PDA

View Full Version : SuperFreakonomics and Global Cooling




ibaghdadi
08-03-2010, 02:58 AM
Has any of you read SuperFreakonomics (http://www.amazon.com/SuperFreakonomics-Cooling-Patriotic-Prostitutes-Insurance/dp/0060889578/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280825859&sr=8-1)? There's a chapter (since controversial) that completely owns global warming enthusiasts, in a calm and extremely scientific way. Among the points are:


Current global warming is nothing compared to previous warming episodes in the Earth's history
Previous warming episodes did not cause biological catastrophes
The current round of warming started well before the proliferation of fossil fuels and anthropogenic greenhouse emissions
Carbon dioxide is a very weak greenhouse gas, the strongest greenhouse gas is methane
Carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is far lower than previous episodes in history
Archaeological finds show that during times of high carbon dioxide concentration, plant life on Earth boomed and prospered
Most methane emissions are not anthropogenic at all but are caused by cattle flatulence
Cattle methane emissions can be reduced or eliminated by including a special bacteria in cattle's diet
Stopping emissions through cutting back on industrial activity would cripple the world's economy
Even of the world stopped polluting tomorrow, greenhouse gases won't exactly clear out instantly; it will take around a century, far too long to avert supposed "disaster"
Sulfur dioxide is a strong anit-greenhouse gas that causes global cooling
A fix that pumps sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere costs less than USD 100m and can be built within 5 years and can reverse the global warming of the past century within weeks (it's already designed and patented)
The strongest opposition to this fix comes from Al Gore and his ilk who have made this into a sort of religion rather than a legitimate scientific problem


Here's a Youtube video of the authors discussing this and other issues:

YouTube - Freakonomics: Three Geoengineering Solutions to Global Warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RsrRpjAGi8)

Just finished the book last week, definitely highly recommended.

WaltM
08-03-2010, 11:15 AM
Has any of you read SuperFreakonomics (http://www.amazon.com/SuperFreakonomics-Cooling-Patriotic-Prostitutes-Insurance/dp/0060889578/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280825859&sr=8-1)? There's a chapter (since controversial) that completely owns global warming enthusiasts, in a calm and extremely scientific way. Among the points are:

[LIST]
Current global warming is nothing compared to previous warming episodes in the Earth's history


What would make it something?



Previous warming episodes did not cause biological catastrophes


Have you lived near the equator AND artics?

You don't need biological catastrophes to lose a good chunk of your comfortable lifestyle. Hell, have you been without electricity for a day?




The current round of warming started well before the proliferation of fossil fuels and anthropogenic greenhouse emissions


If this is true, don't let me hear you say "the globe is cooling".



Carbon dioxide is a very weak greenhouse gas, the strongest greenhouse gas is methane


Fair enough, but CO2 is highest in abundance



Carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is far lower than previous episodes in history


Such as when?

Why is it. when people want to make arguments denying AGW, they point to history (the same people who say that scientists cant be trusted on reconstruction models)?



Archaeological finds show that during times of high carbon dioxide concentration, plant life on Earth boomed and prospered


Yes, good news if you're a plant.




Most methane emissions are not anthropogenic at all but are caused by cattle flatulence


Cattle exists because we "grow" them to eat.
Now, methane is low in abundance to CO2, and if methane was a problem, this at best tell us MORE REASONS AGW IS REAL (even if CO2 wasn't the cause at all)




Cattle methane emissions can be reduced or eliminated by including a special bacteria in cattle's diet


I can do better, how about we burn it?
CO2 isn't bad, right?



Stopping emissions through cutting back on industrial activity would cripple the world's economy


Fair enough. I believe that, but aren't we (libertarians, Austrians) the people who WANT the current economy to cripple anyway?



Even of the world stopped polluting tomorrow, greenhouse gases won't exactly clear out instantly; it will take around a century, far too long to avert supposed "disaster"


A good point. Could things get worse if we don't act at all?




Sulfur dioxide is a strong anit-greenhouse gas that causes global cooling


Believe me, you DO NOT WANT to increase this stuff just for cooling.
It causes extremely acid rain.




A fix that pumps sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere costs less than USD 100m and can be built within 5 years and can reverse the global warming of the past century within weeks (it's already designed and patented)


Surface cooling or atmosphere cooling?

You'll then get chemtrailers on your case.




The strongest opposition to this fix comes from Al Gore and his ilk who have made this into a sort of religion rather than a legitimate scientific problem


this is basically ad hominem, just because Al Gore is an opportunist and dogmatic hypocrite, does not mean what he believes and utilizes is completely wrong.

ibaghdadi
08-03-2010, 12:18 PM
What would make it something?

This is exactly why I started the post with the question: Did you read the book?

I simply recounted the books premise. It makes a stronger argument that I could ever try, and answers all these questions (and more).

So... have you read the book?

WaltM
08-03-2010, 01:24 PM
This is exactly why I started the post with the question: Did you read the book?

I simply recounted the books premise. It makes a stronger argument that I could ever try, and answers all these questions (and more).

So... have you read the book?

No, I have not yet read the book.

I'll admit my upfront bias, I don't consider Levitt & Dubner to be authorities on climate. (not that I think they're saying they are).

I don't have a problem with the idea that regulations will hurt us economically, but it's funny that every time one says "it's no big deal" they never tell us what WOULD be a good case for a big deal (as my signature shows for a typical denier). I am not calling Levitt & Dubner deniers, I just don't mix science with economics.

Whether or not regulations can change anything shouldn't change the admission of whether the globe is warming, and/or whether it's man-caused.

ibaghdadi
08-12-2010, 03:48 AM
WaltM, did you watch the video (in the OP)? You're certainly more knowledgeable than I about climate change, so I'd love to see you take on what Levitt & Dubner are saying up there...

WaltM
08-14-2010, 02:51 AM
WaltM, did you watch the video (in the OP)? You're certainly more knowledgeable than I about climate change, so I'd love to see you take on what Levitt & Dubner are saying up there...

I just watched the first minute and it's very telling

a) they admit they focus on economy, not even long term
b) they admit it's not about morals, or what's good for the next generation
c) they actually think it's about temperature (which is the same reason why people think its either cooling or warming and pick problem with the use of the broader picture "climate change")

d) they think it's either too late, because cutting carbon emissions won't kick in until centuries
e) they think the goal is to cool the Earth (at any cost)

I would actually be in complete agreement with these guys if they actually had the right understanding of the problem, or if I agreed with their premise.

This is akin to asking "Well, why don't we free prisoners, so there wouldn't be a prison overcrowding" or "Why don't we stop convicting crime, so we'd save money on prisons" or "Why don't we just legalize illegal immigrants, then we'd have no illegal immigrants".

ibaghdadi
08-14-2010, 04:17 AM
I would actually be in complete agreement with these guys if they actually had the right understanding of the problem, or if I agreed with their premise.


So, what is the real problem as you see it? If I understand you correctly, you're saying it's not about temperature. What are they missing?

And where do you stand vs. what you heard them say?

WaltM
08-14-2010, 10:48 PM
So, what is the real problem as you see it? If I understand you correctly, you're saying it's not about temperature. What are they missing?

And where do you stand vs. what you heard them say?

Anybody who thinks it's just about temperature is missing the big picture, and THIS is why it's more accurately "climate change" and not simply "global warming".

If it's just temperature, we can deal with it.
In fact, if it's predictable, we can deal with it too.
But IF, it's climate change, caused by CO2, and other man made factors, climate might not be predictable.
If climate is not predictable, it's not a fear of warmer weather or floods, it's the fear the instability of climate, between droughts and floods, the inability to assess seasons, food preparation, inhabitability...etc.

If Katrina were predictable, it wouldn't have been such a worry.
But if it happened just twice in the next 5 years without prediction or allow time to escape, can you imagine the change in your lifestyle, just on economical standpoint?

This may sound like a slippery slope, and I am NOT an expert.
But I don't blame anybody for asking :
"What's a few degrees going to do?"
"Isn't hot weather preferable?"
"Isn't CO2 good for plants?"
"Who cares if polar bears die"
All those can be answered with "If it's that simple, it's not even a question"

Let me put it this way, if you see a girl like this, and she told you she's been steadily getting heavier every month for 9 months :

http://photosbyaw.com/blog/uploads/image/_MG_2030-retouch.jpg
Is your recommendation :
a) stop eating
b) get a liposuction
c) forget it, you've not been able to lose weight, just buy some bigger clothes and deal with it
d) who cares? there are fat people, you can't die from just being fat, just be happy and relax?

My answer would be (based on my knowledge that she's NOT FAT)
You're not fat, that's the good news, now the bad news is, you'll have a baby, out comes lots of other bills associated with him/her.
If you were fat, it'd be much easier, but you're not, and you'll be much closer to your original weight within a year.

reillym
08-16-2010, 02:57 PM
FALSE




Error-riddled ‘Superfreakonomics’: New book pushes global cooling myths, sheer illogic, and “patent nonsense” — and the primary climatologist it relies on, Ken Caldeira, says “it is an inaccurate portrayal of me” and “misleading” in “many” places.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/12/superfreakonomics-errors-levitt-caldeira-myhrvold/

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/the_shoddy_statistics_of_super.html

The book has been discredited. Fail.

Bruno
08-16-2010, 03:18 PM
FALSE




http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/12/superfreakonomics-errors-levitt-caldeira-myhrvold/

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/the_shoddy_statistics_of_super.html

The book has been discredited. Fail.

Has this one?

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics-handbook-ii/the_skeptics_handbook_II-sml.pdf

WaltM
08-16-2010, 03:23 PM
FALSE



The book has been discredited. Fail.

I wouldn't even say the book has been discredited, as their argument hasn't even been taken as a scientific one (and they admit it!)

The book might actually have good arguments for other things and I'm willing to read it.

WaltM
08-16-2010, 03:25 PM
Has this one?

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics-handbook-ii/the_skeptics_handbook_II-sml.pdf

I'll give you my first comment on it.

Claim : "there's more money put into AGW propaganda than big oil has put into skeptical opinions"

Response : "as if the fact there's more money put into FIGHTING CRIME and PROMOTING ORDER OF THE LAW, it would discredit the law"

My signature quote from Andrew K (poptech, populartechnology.net webmaster), shows he's a DENIER, not a skeptic. A real skeptic DEMANDS TO BE CONVINCED WITH EVIDENCE. I've asked him numerous times "WHAT WOULD IT TAKE" he avoided, and turned it back, because he doesn't know (or knows it can't be possible).

It takes no brains to "just say no". If you want to have a serious discussion, identify your goal post.

Bruno
08-16-2010, 03:26 PM
I'll give you my first comment on it.

Claim : "there's more money put into AGW propaganda than big oil has put into skeptical opinions"

Response : "as if the fact there's more money put into FIGHTING CRIME and PROMOTING ORDER OF THE LAW, it would discredit the law"

Why would big oil care? They would just pass off their carbon credit costs to their consumers.

WaltM
08-16-2010, 03:29 PM
Why would big oil care? They would just pass off their carbon credit costs to their consumers.

What if they didn't have to?

Are you denying that the interest exists?

Seraphim
08-19-2010, 01:47 PM
AGW replies: It wasnít man made CO2.
Skeptics say: Itís the same molecule.

LMFAO