Yes there probably is increased growth in plants, but that's simply an effect of increased CO2 levels. They're still unproductive deserts and deserts are increasing. Presumably when the vast populations in our cities start moving to higher ground they are going to grow their food on these poor soils, although they will have to get clean water from somewhere to irrigate the crops. Let's hope it's an orderly retreat;)

Go back to 1917 and ask yourself, what predictions in 1917 bearing directly on the economy have proved true in the intervening century? — Bitter Crank

I think predicting the future is irrelevant here, at least to the degree that you demand that it be predicted. For example, see how Warren Buffet makes his money. And surely, the economy is almost at 20k, an all-time high.

So, Question, we can be much more sure of negative climate developments than we can of beneficial economic developments. — Bitter Crank

I'm not sure if you've gotten the point of this topic; but, climate change up to a certain point is actually beneficial to the economy and the world. If the smart scientists are right that a small increment in temperature will lead to a runaway effect, then we will walk over that bridge when the time comes (60-100 years from now).

While fossil fuels are cheap and abundant we should be transitioning away from reliance upon them. — m-theory

What compels you to say that? If we do a simple cost-benefit analysis, then investing in solar or renewables now is impractical. If we end up being uncompetitive wrt to China or India, then the best outcome is to seek the lowest cost technology to ensure growth. Furthermore, solar and other renewables would have to be adopted unanimously by all G20 nations. If one country backs out of said commitment, then the house of cards falls.

If we do a simple cost-benefit analysis, then investing in solar or renewables now is impractical — Question

You can start it though. Buy a few panels, land them on top of your house, or appartment building, make some energy! You're young, you have lots of time to recover the costs. Sell to your national grid, or use the electricity yourself!

Which ever way you look at it, the only way is down. — Punshhh

That's a sentiment peddled by the left. I think, I've already demonstrated that climate change isn't a necessary evil.

I think predicting the future is irrelevant here, at least to the degree that you demand that it be predicted. For example, see how Warren Buffet makes his money. And surely, the economy is almost at 20k, an all-time high. — Question

If you want to become like Warren Buffett is today, you can't do what he is doing today, you have to do what he was doing when he was young. Why? As the capital you control increases, you have to change the way you play the game quite significantly. It's very difficult to place 300 billion or whatever Berkshire's assets add up to. The most important thing for him is to beat inflation. The more money you have, the more you will be hurt by inflation, and the harder it will be to beat it. Why? Because the big risk is having so much money that a share of it sits unused because you're not able to find the right investments fast enough. The idea is that you have to find very big deals (and there's not many big deals around) - a big deal is useful because you get rid of a large chunk of money in one go. Let's say you could get a return of 100% on investments of 10,000 each. You're not going to get involved in that if you're a billionaire because each 10,000 investment takes time. You'll prefer the 2% return on 1 billion beating inflation over the 100% return in 10K pieces, because you simply wouldn't have the time to make all the deals required and to manage them.

There's a reason why Warren Buffett is suddenly arguing against hedge funds, for long-term investments at low rates, etc. This is exactly what he needs. When he was young though, he was involved in a few risky deals. He was running what used to be probably one of the very first hedge funds. Inventing a new way to invest is what made him so rich. Because when he was small he had to take risks. Now he hates risk. Of course. Risk injures him more than helps him now. But this used to be the other way around.

Fossil fuels are a finite resource though.
As the supply dwindles the cost of doing modern business will increase. — m-theory

People in the 1970's never saw the advent of shale oil or fracking. As technology progresses comparatively to the scarcity of oil and coal, then technology will make efficiency gains to maintain a low to stable price.

Look at nuclear for example. Due to hysteria and emotional reasoning, nuclear has become an expensive source of energy despite being a potentially viable source of energy for decades. Laws and regulations have made it an unviable source in the US, while India and China are investing heavily in making it a safer and abundant energy source.

But your economic imperative is blind to other considerations. I accept that we can't stop serious climate change in time(before some runaway consequence amplifies it), but burying our heads in the sand is only going to make the sociopolitical consequences more acute(code for more rapid spread of civil war).

By the way, I was more right than left before I became Green.

I pointed out that the problem has come to be known as the problem of access because it has nothing to do with communal ownership it has to do with access to a limited resource.
It has to do with a limited resource,access to the resources, and individual actors seeking individual interests.

Private property would entail private ownership of the fishing population, hence rejecting it as a communal resource. — Emptyheady

You can't be serious, how could individuals own the populations of fish in the ocean.
Just let it go, you don't know what you are talking about and trying to save face has only dug you deeper.

You can't be serious, how could individuals own the populations of fish in the ocean.
Just let it go, you don't know what you are talking about and trying to save face has only dug you deeper. — m-theory

Yes, I addressed that exactly. Again, what I said to Benkei goes for you as well.

I pointed out that the problem has come to be known as the problem of access because it has nothing to do with communal ownership it has to do with access to a limited resource.
It has to do with a limited resource,access to the resources, and individual actors seeking individual interests. — m-theory

Of course it is ridiculous to think it should be possible to enforce ownership of populations of fish in the ocean and you should feel shame for suggesting this rather than admitting that you were mistaken.

And of course you have no clue what you are talking about.
All you are concerned about is a particular narrative "the free market is always the answer" unfortunately for you the real world is more nuanced than that.

And surely, the economy is almost at 20k, an all-time high. — Question

The Dow Jones Industrial Average may be almost at 20k, but the DJIA is not the same as the economy. Stock markets are speculative, and there is a somewhat tenuous relationship between the various stock averages and the actual financial/industrial activity in a country. The reason the DJIAI is still close to its high of 19,987.63 is that speculation keeps it there. Speculators are more confident in stock when the economy is at least reported to be doing OK.

The economy (actual production, consumption, profitability, rates of return on investment, employment, debt, etc.) and the DJIA or the S&P 500 are not chained together. Thousands of corporate reports showing actual financial results reveal how the economy is doing (that and Bureau of Labor Statistics, et al). There is a relationship between the actual economy and stock market, but there isn't a one-for-one relationship.

I'm not sure if you've gotten the point of this topic; but, climate change up to a certain point is actually beneficial to the economy and the world. If the smart scientists are right that a small increment in temperature will lead to a runaway effect, then we will walk over that bridge when the time comes (60-100 years from now). — Question

Of course I get the point -- I'm an urban sophisticate, just like you.

We can look at the Medieval Warm Period and the "Little Ice Age" that followed it. People were much better off physically and economically during the Medieval Warm Period than they were during the cooler "Little Ice Age." Here it is, all graphed out:



But bear in mind: Global warming didn't begin in the 1990s. It's been progressing for something like 2 centuries.

Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15º C because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5ºC temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This research was a by-product of research of whether carbon dioxide would explain the causes of the great Ice Ages. This was not actually verified until 1987.

The warming that has happened in the last two centuries is considerably greater than the warming during the Medieval period, and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise. We passed the arbitrary 400 ppm in the last year. The warmer it gets, the more water vapor and CO2 there will be -- guaranteed by the laws of physics and chemistry. Add methane to the mix. The more water vapor, CO2 and methane, the faster the feedback loop.

We may, might, possibly, probably are, or could be past the point of beneficial warming. I've been around long enough (70 years) to see some warmth related changes. When I was in high school (before 1964) iris, peonies, lilacs, and bridal wreath peak blossomed for Decoration Day (aka Memorial Day). For the past 10 years, at least, these plants have been fished blossoming before Memorial Day. Migratory birds are returning 2-3 weeks earlier, and some birds have decided to skip migrating -- this in Minnesota. Insects that used to be killed off in the winter (ones that infest trees, particularly) are now surviving winter. It isn't that winter has disappeared across the northern tier of states. It is just that very cold periods are much shorter than they used to be with spring arriving earlier, and winter beginning a bit later. The last really long brutal cold spell in Minneapolis was the winter of 1983-1984 when the temperature in December '83 was near or below zero, with a low of -29ºF on Dec. 19.

Here's some evidence from the little ice age: Hendrick Avercamp (1585–1634) painted this picture of an ice skating party at a time when Dutch waterways regularly froze in the cold of winter. The canals don't freeze now.

My point here is that it is rational and not at all arbitrary to reject the conclusions of someone you find lacking credibility. What would be irrational would be to fully accept the credibility of the scientists but to simply refuse to accept their inconvenient conclusions. I don't think that is at all what is happening. I think what is really happening is that the general public (myself included) has no idea what sort of experiments have been conducted or what sort of data has been collected, but we are all asked to accept the conclusions because most scientists say it's valid. If tomorrow they report they were wrong, I suspect you'd change your mind. Whether placing trust in the consensus of the experts is reasonable and rational is debatable because polling scientists is a not a scientific act. It's a political one. — Hanover

The credibility of climate change science is dubious at best. H2O and CO2 are very similar in greenhouse capacity, yet the amount of H2O in the atmosphere is many times more (perhaps hundreds of times more) than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and constantly varies by an amount many times more (perhaps hundreds of times more) than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

the general public (myself included) has no idea what sort of experiments have been conducted or what sort of data has been collected, but we are all asked to accept the conclusions because most scientists say it's valid — Hanover

You might be surprised to hear that the scientific record supporting global warming is not and has not been kept a secret. You don't have to subscribe to obscure or well known but technically difficult science journals to become aware of what the information is. Unfortunately for you, if you have have not been paying attention for the last 25 years or so, you'll have to do a fair amount of catch-up reading.

If for the last 25 years had you regularly read general science articles in papers like the New York Times, Washington Post, Scientific American, and so on; had you been watching the Lehrer News Hour on PBS, had you been listening to news on National Public Radio, had you watched NOVA and Nature on PBS, you wouldn't be in this slough of deficient information. You would have heard many explanations about what data had been gathered, how they got it, how the analyzed it, and what the upshots were.

Furthermore, solar and other renewables would have to be adopted unanimously by all G20 nations. If one country backs out of said commitment, then the house of cards falls. — Question

Why must renewables be unanimously adopted by all G20 nations? Why, if one backs out, does this prevent the other 19 from continuing to benefit?

I gather that climate change, even drastic ones like ice ages, are ''regular'' events in earth's geological history. That so even without human involvement. So, what's the issue here?

Are you aware of the effects that the thinning of the ozone layer have had on the climate of the planet?

That so even without human involvement. So, what's the issue here? — TheMadFool

This time around, its humans who have to survive it.

Or thrive in certain ways, depending (given the OP's links).

Given that top predatory dinosaurs and the herbivore dinosaurs both died out and became extinct I don't see how humans can make it in the next extinction event.

Anyway I hope we do survive as we would've learned a valuable lesson and be more careful.

As I understand it (not well at all) the relationship between the ozone hole and climate warming is rather complex. CFCs are a green house gas, yes? I don't think ozone depletion is a major factor in warming.

H2O precipitates out easily, the atmosphere can only hold so much under usual conditions. CO2 doesn't precipitate, it accumulates and is slow to become fixed in the environment. Water vapour would trigger a runaway scenario at a later point, but not on its own.

Anyway even if as you say climate change science is dubious, the effects on glaciers and the climate can be observed firsthand. So the sea level is going to rise a few metres, causing major problems for any coastal city.

Jesus Christ boys, you realize that all three of you (I'm including that Benkei guy) are right, yeah? Hell, I re-read this little back and forth twice to figure out what you were even arguing about and so far as I can tell one person said something accurate (per Hardin basically) then someone else said something else accurate on par with Lloyd. And rather than combining the two points (which is what Hardin did) both of you argued over a damn Wikipedia article and whatever the hell "Investopedia" is rather than just reading his paper which you can totally find online for free.

To clarify: The Benkei dude was probably the most "right" just because he hit all the points that Hardin and Lloyd (and Malthus) did. Plus he reasonably pointed out that Hardin's paper is kind of nuts (which is absolutely is, it would never get published these days).

Emptyheady was right, Lloyd, in his Lectures, does seem to think the problem/tragedy is specifically endemic to common property systems historically and, drawing heavily on Malthus, concludes that private property posed a solid solution or at least stood the best chance of pushing people toward developing a solution (This basically starts on page 20, drops off around page 38ish, and wraps up in the last ten pages).

M-Theory was finally right - Hardin showed up in 1968 and said "Fuck privatization, those weird guys got it wrong with their "technical solutions", they relied to heavily on the potential advancement of free market oriented technology, and didn't have a reasonable way to address adding negative things to the commons (literally "pollution"). Hardin then gets openly wacky ("radical" as he says) on the reader and goes, "Hey, lets go back into Malthus and Lloyd and just say that the commons of population is enemy" (i.e. free reproduction). The solution? Legislation or responsible moral education that stops people from breeding all willy-nilly.

So see? Everyone wins.. yippee. The god damn absurdity of argument was so distracting I basically lost track of what the rest of this thread was even about. It look me full circle back to page 1 to figure out everyone else was talking about climate change.

Thank you for this does of sanity, Carbon.

As I understand it (not well at all) the relationship between the ozone hole and climate warming is rather complex. CFCs are a green house gas, yes? I don't think ozone depletion is a major factor in warming. — Bitter Crank

Actually, it's the effect of CO2 which is quite complex, the effects of ozone thinning is rather straight forward. Ozone absorbs solar energy in the high atmosphere (stratosphere). Ozone thinning allows that energy to reach the surface of the earth. What has been observed by NASA (which we can be logically attribute to ozone thinning) is a lower temperature in the upper atmosphere, and a higher temperature at the earth's surface.

This should be taken into account by anyone who attributes higher surface temperatures to a build up of CO2. A correlation between two things does not necessitate that one is the cause of the other. A claim of causation must be justified.

H2O precipitates out easily, the atmosphere can only hold so much under usual conditions. — Punshhh

That's the point, the amount of water in the atmosphere varies greatly, due to precipitation and evaporation. It varies by an amount many time greater than the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If H2O and CO2 are similar in their capacity as greenhouse gases, how is a doubling, or even tripling of CO2 going to have a significant effect on the climate, when the amount of H2O already continually varies by an amount many times more than this?

In other words, CO2 is the constant, and H2O is the variable. The effects of the variable are far more substantial to the subject at hand, than the effects of the constant. How does any credible science treat the variable as a constant, thereby allowing the constant to be treated as a variable?

If for the last 25 years had you regularly read general science articles in papers like the New York Times, Washington Post, Scientific American, and so on; had you been watching the Lehrer News Hour on PBS, had you been listening to news on National Public Radio, had you watched NOVA and Nature on PBS, you wouldn't be in this slough of deficient information. You would have heard many explanations about what data had been gathered, how they got it, how the analyzed it, and what the upshots were. — Bitter Crank

Damn! All I've watched was Foxnews.

Of course you are right.

I just don't agree that is reasonable to argue that all goods can be made excludable.
That to me is silly.

No.

I don't recall having askied a yes or no question. Have you confused me with Lower Case NUMBERS?