Global Warming Debate: Refuting Common Arguments

[Chalnoth]

Just an observation,

There are two different subjects here, the (in)sensitivity of climate to variation of concentrations of greenhouse gasses and the political-economical features of energy management. There is a lot to say for the reasoning: 'we must manage our resources better, politically and economically, hence therefore AGW must be true. I believe that this fallacy is called 'wishful thinking'. Truth is not going to adapt to what we desire.

Uh, that's not the argument. The argument is that hey, if we work hard to solve this problem over here (global warming), we also automatically solve these other problems. In other words, it's a statement that the economic impact of fighting global warming isn't nearly as dire as many of the AGW denialists would have you believe.

 

[mheslep]

By your own numbers, emissions leveled off in 2005, but didn't really decline until the economy started to contract.

Declining or level, either way, only the developing world is "increasing its use of fossil fuels", and that was true before the recession.

 

[Chalnoth]

Declining or level, either way, only the developing world is "increasing its use of fossil fuels", and that was true before the recession.

Given the long-term consumption variation, there is as yet no reason to believe this wasn't just a temporary variation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EIA_petroleum_consumption_of_selected_nations_1960-2005.png

 

[mheslep]

Given the long-term consumption variation, there is as yet no reason to believe this wasn't just a temporary variation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EIA_petroleum_consumption_of_selected_nations_1960-2005.png

Yes there is. The dips in the past correlate with drops in GDP and/or oil shortages, 2005-7 does not. Also energy intensity has fallen, and energy per person has been flat to declining for some time now.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec1_2.pdf

 

[Chalnoth]

Yes there is. The dips in the past correlate with drops in GDP and/or oil shortages, 2005-7 does not. Also energy intensity has fallen, and energy per person has been flat to declining for some time now.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec1_2.pdf

One of the problems with current GDP measurements, as opposed to those of two decades previous, is that we are increasingly using a more and more skewed measure of the GDP. The people at this website have gone back and re-estimated the GDP, taking out the subjective measures, like imputations, which the government adds to the estimation of the GDP (and other economic measures):
http://www.shadowstats.com/charts_republish#gdp

According to this, the economy has been increasingly declining since around 2004.

In any case, though, it'd be really nice if you were correct, that we were already starting to contract our oil usage while still growing economically. I'm just not sure it's true. It doesn't actually make much sense given Bush's policies.

 

[mheslep]

. I'm just not sure it's true. It doesn't actually make much sense given Bush's policies.

Much of the difference is simple technology advances and markets reacting to the energy prices - hybrid cars, better wind turbines, etc. Shale gas reserves discoveries depressing the price of natural gas allowing it to displace coal.

Regarding government policies and the major policies actually in place, causing change today (as opposed to what Obama say's he might do), I don't see that much difference:
- PTC. We had the energy production tax credit in place during Bush that pushed the US into becoming leading producer of wind generation in the world by '08, and is continuing to increase the lead.
- R&D. Obama has bumped energy research spending, but Bush was already several $B a year.
- Drilling. Bush / Congress talked up some offshore, but we never actually saw any (new).
- Nuclear. Down the road effects only. No current effect from either administration. Bush leaned in favor, Obama leaning against.