Ace of Spades HQ

June 26, 2008

Arctic Ice Receeding Because of Massive Lava-Flow from Undersea Volcanoes?
— Ace

It does explain why Arctic ice is receding while Antarctic ice is thickening.

Thanks to dri.

More: Bjorn Lomberg writes that, even conceding that global warming is a problem (which I don't, but I sure would like to reduce dependency on oil), research into new technologies will return far more bang for the buck:

Research for the project was done by a lead author of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the group that shared last year's Nobel Peace Prize with former vice president Al Gore -- who noted that spending $800 billion over 100 years solely on mitigating emissions would reduce inevitable temperature increases by just 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century. Even accounting for the key environmental damage from warming, we would lose money, with avoided damage of just $685 billion for our $800 billion
investment.
The economists didn't conclude that the world should ignore the effects of climate change. They pointed out that a better response than cutting emissions would be to dramatically increase research and development on low-carbon energy -- such as solar panels and second-generation biofuels.
...
Even if every nation spent 0.05 percent of its gross domestic product on research and development of low-carbon energy, this would be only about one-tenth as costly as the Kyoto Protocol and would save dramatically more than any of Kyoto's likely successors.

A while ago Larwyn tipped me to a review of climate/global warming books by noted physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson. I got lost in it one day instead of blogging. It's quite long but worth reading in full if you have the time and interest.

The main conclusion of the Nordhaus analysis is that the ambitious proposals, "Stern" and "Gore," are disastrously expensive, the "low-cost backstop" [basically a hypothetical but quite likely technological solution that will mature sometime down the road, such as bioengineering carbon-sequestering trees] is enormously advantageous if it can be achieved, and the other policies including business-as-usual and Kyoto are only moderately worse than the optimal policy. The practical consequence for global-warming policy is that we should pursue the following objectives in order of priority. (1) Avoid the ambitious proposals. (2) Develop the science and technology for a low-cost backstop. (3) Negotiate an international treaty coming as close as possible to the optimal policy, in case the low-cost backstop fails. (4) Avoid an international treaty making the Kyoto Protocol policy permanent. These objectives are valid for economic reasons, independent of the scientific details of global warming.

His conclusion is something most of us have noted, but then, most of us are morons. He's not.

All the books that I have seen about the science and economics of global warming, including the two books under review, miss the main point. The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.
Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion...
Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the be-lief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.

I do give John McCain some amount of slack, confronted, as he is, with the hard reality of the unreality of this entire debate. He has to make nods towards the God of Nature for the same reason impious politicians have to pretend a belief in the Judeo-Christian God.

Still, the cheapest and most effective method of mitigating "global warming" (even if it's due to carbon dioxide rather than the sun) is research -- and not additional taxes on energy use, whether direct or disguised as in McCain's favored cap-and-trade dodge.

As Michael Crichton has also argued, it's not merely possible but downright likely that an earth 20 or 30 years more technologically advanced than the current one can fix these problems relatively cheaply.

Posted by: Ace at 11:36 AM | Comments (29)
Post contains 816 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Nothing to see here, move along.

Posted by: Al Gore at June 26, 2008 11:42 AM (6Oq7N)

2 This NEEDS TO GET OUT THERE!

Posted by: K.R. Kahn at June 26, 2008 11:44 AM (xamKk)

3 How can one deny climate change?!? It's real: right now it's raining here; earlier in the day it wasn't; QED.

Posted by: Brad at June 26, 2008 11:48 AM (LZs5x)

4 Oh, you poor, poor wingnuts. What part of "the science is settled" can't you grasp?

Posted by: Seattle Munck at June 26, 2008 11:50 AM (f7A+e)

No.

Arctic ice is receeding because Al Gore said so.

D'uh!

Posted by: catmman at June 26, 2008 11:50 AM (grj4V)

6 I want to know more about this big motherfkn lava flow. Where's it flowing? How do they know it's not flowing to a volcano? Wouldn't that be cool if the Arctic blew up and polar bears and cariboozles were sent up into space and would circle the globe for two years?

Posted by: GRC at June 26, 2008 12:03 PM (c/cG0)

7 As libs have replaced the God of the Universe (be He/She/It personal or just out there somewhere) with Personkind as God, non-believers are now responsible for every evil and only They can save everyone. Non-believers are destroying the Earth with fossil fuels and global warming and only Believers can save the Earth.

What an egotistical bag o'crap that is. Discussion is squashed by screams of "heresy." Enviro-centrists will burn heretics at the stake as soon as they can figure out a way to do without increasing the carbon footprint. It is no longer about science, it is emotional politics at its worst.

Posted by: conservative rebel: sign up for your nearest 5K walk to fight terrorism at June 26, 2008 12:05 PM (T4dLI)

8 For people who want a daily dose of both sides of the issue, the people who brought you Arts and Letters Daily and Sci-Tech Daily now bring you Climate Debate Daily.

Posted by: The Sanity Inspector at June 26, 2008 12:13 PM (uw+0A)

to believe that the blip of time that modern man has shit the earth up is causing any climactic upheaval is bullshit. once were incinerated, it will be earth plus plastic and it starts all over again. volcanos and all.

Posted by: spear at June 26, 2008 12:42 PM (+ZAGv)

10 Lava melts ice?

Posted by: rosie at June 26, 2008 01:46 PM (+cFcP)

artic ice thinning....could it be from the VOLCANOES the size of mt vesuveus that erupted under the artic ocean in 1999, and recently discovered??

warm the water, the ice thins.....YA THINK????

Posted by: cannon at June 26, 2008 03:17 PM (ceqT4)

12 Does this mean you'll lay off of us about the farting?

Posted by: Cows at June 26, 2008 04:05 PM (o14/2)

13 This just proves that that goof-ball in Australia who said that Global Climate Warming Change would cause earthquakes and volcanos is right! Next we'll be seeing lava in the flooded subways and sewers of New York and Los Angeles.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at June 26, 2008 04:06 PM (JqOgz)

14 Sigh... I wrote about this months ago

Sometimes it's frustrating to be a little blog.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 26, 2008 04:06 PM (0+Ggj)

15 Ace (and assorted morons), I've been toying with this idea for awhile now and I wonder if you guys have any input. What if McCain comes out and says the following: My solution for global warming is to unleash the juggernaut of American capitalism upon this problem. Eliminate all taxes on the clean energy sector for 15 years. If you can produce power without a carbon output you can make unlimited funds tax free. No business taxes, no capital gains taxes, if you do or fund R&D in this area, even if you're involved in some other business, it's a complete tax write off. If the great evil corporation Exxon can produce energy without producing carbon it can keep all of that money tax free cause this is open to absolutlely everyone. This will result in the following things; 1) all that capital in commodoties will have a new place to go, probably reducing the price of oil and food, 2) any state that also implements this idea will see tons of new jobs created, 3) America will see a massive influx of foreign investment and foreign expertise as we become the center of global innovation in the most important new industry thus far in the 21st century, 4) we solve the energy problem faster than we would otherwise, 5) it's a small industry today so the revenue lost is minimal, 6) and I'll increase the federal funding of pure science on area's touching this industry based upon the recomendations of my crack team of scietific advisors and leave applied science research to companies which are better at that any way. When the 15 years is up we'll take another look at it and see if we want to leave it that way.

Posted by: The Apologist at June 26, 2008 04:13 PM (zQwfZ)

Dude, it's simple.

The 'hole' in the ozone layer is the cause. We all know that heat rises and, in this case, all of the hot air rises to escape through the, uh, 'hole' thereby creating a vacuum in the Antarctic.

Geez.

You people just don't get it.

This guy does.

Posted by: jmflynny at June 26, 2008 04:35 PM (OJlwP)

17 When the 15 years is up we'll take another look at it and see if we want to leave it that way.

Sold.

Posted by: tachyonshuggy at June 26, 2008 04:52 PM (TXp3z)

18 I've been skeptical of global warming since I was first aware of it because I remembered grade school science. Plants love carbon. More carbon means more healthy and robust plants.

Use your air conditioner, drive your car, barbecue some ribs. Do what you can to contribute to atmospheric carbon. The crops will thank you, and they will reward your pocketbook.

The climate won't care so much. It has bigger things to worry about.

Posted by: Justin at June 26, 2008 05:03 PM (iH1PP)

Justin-

That's too complicated for the average Global Warming cultist.

Just tell 'em that less CO₂ means a reduced marijuana crop. They'll drop that bullshit straight away.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 26, 2008 05:19 PM (rf03a)

20 Dear Global Warming Cultist;

Greetings and salutations! I regret to inform you that we will be unable to perform as expected this year. A dearth of carbon limits our ability to produce.

As a result you will suffer a shortage of rope and pipe filling. Kiss your sex life goodbye.

Sincerely,

Hemp

Posted by: Justin at June 26, 2008 05:52 PM (iH1PP)

21 We already have carbon sequestering trees -- to common folk they're called "lumber".

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 26, 2008 06:06 PM (dcqty)

22 Where be the trolls?

Posted by: eman at June 26, 2008 06:52 PM (WWkFI)

23 We already have carbon sequestering trees -- to common folk they're called "lumber". That never even occured to me, the lumber industry as carbon sequestration industry. Awesome. Plant trees, sequester carbon, cut them down and build things, repeat. I wonder what the numbers on something like this would look like.

Posted by: The Apologist at June 26, 2008 07:06 PM (zQwfZ)

Lava only melts rock. It can't melt ice. CO2 melts ice. Deniers!

Posted by: Ralph at June 26, 2008 10:05 PM (dxnUk)

25 Look, we have to face the truth. Volcanoes are a threat to the Climate.
We have to do something about them.

Obama has a detailed Volcano Crisis Plan and we should help him end the Volcano Threat - for the children.

Posted by: eman at June 27, 2008 05:19 AM (WWkFI)

The Independent reports that the North Pole ice will all be melted by the end of the summer (So long Santa!). They claim that the ice cap already melted and the only ice remaining is that which formed this year. (So it was cold enough to freeze new ice while the old ice melted.) They also suggest that NOW international oil interests can get drilling at the North Pole because the ice is all gone and no longer an impediment. This "unprecendented" melted ice region will stay ice free for the years it takes to implement the removal of oil from beneath the North Pole.

If they want to write snark, fine. But where's George Carlin when you need him? (RIP) Rush played a tribute to Carlin's ridicule of global warming insanity that I hope you all heard.

Posted by: maverick muse at June 27, 2008 06:46 AM (1cbR0)

Bjorn Lomberg has been vilified by the AGWist movement as a heretic - er, skeptic - for years, despite never saying that Global Warming - um, Climate Change - is not happening. His points are valid whether there is warming, cooling, or stasis: trying to control climate is a costly boondoggle while less than five percent of the same money put toward such things as getting potable water, electricity, and medicine (I think he includes prevention, such as DDT) would achieve ten to thirty times as much.

Posted by: teqjack at June 27, 2008 07:20 AM (CEphM)

28 不動産投資結婚相談所東京

Posted by: イ mtcmtmail= at January 16, 2009 12:29 AM (HMhC8)

cheap wedding gowns discount bridal gowns China wedding dresses China wedding online store discount designer wedding dresses

Posted by: China wedding online store at April 12, 2009 01:01 AM (47C/v)

Hide Comments | Add Comment