Re: [Phys-l] Climate skeptic convinced by data. Was: Re: Mike Mann _The hockey

["David Marx" <marx@phy.ilstu.edu>]

On 20 Feb 2012 at 10:45, Shahram Mostarshed wrote:

> Climate is too complex to analyze at a fundamental level. We don't have another planet to 
> conduct a controlled experiment where we can tweak the variables one at a time to see the 
> outcome. The best we can hope for is a statistical analysis of climate patterns.
> The real question we ought to be asking is given the fact that there is a direct and indisputable 
> connection between carbon emissions and temperature rise, should we continue with the current 
> rate of consumption and production (based on profits)?
> Shahram

Two issues with your message:
(1)  The connection between CO2 emissions and global temperature rise has not been demonstrated.  
It is assumed based on knowledge that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that the quanity in the 
atmosphere has increased and is increasing due to fossil fuel consumption.

(2) You make the assumption that consumption and production are based on profits.  The lifestyle and 
quality of life enjoyed by modern society is the direct result of access to energy resources that have 
enabled the production of goods and services that employ people and drive economies.  There is a 
correlation between per capita energy usage and GDP and also the UN's human development index 
(HDI).  Yes, we could reduce consumption by choice or by government mandate, but that would 
severely damage the economy.  An alternative is to maintain or improve quality of life and economic 
capacity by increasing efficiencies and by using a mixture of all available energy resources going 
forward with the concept that we are moving in the direction of clearner, more environmentally firendly 
techologies (if there are any).  Some have the simplistic view that increasing prices on fossil fuels will 
cause everyone to move toward renewables.  This cannot work because (1) we get 83 % of our energy  
of fossil fuels, (2) the US is currently using around 95 quadrillion BTU per year, and (3) raising energy 
costs damages the economy that is required to provide resources for the development of the 
alternatives.  If someone loses their job, they cannot afford to install a solar array on their home 
(especially since it is likely to be reposessed).