Socialized Health Care in the USA

[eppie]

Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, said in an interview. “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.”--

Few remarks:

the first one is an argument '''Happer served as director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under President George H.W. Bush''':(

Second one: The basics of global warming theory (so the why it occurs) or quite simple* so also quite simple to discard. A group of 10 sceptical professors could easily write a report with good arguments if they are right about the fact that global warming doesn't exist (and please don't start with the conspiracy theories about those scientist being not given a fair chance to publish in the major journals.....apart from the last 15 years, 'no global warming' was the standard).

*the estimates of how the climate change will be, and how much the sea will rise are of course much more difficult to make.

Third: the problems I have in these discussions (and these experts that say such things) is that everytime another point of the global warming theory is wrong: first they say there is no global warming, then they say there is but it is not because of CO2 but because of the suns fluctuations, then it is CO2 but not our ('man made') CO2 etc. etc. (this is not directed at this discussion on the lounge by the way)

[Zenda]

Right, we exhale because we are polluted. People who are in good shape produce less CO2, so maybe the EPA should regulate fitness as well. Yeah? Tell that to a plant.

If you seriously want to question the toxic effects of CO2 on the human body, you might want to take it up with Wiki. Not only do they mention it on their main page for CO2, they even have a special Carbon Dioxide Poisoning page.

Btw, there is also the opposite of CO2 poisoning. A shortage leads to problems too, but far less severe. Particularly interesting is the following, if you think of certain arguments used in the torture thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocapnia

"Self-induced hypocapnia through hyperventilation is the basis for the deadly schoolyard fainting game. Deliberate hyperventilation has been unwisely used by underwater breath-hold divers to extend dive time but at the risk of shallow water blackout, which is a significant cause of drowning."

[Zenda]

Second one: The basics of global warming theory (so the why it occurs) or quite simple* so also quite simple to discard. A group of 10 sceptical professors could easily write a report with good arguments if they are right about the fact that global warming doesn't exist

Not sure I fully agree with that.

There is no doubt about global warming and the negative economic impact it will have. What climatoligists and other scientists are trying to figure out now is how much we contribute to it. Not to gather proof for accusations, but to establish how much we could do to reverse it, by reducing CO2 emissions and such. If they find we have little to do with it, we are in for some big problems. Otoh, if they find we have (partly) caused it ourselves, we know we can do something about it.

Suppose astronomers find out there is a comet heading for earth, and they actually manage to convince everyone they are not just saying it for funding. Would we look the other way, saying that we didn't do it?

Personally, I'm not much of a global warming alarmist. If we didn't do it we can't help it, and if we would just treat earth as a home for future generations, we wouldn't be causing it. Otoh, if we have a hand in this, we might not have the 'luxury' of trying to solve other, more basic problems first. The climate system is pretty huge, and it may not respond to our activities on daily basis.

[eppie]

Not sure I fully agree with that.

There is no doubt about global warming and the negative economic impact it will have. What climatoligists and other scientists are trying to figure out now is how much we contribute to it. Not to gather proof for accusations, but to establish how much we could do to reverse it, by reducing CO2 emissions and such. If they find we have little to do with it, we are in for some big problems. Otoh, if they find we have (partly) caused it ourselves, we know we can do something about it.

Suppose astronomers find out there is a comet heading for earth, and they actually manage to convince everyone they are not just saying it for funding. Would we look the other way, saying that we didn't do it?

Personally, I'm not much of a global warming alarmist. If we didn't do it we can't help it, and if we would just treat earth as a home for future generations, we wouldn't be causing it. Otoh, if we have a hand in this, we might not have the 'luxury' of trying to solve other, more basic problems first. The climate system is pretty huge, and it may not respond to our activities on daily basis.

I don't agree. If (and I am convinced it is) the rising CO2 concentration is causing a significant warming of our planet it doesn't matter if we caused it or not. If we know more CO2 means warmer we can try to decrease the amount in the atmosphere. I see all this research as a very positive thing, we know we can influence the climate, and could theoretically also counterattack an ice age in the same way (by pumping CO2 in the atmosphere).

What you mean with ''if we didn't do it we can't help it'' probably refers to a completely different cause. In that sense I think I am positive because I think we can influence it.

[kandrathe]

There is no doubt about global warming and the negative economic impact it will have. What climatologists and other scientists are trying to figure out now is how much we contribute to it. Not to gather proof for accusations, but to establish how much we could do to reverse it, by reducing CO2 emissions and such. If they find we have little to do with it, we are in for some big problems. Otoh, if they find we have (partly) caused it ourselves, we know we can do something about it.

The alarmists should also acknowledge that human contribution to the global levels of CO2 are minute in comparison to the entire global carbon cycle. My view is that there are many natural processes which keep the atmospheric composition in equilibrium although they do fluctuate between extremes over geological time scales. Atmospheric CO2 has been shown to have increased by about 100ppm over the last 100 years, from about 280 ppm to 390 ppm now, and it seems to have done so very linearly.

The largest sink of atmospheric CO2 is the ocean which sequesters carbon (carbonic acid) within sea water, over time, corals , mollusks, and other sea life use these carbonates, but also release CO2 as they fix carbon molecules. As the ocean temperature increases, its ability to contain CO2 decreases which may result in a vast increase in atmospheric CO2, unless there is another process that compensates. I suspect that there is also a process that benefits from the increase in ocean acidity, possible increasing the availability of calcium, and other minerals.

Another process is that at great depth, CO2 condenses and forms icy hydrates on the ocean floor thus freeing sea water (esp. when extra calcium is present) to bond with more atmospheric CO2. Algaes and land based plants, have a non-linear increase in photosynthesis efficiency in the presence of greater ppm's of CO2 (up to about 1%, or 10,000 ppm which as you pointed out is toxic to animal life). Plants also seems to grow denser structures when in the presence of higher CO2 levels resulting in up to double the fixation of carbon. Anyway, the point being here that I don't believe that we fully understand the capacity for nature to use and transform CO2.

Suppose astronomers find out there is a comet heading for earth, and they actually manage to convince everyone they are not just saying it for funding. Would we look the other way, saying that we didn't do it?

There is a difference between saying "will hit Earth" and "might hit Earth". A higher level of uncertainty would lead people to desire to conserve their resources and efforts to prevent an unlikely scenario. Of course, there will always be a percentage who don't care about the costs at all. My view is 1) whether we cause it or not and we are pretty certain it is a real danger, then we should do something about it, and 2) whatever we do to our environment we should also plan to undo.

[kandrathe]

If you seriously want to question the toxic effects of CO2 on the human body, you might want to take it up with Wiki.

Actually, I'm very familiar with the narrow parameters that sustain life on the planet. Small variations in atmospheric composition, temperature or pressure would threaten all life as we know it. Even oxygen, in fact, would become toxic in a 1/3 higher than our current (~20%) concentration at sea level pressures. So, then should the government regulate oxygen as a possible pollutant?

[--Pete]

Hi,

The alarmists should also acknowledge that human contribution to the global levels of CO2 are minute in comparison to the entire global carbon cycle.

That is the crux of the situation. We're dealing with a chaotic system, so even minute differences can cause huge effects. That's why the models need to be precise and the parameters fed in to be exact (and exactly right). Otherwise, the model is just an Etch-A-Sketch -- a complex method to draw what you want drawn.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

That is the crux of the situation. We're dealing with a chaotic system, so even minute differences can cause huge effects. That's why the models need to be precise and the parameters fed in to be exact (and exactly right). Otherwise, the model is just an Etch-A-Sketch -- a complex method to draw what you want drawn.

Exactly. A nudge in the wrong direction at the wrong time might just as quickly plunge the planet to excess cooling, which I believe would be much more catastrophic.

[Jester]

Exactly. A nudge in the wrong direction at the wrong time might just as quickly plunge the planet to excess cooling, which I believe would be much more catastrophic.

/facepalm

-Jester

[Jester]

That's why the models need to be precise and the parameters fed in to be exact (and exactly right). Otherwise, the model is just an Etch-A-Sketch -- a complex method to draw what you want drawn.

If the system really was chaotic, then sensitive dependence on initial conditions would make what you just said impossible, no?

I think you're overstating the case for a chaotic system here. We might not be able to predict the precise effects of any forcing, but are you really saying that we don't even know that doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations would cause warming, to within a few degrees Celsius, at least?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

/facepalm

I'm not talking over decades even. It might take hundreds of years, but if you don't understand the machine then you shouldn't mess around with the controls. And, that includes dumping excess CO2 into the system as well. I agree with Pete. I believe that there are plenty of reasons to stop burning hydro-carbons other than excess CO2 emissions, and that linking CO2 to environmental change risks a political back lash against environmentalism. Humans need to change their relationship with their environment, but the "eco-fascist" do gooders will do more harm than the good they are trying to force down the other peoples throats. I know, I was the one who said that name calling was unhelpful, but in this case, I think it helps to clarify where the some of the AGW's might be coming from. You know that old Butler poem, "He that complies against his will, is of his own opinion still. Which he may adhere to, yet disown, for reasons to himself best known ."

And...

I'm jaded by the irony of a green movement who worships guys like Al Gore who fly around the world in their luxury jets, and drive to events in their Escalade SUV's, living in homes with 5 times the carbon footprint of the average American (who's footprint is 10 times the size of the rest of humanity). I'm jaded by politicians who cash in on the green movement to push for legislation that aids their constituents, but actually further damages the ecosystem. I'm jaded by an environmental political movement that shut down the nuclear power industry in the US, and drove us to burn coal and other fossil fuels instead resulting in tragic land and air pollution which will take centuries to dissipate.

So, pardon me for not jumping on the latest political band wagon. I want to see more science, less propaganda, and far less fascism.

[Jester]

I don't even know what to say. You agree with dramatically reducing CO2 emissions, but oppose even the feeblest possible legislation to do so. You agree that the environmentalists have a point about CO2 emissions, but call them "eco-fascists". You call it a religion, blind worshippers of the sainted Gore, but actually grant the basic correctness of their beliefs about our environmental impact. You rant and rail against "alarmism", so long as it coincides with your political opponents' beliefs, but mention how a "nudge" could "plunge the planet to excess cooling," which would be "catastrophic." You call your opponents "Fascists", and anything you oppose "Fascism", which borders on Godwinning the thread, but oppose anyone calling anyone else any other names, and call for everyone to keep a level head and not exaggerate?

I don't get it. Maybe I should just leave it be. I can make sense out of Pete's beliefs, but all I'm getting from you is a contradictory hodgepodge of political likes and dislikes.

-Jester

[Zenda]

Even oxygen, in fact, would become toxic in a 1/3 higher than our current (~20%) concentration at sea level pressures.

Really? Maybe you meant to say that if the PARTIAL pressure of O2 in our air would reach 2.5 times the current value (not 1.3), it would become unhealthy? Well, even the usual 20% is bad, if the pressure is higher (like at 66 meters below sea level). High concentrations of O2 (up to 100%) in a gas mixture of sufficient low total pressure is quite safe to breathe, though.

[Zenda]

What you mean with ''if we didn't do it we can't help it'' probably refers to a completely different cause.

I'll admit that wasn't very clear, so let me try to explain.

If the global warming is not caused by human activities, but exclusively by solar activity, earth polarisation, planetairy trajectories, or whatever, I don't think we will be able to do something about it for quite some time to come. I agree with you, though, that this doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Someone has to start somewhere, after all.

If we did cause it, it's just another ecological effect of our egoisitic behaviour. Maybe addressing it has a higher priority as other problems, it's hard to tell. But once we 'fix' it, people will pretend there never was a problem, blame the ones who cleaned up the mess for wasting their time, and it will start all over again.

Maybe we should just let it happen, this time. Sure, people in underdeveloped countries will suffer the most, but they are also the ones already most used to suffering. People in our countries, however, will propably think the world collapsed if prices just doubled.

[--Pete]

Hi,

If the system really was chaotic, then sensitive dependence on initial conditions would make what you just said impossible, no?

No. A chaotic system is one in which small changes in initial conditions *can* cause huge changes in the results. However, a chaotic system is not a *random* system. In a random system, the same initial conditions can yield different results, in a chaotic system, that does not happen. (EDIT): In a chaotic system it is often (usually, I'd say) the case that over some range of an input parameter, the output would change by a reasonable amount. However, there exists 'breakpoints' and as the parameter passes through a neighborhood around these breakpoints, the output changes dramatically. Then, often, there is another region of relative stability. (/EDIT)

I think you're overstating the case for a chaotic system here. We might not be able to predict the precise effects of any forcing, but are you really saying that we don't even know that doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations would cause warming, to within a few degrees Celsius, at least?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Consider; an increase in CO2 concentration causes warming. Warming causes ice pack melting. Ice pack, being mostly fresh water, causes the density of the North Atlantic to decrease. The density of the North Atlantic could become less than the density of the warm waters carried north by the Gulf Stream. That possibly slows or even stops the Atlantic currents. That means a net reduction in temperature for high latitudes (even if the overall temperature of the Earth increases -- a greater gradient between the poles and the equatorial region), which could lead to massive glaciation. Massive glaciation would increase the albedo of the Earth, leading to overall cooling, and instead of a warm period, an ice age occurs. I can't speak for the models being used today (although I've seen no big announcements of breakthroughs in the models), but the models of twenty years ago would give *any* result from a snow ball to a hell planet depending on *small* adjustments to a few coefficients.

That's the facts -- draw what conclusions make you happy from them. For me, I think we should clean up our collective act and make the air, the ground, and the water better. I'm not sure that we should break the bank doing it.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

But once we 'fix' it, people will pretend there never was a problem, blame the ones who cleaned up the mess for wasting their time, and it will start all over again.

Every now and then, you say something I agree with, and that scares me. But, yes, you are right, and the historical example is the Y2K problem.

--Pete

[Jester]

(I never said the climate was random. While I'm no climatologist, I'm not that much of a dunce. I said chaotic, I meant chaotic.)

If we're to take that concept seriously, then we're in one of two situations, given the data which unequivocally suggests persistent warming over the last half-century, and we know that the "naive" impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is to warm the planet.

1) We are not near any relevant "breakpoints" in any of our climate variables, and increasing CO2 concentrations will have its obvious effect for the foreseeable future: increasing global warming.

2) We are near some kind of "breakpoint", and increasing CO2 concentrations will cause our climate to do something drastic and unpredictable. Who knows what the impact of this would be, but it would be a gigantic gamble, triggering anything from a massive shift in ocean currents to a new ice age to runaway warming. Or it might do nothing relevant. Who knows?

Preventing the first situation from coming to pass has (slightly) predictable effects and costs, and it seems pretty obvious to me that the costs of prevention are far lower than the costs of a cure. This is marginally true for optimistic scenarios, and overwhelmingly true for pessimistic ones.

Preventing the second situation, where the result is deeply uncertain, seems like something we should be doing out of simple risk aversion, playing as we are with the one and only known inhabitable biosphere in the universe. There are very few conceivable "win" scenarios, where the climate actually improves somehow. Almost any drastic change is going to be a net cost, possibly a massive one. Shouldn't we be extremely conservative about anything that might upset this rather pleasant status quo, at least until we can be relatively (never absolutely) certain that what we're doing won't trigger such a disaster, given how plausible it seems?

A couple hundred billion dollars seems like a trivial price to pay for that kind of insurance. Even a few trillion doesn't seem out of line, worldwide.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

I said chaotic, I meant chaotic.

OK, but I'm not sure that 'chaotic' means what you think it does.

. . . something we should be doing out of simple risk aversion, playing as we are with the one and only known inhabitable biosphere in the universe.

Yes. But at what cost? And how much do we budget for some kind of safety system to protect us from asteroid impact (how much would the dinosaurs have paid?)? What about coverage for an extensive bout of volcanism? How about stockpiling drugs against the mutation of Ebola into an airborne form? A cereal crop virus which destroys our crop base?

To paraphrase Agent K: "There's always an alien battle cruiser, or a Corellian death ray, or an intergalactic plague intended to wipe out life on this miserable little planet. The only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they do not get taxed to death to prevent it!"

In this case, we could be speaking of a cost that is more than money. We're speaking of a cost in terms of loss of standard of living for *everyone*. Lowered for the industrial nations to mild discomfort. Lowered, in some places below that which sustains life. And lowered hopes and expectations for those coming out of poverty. To pay that full price, for a danger that is imperfectly known and is based on models that are, at best, primitive, is foolish or worse.

As I've said before, there are environmental concerns that do not depend on "then a miracle occurs" models.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I don't even know what to say. You agree with dramatically reducing CO2 emissions, but oppose even the feeblest possible legislation to do so.

Which is the difference between leading the people, and ordering the people.

You agree that the environmentalists have a point about CO2 emissions, but call them "eco-fascists". You call it a religion, blind worshippers of the sainted Gore, but actually grant the basic correctness of their beliefs about our environmental impact.

The difference between potentially having a story to tell, and telling people unproven stories are fact. Then, cashing in on the fear mongering.

You rant and rail against "alarmism", so long as it coincides with your political opponents' beliefs, but mention how a "nudge" could "plunge the planet to excess cooling," which would be "catastrophic."

Our ecological history is rife with attempting to be clever with ecological controls, only to open another Pandora's box (e.g. Cane toads introduced into Australia, Mongoose in Hawaii.) We mess with things we don't understand, and they frequently get out of control to our detriment.

You call your opponents "Fascists", and anything you oppose "Fascism", which borders on Godwinning the thread, but oppose anyone calling anyone else any other names, and call for everyone to keep a level head and not exaggerate?

I guess I'm not sure what to label those who opt for government enforced solutions for all perceived problems. The USA lately, whether by Democrats or Republicans, seems to favor unilateralist, authoritarian government solutions to all our problems. In fact, recently President Obama said (referring to the federal government as), "the only entity left with the resources to jolt the U.S. economy back to life." In the extreme, slavery is the opposite of freedom, but we get there through authoritarianism where some people believe they are better, or know better than others what is best done with your life. So, call it what you will; imperialism, authoritarianism, fascism, or totalitarianism, the USA that I see is not the USA conceived of 233 years ago.

What people who desire freedom would like is the opportunity to participate in the debate, and to choose voluntarily to participate in the solution. Like I said before, I consider myself a part of the solution, but I don't want to be ordered by my government to do that which I already do voluntarily.

[Jester]

On a broad level, I have to ask: when have dangers ever been perfectly known? What risk has there ever been that can be predicted with absolute precision decades in advance? The whole idea of insuring against risk is to reduce our vulnerability to the possible-but-unknown. We don't wait to insure against illness until we are ill; should we really wait until we know with precision exactly how CO2 emissions are going to change our climate, when we can see that there is at least a potentially devastating threat there?

OK, but I'm not sure that 'chaotic' means what you think it does.

Lorentz, Smale, Feigenbaum? Bifurcations, self-similarity, attractors? Yeah, looks like about what I've always thought it was. Any reason you think otherwise? I'm certainly no mathematician, but I think I get the gist of it.

Yes. But at what cost? And how much do we budget for some kind of safety system to protect us from asteroid impact (how much would the dinosaurs have paid?)? What about coverage for an extensive bout of volcanism? How about stockpiling drugs against the mutation of Ebola into an airborne form? A cereal crop virus which destroys our crop base?

If the dinosaurs wouldn't have paid pretty much every "dime" they had, then they obviously didn't think much about their descendants, given that there are no more dinosaurs. Are we as stupid or shortsighted?*

To paraphrase Agent K: "There's always an alien battle cruiser, or a Corellian death ray, or an intergalactic plague intended to wipe out life on this miserable little planet. The only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they do not get taxed to death to prevent it!"

Amusing as that movie was, there aren't actually any Corellian death rays, or alien battlecruisers, or intergalactic plagues. We have not, up until this last half-century or so, had to live with the looming threat of ending our species' time on earth by our action or inaction. We do not have a Men in Black who have expertise on how to stop us from destroying ourselves, or being destroyed. We have to come up with that now, and we seem to be doing a pretty shoddy job of it so far, although one can always hope to do better.

In this case, we could be speaking of a cost that is more than money. We're speaking of a cost in terms of loss of standard of living for *everyone*. Lowered for the industrial nations to mild discomfort. Lowered, in some places below that which sustains life. And lowered hopes and expectations for those coming out of poverty. To pay that full price, for a danger that is imperfectly known and is based on models that are, at best, primitive, is foolish or worse.

The places that are operating on subsistence are also not the places producing the carbon dioxide. Hopes and expectations are all well and good, but if "fulfilling" those hopes and expectations involves a substantial risk of a climate catastrophe, then I can't see how this is helping. Improving the GDP of India, only to sink 100 million of its inhabitants' homes under water, seems to be a poor trade-off.

As I've said before, there are environmental concerns that do not depend on "then a miracle occurs" models.

Ha ha, but if I'm understanding your critique of the models correctly, the issue is that they are too linear, too simple, and do not account for the enormous range and variety of feedbacks inherent in the real climate. If you are correct, there is no "miracle" needed to make climate models function on their own terms, but there might be plenty of "monkey wrenches" in the real world that are not yet accounted for, and perhaps can never truly be accounted for.

Not that we should blind ourselves to the wide variety of environmental concerns by focusing exclusively on CO2. But, then, I haven't heard anyone advocate that, either in this thread or elsewhere.

-Jester

*or maybe we'll sprout wings and fly like they did. I've heard Mars could be nice, given a thousand years and a few quintillion dollars' investment.