it’s all a matter of devalued dollars and not-so-common sense to me.
Spain’s the quintessential failed experiment of an alternative energy investment and a social welfare nation. Workin’ out well for them, eh?
Typical fools in Congress. They go to the taxpayers’ buffet, and their eyes are bigger than the taxpayers’ stomachs. If you want to subsidize alternative and less efficient energy under the banner of saving the world, you can’t also be a generous government teat at the same time. The energy advances are paid for by the taxpayers, and in return they get higher bills for energy and less profits to tax. duh
There is nothing more exasperating than listening to arrogant humans who think they can control planetary weather changes. A gnat on an elephants butt is all that we are in the broad scheme of things.
I didn’t intend to hijack the thread. Apologies. I won’t attempt to prolong the argument, except to say that this is just another classic case of what’s intrinsically different about conservative DNA vs liberal DNA.
Each year in the USA, there are 45,000 deaths attributable to lack of health insurance. Every physician knows that the uninsured receive vastly inferior health care. Thousands of full time workers in low paying jobs simply cannot afford health insurance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19762659
There were about 3,000 deaths as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In response, the US government obliged us to spend what will ultimately total trillions of tax dollars to support land wars in Asia. The most effective measure ever taken to prevent another 9/11 was to install inexpensive lockable doors in airline cockpits.
Virtually no one speaks of the true death panels which already exist, comprised of the bean counters, doing their necessary wallet biopsies to keep the uninsured from entering into the functionally-effective segment of the health care system.
Moving back to the topic of the thread, JohnGalt does some armchair arithmetic to try to prove that the unchallenged, undeniable massive increase in atmospheric CO2 (which is relentlessly ongoing) is not the result of human activity. This armchair analysis is overly simplistic.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Indeed… it’s liberal emotional policies and feelings vs conservatives fiscal realities. Much as you’d like to subtly suggest this is because conservatism is heartless, the goal is the actually same for both. We’d like to see everyone capable of getting cheap electricity or affordable healthcare. Emotional liberals think the way to accomplish it is for the government to collect it from everyone to dole it out as they see fit, then dictate payments and reduce coverage when the medical costs keep rising and other people’s money runs out. Conservative fiscal realists want to find a way to reduce the costs of providing healthcare and make it affordable without robbing everyone else.
Which, of course, brings us right back to AGW….. liberal emotions want expensive and inefficient electricity to save the planet. Conservative fiscal realists know this will make it more difficult for those with lesser income to afford the more expensive electricity, and increase overhead for businesses and thereby reduce revenues needed to pay off the emotional funding spent for the inefficient, expensive electricity.
The problem with liberal DNA is that they suck at math and long term planning.
@MataHarley:
Oh, I’m stealing that one. Rides a Pale Horse needs to make a sign out of that and turn it into a billboard.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
The real problem with AGW Larry is that we can’t have an honest debate. The science has been hijacked by environmental extremist. CERN released the results of their first experiment and got yelled at by the whole scientific community. Rolf-Dieter Heuer, the general director at CERN refused to allow those that participated in the experiment to draw conclusions, they were only allowed to publish the results. How is that science? Now I will admit I needle Greg with the CERN experiments, but it’s simply because he deserves it. If the left is so big on science, and the right really doesn’t care much for science, why is the left trying to kill the CERN Cloud experiments. I want to see them continue.
So on one hand you have Michael Mann and the other extremists with their less than open science, and you have CERN with their completely open science. I’m going to hold out for the real science.
@Aqua: Science does not usually develop wide-ranging conclusions based on results of a single test. What conclusion would you like to see as the recent result of CERN?
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
How about a non-politically biased conclusion that leads to more non-politically biased experiments and conclusions that eventually lead to the truth? I realize that is a hard concept for liberal/progressives to understand, given the political ideological driven influence driving the opinions in other issues, despite factual information contradicting it.
Firstly, on the non-hijacked topic of the thread —
It’s a straw man to assert that finding merit in the the pro-AGW arguments, on one hand, means that draconian, economy-killing measures are immediately required, on the other hand. Neither the arguments nor the remedies are either/or, black/white (or, rather, red/blue).
Let’s look at the totality of the evidence. What are the probabilities that (1) AGW is real and (2) if real, that AGW will result in human, ecological, and economic catastrophe? Sticking my own wet finger into the air, I put #1 at 80% and #2 at 20%. I’m sure that others would differ, with their wet fingers in the air.
Now, given whatever probabilities we can eventually come to agree upon, what is reasonable to do about it? Well, going by my numbers, you’ve got 0.8 X 0.2 or 0.16 or 16% chance of something really and permanently bad, happening to the planet. If your own numbers were to come out to be 10% and 10%, respectively, then that would be a 1% chance of something really bad happening to the planet.
So, what to do about it? I’ve had term life insurance since I was 22 years old (i.e. for 43 years). My odds of dying during most of this time were very low, but I had a responsibility to others; so I paid my insurance premiums, because my death, though unlikely, would have had a major negative impact on the well-being of others, who depended on me. I dare say that I was being conservative in doing this. Likewise, I’ve paid for disability insurance, for the past 40 years. Also conservative. I take the same view about AGW. Nope, it probably won’t be catastrophic, but it’s conservative to take prudent mitigation measures, because we really don’t know how this is going to sort out, over the long run.
Rather than being scornful, for example, of California’s emissions control programs (essentially, California ratified Kyoto), conservatives should view this as a prudent state-incubator experiment, which will provide valuable data, to the advantage of the rest of the nation. Precisely how dire will be the economic effects? Is there any truth to the assertion that this may lead to the development of new industries, which will more than offset the short term costs? These are issues which have been debated ad nauseum, but won’t it be a good thing to get some actual, real-world, made in the USA data?
Moving back to my thread-hijack topic, Mata sums things up from a conservative point of view:
Conservatives would assert (actually, have asserted) that social security and Medicare were national catastrophes. Certainly, conservatives would never have enacted these programs into law. But both programs have been smashing successes. For more than 75 years, SS has kept aging Americans out of poverty and given them a good life. It has also, I would argue, provided huge economic benefits to the nation, as a whole. As an entrepreneur myself, with two aging parents, I could gamble all of my resources, at age 40, to invest in my start up business, because there was a safety net to take care of my parents, but also take care of me and my wife, were we to lose everything. Social security has also provided a two trillion dollar surplus which, among other things, partially paid for the massive tax cuts of the early 1980s and early 2000s. Medicare has been — simply stated — the very best large scale healthcare system in the world, which has literally saved millions of lives, and done so at a far lower cost than would have been the case in a private health care system.
Both SS and Medicare face challenges, for which there are solutions, for those willing to work to make these incredibly valuable systems continue to work. You (Mata) and I have debated the specifics on many prior occasions. I don’t at all agree with the last two sentences of your quotation, above, for reasons that I’ve previously explained. Healthcare doesn’t follow the traditional rules of market economics. You speak about “your father’s Medicare” — well the same arguments apply equally to “your father’s Blue Cross.” But we’ve already hashed this stuff out and I seriously doubt that either of us has anything new to offer, beyond what we’ve said before.
Trying to tie this all together with the original topic of the thread… How much money should we be spending to save the 45,000 lives per year currently lost to a lack of health insurance coverage? Our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were a very bloody and very expensive insurance policy. An alternative could have been hardening cockpit doors on airplanes and hardening our airport, port, and border defenses, along with investing more in intelligence, international cooperation, and things like drone technology. The latter would have been vastly less expensive, but conservatives thought that the “investment” in the Asian land wars was justified as an insurance policy to protect us against hypothetical terrorist catastrophe. How much of an “investment” in carbon mitigation is justified as an insurance policy to protect us against hypothetical environmental catastrophe?
I personally don’t think that the answer to any the above questions is clear cut black/white, red/blue. I don’t think it’s helpful to assert, with complete certitude, that one side or the other is completely right or completely wrong. In such situations in economics, it’s often prudent to hedge one’s investments. In the political arena, this does often require compromise.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@MataHarley:
Granted that it doesn’t depend on whether the health care protection is private or public, but Republicans have never been able to foster private insurance coverage to match the potential to cover every one, like the AHC plan of the Democrats—that’s why the bill came about.
This brings me to another point:
Here you try to suggest a hidden distinction between ’emotional liberals (non-realists)’ and ‘(rationall) fiscal realists’. You also imply that the two want the same the same thing, affordable healthcare for everyone. You try to convince someone that conservatives are not as heartless and they appear—just more rational fiscal managers.
You conservative are such good fiscal managers, why have they wasted the taxpayer $50 million for 33 attempted legislative votes to repeal the AHC law http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/2012-election/house-republicans-spent-50-million-trying-repeal-obamacare; and if repealed by 2013 would add $109 billion to the budget deficit http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471 ; whereas $1,252 billion projected in March 2012 for that 11-year period (2012-2013)—for a net reduction of $84 billion http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43472 .
As far as unsustainability of AHC is concerned, the projected decrease in cost does not strike me as being consistent with that noti0n. What was really unsustainable was the health system that existed prior to AHC—and you simple need to search ‘unsustainable health care’ to find a wealth of article support that statement. Similarly, in the days before AHC, insurance companies played the role of chief rationers and death panels. I personally would like to see a time where our current health care system (the AHC) affords a person the ability to choose expiration of their life, with physician assistance.
I think that the main politico-socio-economic difference between liberals and conservatives is the way they view the social contract. Liberals think the government exists for the individual where people are gathered together to support one another—in an egalitarian order. Conservatives take the view of a slave/serf economy—where there is a distinct hierarchy of the class of individuals, some of which are expendable without a thought—and people exist for the glorification of the state and/or the god(s).
Liberal1 [objective]
wow that is spinning the most I heard.
the emotional liberals, think that government exist for individuals,
how about those individuals not finding jobs because they are block by the many agencies the government dictate to impose the agenda of COMMUNIST RUSSIA,
HEALTHCARE? WHERE, WHEN THE DOCTORS AR TOO BUSY MAKING FORM REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT
COMMUNIST AGENDA, AND END UP NOT BEING PAID FOR THEIR SERVICES,
HELL WHO IS THE DOCTOR? IS IT THE GOVERNMENT ? YES AND THIS ONE IS NOT CARING A BIT
EXCEPT FOR THEIR OWN RE-ELECTION,
HELL, IF YOU PUT OBAMA AND DEMOCRATS FOR ANOTHER 4 YEARS, EVEN THE WELFARE RECIPIENTS WONT BE ABLE TO GET THEIR ALLOWANCE, EVEN THE GOVERNMENT CHECKS WON’T BE SAFE AND MIGHT BE HIJACKTED ANY MONTH, TO PAY FOR THEIR FUTILE SPENDING SPREE, DID OBAMA THOUGHT ABOUT THE HAVE NOT WHEN HE WENT OVER SEA TO SPENDING MONEY WITH STRANGERS? AS IF IT IS HIS MONEY,
THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE MORE HEART AND THEY CARE FOR THE HAVE-NOT IT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATE MANY TIMES IN THE PAST, THEY HAVE TAKEN CARE OF THEM INTELLIGENTLY TEACHING THE WAY TO FISH, INSTEAD OF GIVING A FISH ALONE FOR A BIG FAMILY, THEY HAVE THE BRAIN AS OPPOSE TO YOU AND YOUR GANG OF SELFISH LIBERALS, THE WORSE RACIST SPITTERS EVER FOUND THIS GOVERNMENT HAS PROVE TO BE.
CHECK IT UP, THERE IS NO MORE MONEY IN THE POT, OBAMA STILL BEGGING FOR MORE FROM THE PEOPLE HARD WORKER WHO HE WANT TO BLEED,
DOES HE GIVE A THOUGHT? NO WAY,
NOW WASH YOUR DIRTY MOUTH AND STOP INSULTING THE CONSERVATIVES HERE ON THIS BLOG, YOU HAVE TO BE A VENIMOUS SNAKE TO COME HERE AND SAY THAT.
WELL IT’S NOT BEING ACCEPTED
just heard of the thunder and lightning in the NORTH EAST EXTREME STORMS,
IT MADE ME THINK OF MOISES CITED IN THE BIBLE ON THE MOUNTAIN GETTING THE 10 COMMANDS FROM GOD HIMSELF,
WHAT should we make of it now in theses extreme weather, I SAY MAYBE GOD IS TELLING HUMANS
what the hell give you the right to kill my birds in a mass killing.
just saying my thoughts, it fit the subject
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
I would like to see more. More importantly, I would like to see it done using the scientific method, especially the part where whatever one scientist can show during an experiment, another scientist should be able to duplicate.