Comments on: The day after yesterday http://wadekwon.com/2006/07/05/the-day-after-yesterday/ Letters from my life | wadekwon.com Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:20:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Wade http://wadekwon.com/2006/07/05/the-day-after-yesterday/comment-page-1/#comment-570 Wade Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:55:44 +0000 http://wadekwon.com/2006/07/05/the-day-after-yesterday/#comment-570 Good points all. I hope more people will see the movie and weigh the evidence as thoughtfully. Good points all. I hope more people will see the movie and weigh the evidence as thoughtfully.

]]> By: Kyle http://wadekwon.com/2006/07/05/the-day-after-yesterday/comment-page-1/#comment-568 Kyle Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:11:13 +0000 http://wadekwon.com/2006/07/05/the-day-after-yesterday/#comment-568 There is definitely some strength to making the argument that we have little to lose in trying to cut back. However, it is my opinion that this is not the primary argument Al Gore is making here. It is also my opinion that any time we deviate from scientific consensus, or any time we step into territory there is no good scientific evidence, it allows those of less rational bent (read: conservative talk radio) to try and discredit the entire movement. There is definitely some strength to making the argument that we have little to lose in trying to cut back. However, it is my opinion that this is not the primary argument Al Gore is making here. It is also my opinion that any time we deviate from scientific consensus, or any time we step into territory there is no good scientific evidence, it allows those of less rational bent (read: conservative talk radio) to try and discredit the entire movement.

]]> By: Wade http://wadekwon.com/2006/07/05/the-day-after-yesterday/comment-page-1/#comment-562 Wade Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:14:45 +0000 http://wadekwon.com/2006/07/05/the-day-after-yesterday/#comment-562 Well, if the choice is between continuing to add CO2 at an unchecked rate and throttling back on CO2 emissions, I vote for the latter. Maybe we can undo the damage, maybe it's too late. But why err on the side of making the problem worse? Isn't that what we've done for the past half-century? Well, if the choice is between continuing to add CO2 at an unchecked rate and throttling back on CO2 emissions, I vote for the latter. Maybe we can undo the damage, maybe it’s too late.

But why err on the side of making the problem worse? Isn’t that what we’ve done for the past half-century?

]]> By: Kyle http://wadekwon.com/2006/07/05/the-day-after-yesterday/comment-page-1/#comment-560 Kyle Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:11:08 +0000 http://wadekwon.com/2006/07/05/the-day-after-yesterday/#comment-560 I actually saw nothing at all on that website that says how we might reverse the trend of global warming. Instead, I saw examples of how we can reduce CO2 emissions. It's well known that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and that it's absorption bands are saturated. There is no evidence that adding more CO2 is going to do much more damage than it is now. That sounds like the opening of a "global warming due to humans is a myth" post, but actually I agree that there are arguments that make a case for such a thing. The problem is that they rely on the very slight warming due to CO2 to generate other effects that snowball out of hand. Once started, these effects are largely independant of CO2 concentration. In other words, if we've begun those, reducing CO2 won't improve things. If we haven't begun them, then further emissions are unlikely to do so. I admit, it's been a year and a half since I did much research on the subject, but I doubt any of our understanding of the processes involved have changed all that much. At that time there was absolutely no evidence presented anywhere that reducing CO2 emissions after an accelerated heating process occured would have any effect, and there was no one to argue that since the bands were saturated, it would require significant reductions in CO2 emissions to have any effect under any theory of atmospheric warming/cooling. (On a side note, there's an interesting catch-22 for groups like the IPCC. They tend to use a surprisingly high lifetime for CO2 in the atmosphere, 100+ years. There are plenty of studies that suggest less. The problem is that if you do believe in a 100+ lifetime for CO2 in the atmosphere, we could shut every last oil burning engine down today and it wouldn't improve a thing) So it isn't that I don't think there is a link between mankind and global heating. It's that I have never seen any evidence for a link between mankind and fixing it. I actually saw nothing at all on that website that says how we might reverse the trend of global warming. Instead, I saw examples of how we can reduce CO2 emissions.

It’s well known that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and that it’s absorption bands are saturated. There is no evidence that adding more CO2 is going to do much more damage than it is now. That sounds like the opening of a “global warming due to humans is a myth” post, but actually I agree that there are arguments that make a case for such a thing.

The problem is that they rely on the very slight warming due to CO2 to generate other effects that snowball out of hand. Once started, these effects are largely independant of CO2 concentration. In other words, if we’ve begun those, reducing CO2 won’t improve things. If we haven’t begun them, then further emissions are unlikely to do so.

I admit, it’s been a year and a half since I did much research on the subject, but I doubt any of our understanding of the processes involved have changed all that much. At that time there was absolutely no evidence presented anywhere that reducing CO2 emissions after an accelerated heating process occured would have any effect, and there was no one to argue that since the bands were saturated, it would require significant reductions in CO2 emissions to have any effect under any theory of atmospheric warming/cooling.

(On a side note, there’s an interesting catch-22 for groups like the IPCC. They tend to use a surprisingly high lifetime for CO2 in the atmosphere, 100+ years. There are plenty of studies that suggest less. The problem is that if you do believe in a 100+ lifetime for CO2 in the atmosphere, we could shut every last oil burning engine down today and it wouldn’t improve a thing)

So it isn’t that I don’t think there is a link between mankind and global heating. It’s that I have never seen any evidence for a link between mankind and fixing it.

]]>