Climate Change Debate Thread

[Nordling]

That doesn't prove squat except that he made some money. If you're saying he was bribed to lie about global warming, prove it. His research was funded exclusively by the same government who's politicians are playing smoke n' mirrors. He accepted consulting fees and travel expenses, so what?

The guy you presented, conveniently omitting his name (James Hansen) who said Lindzen stated that smoking didn't cause cancer is, on the other hand, a lying paid mouthpiece.

James Hansen’s former NASA supervisor Dr John Theon told a Senate committee James Hansen was “never muzzled”, has “embarrassed NASA” and that his climate models are “useless”. It’s time for NASA to act.

Uh, wrong. John Theon is the liar. He was never Hansen's supervisor in any human-recognized sense. Personally, I despise James Inhofe and reject any of his pals out of hand. but YMMV.

I guess these guys are lying too then, lol : http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index. ... d53cd3d320

Yes. lol

 

[Bocefish]

:lol:

 

[Jupiter551]

That doesn't prove squat except that he made some money.

Don't be obtuse, you know very well that his recieving significant payrolling from energy interests makes his research suspect and his scientific neutrality absolutely worthless. His science, unfortunately, is meaningless because he whored it out for cash.

Charging consulting fees and travel expenses is hardly "payrolling" him or his research, but people will believe whatever they want to despite the facts. If you can't dispute the science, attack him personally. Same old political ploys. Stick to the facts and science instead of implying someone was bribed.

his 'facts' are contentious, and have been contested by, bar none, the most respected scientists in the world. That's fine - he can have a competing theory, what ISN'T fine is when that theory happens to coincide with his employers interests.

Classic conflict of interest. His findings are suspect precisely because he accepted money from the companies who want to continue the use of fossil fuels. Hell, the fuels are running out, they only need chumps like this to muddy the issue and confuse the public a little longer until the catastrophe is self-evident and it's too late to stop. It's probably already too late, leading climate scientists are now saying there's no point trying to PREVENT globabl warming, the best we can do is try to mitigate it.

If you accept the word of someone getting money from oil companies on whether global warming exists...fuck, just save yourself the trouble and talk directly to Exxon's PR dept, cos if you believe that dude, you might as well just believe the oil producers directly.

 

[Bocefish]

his 'facts' are contentious, and have been contested by, bar none, the most respected scientists in the world. That's fine - he can have a competing theory, what ISN'T fine is when that theory happens to coincide with his employers interests.

Which facts are you talking aboout and who are these most respected scientists in the world you speak of?

If Clinton charges his consulting fees and traveling expenses to whomever, does that mean whatever he says shouldn't be believed because he charged for his knowledge and experience?

 

[Nordling]

his 'facts' are contentious, and have been contested by, bar none, the most respected scientists in the world. That's fine - he can have a competing theory, what ISN'T fine is when that theory happens to coincide with his employers interests.

Which facts are you talking aboout and who are these most respected scientists in the world you speak of?

If Clinton charges his consulting fees and traveling expenses to whomever, does that mean whatever he says shouldn't be believed because he charged for his knowledge and experience?

Apples and oranges. Clinton is a politician...his bias, and that of every other politician is simply how they work.

A scientist is expected to be politically neutral, at least as far as science is concerned.

 

[Jupiter551]

his 'facts' are contentious, and have been contested by, bar none, the most respected scientists in the world. That's fine - he can have a competing theory, what ISN'T fine is when that theory happens to coincide with his employers interests.

Which facts are you talking aboout and who are these most respected scientists in the world you speak of?

If Clinton charges his consulting fees and traveling expenses to whomever, does that mean whatever he says shouldn't be believed because he charged for his knowledge and experience?

Apples and oranges. Clinton is a politician...his bias, and that of every other politician is simply how they work.

A scientist is expected to be politically neutral, at least as far as science is concerned.

Exactly, science doesn't know politics, or employers. Real science anyway. If Bill Clinton (or anyone) was being paid by an industry/corporation whose interests he seemed to be espousing (while claiming he was objectively giving his opinion) then fuck no I wouldn't trust what they said to be unbiased.

EVEN IF IT'S TRUE, it's tainted by association.

So IF you claim his science is so goddamn great, then surely you can find another eminent scientist -one NOT bankrolled by big oil - who agrees with him.

I'm not saying your guy is wrong, I'm saying his opinion became worthless when he accepted $ for it. Luckily, science doesn't depend on the person presenting it so if his evidence is real, it will be immediately evident to anyone.

My point is, if you're so sure you're right then I invite you to produce evidence not linked to big oil. Thx.

(I think I'll leave the whole idiocy of scientists-trying-to-prove-a-negative conversation for another day.)

 

[Bocefish]

Just because his research on the subject happens to enforce one side of the debate and he accepted fees for his consulting, speakings and travel expensives, it only makes him biased in the eyes of his unfounded skeptics.

FFS, just look at how Hansen and Gore's predictions were about as true as the world being flat and how the whole hockey stick theory was blown out of the water.

Can you show some facts or ANY proof that their hyped up man-made global warming predictions are coming true?

So IF you claim his science is so goddamn great, then surely you can find another eminent scientist -one NOT bankrolled by big oil - who agrees with him.

I've already supplied facts, graphs and other scientist's statements, links to their books, etc., whereas all you've done is given a layperson's opinion.

 

[Jupiter551]

Just because his research on the subject happens to enforce one side of the debate and he accepted fees for his consulting, speakings and travel expensives, it only makes him biased in the eyes of his unfounded skeptics.

FFS, just look at how Hansen and Gore's predictions were about as true as the world being flat and how the whole hockey stick theory was blown out of the water.

Can you show some facts or ANY proof that their hyped up man-made global warming predictions are coming true?

So IF you claim his science is so goddamn great, then surely you can find another eminent scientist -one NOT bankrolled by big oil - who agrees with him.

I've already supplied facts, graphs and other scientist's statements, links to their books, etc., whereas all you've done is given a layperson's opinion.

Yeah that took me all of 3 minutes.

Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation. Since the early 20th century, Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980.[2] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.[3][4][5][6] These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations.[7][A]

1^ 2009 Ends Warmest Decade on Record. NASA Earth Observatory Image of the Day, 22 January 2010.
2^ a b America's Climate Choices. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. 2011. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-309-14585-5. "The average temperature of the Earth’s surface increased by about 1.4 °F (0.8 °C) over the past 100 years, with about 1.0 °F (0.6 °C) of this warming occurring over just the past three decades"
3^ "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level." IPCC, Synthesis Report, Section 1.1: Observations of climate change, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007.
4^ a b "Three different approaches are used to describe uncertainties each with a distinct form of language. * * * Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%; extremely likely >95%; very likely >90%; likely >66%;......" IPCC, Synthesis Report, Treatment of Uncertainty, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007.
5^ IPCC, Synthesis Report, Section 2.4: Attribution of climate change, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007.
6^ America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-14588-0. "(p1) ... there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations. * * * (p21-22) Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
7^ "Joint Science Academies' Statement" (PDF). Retrieved 9 August 2010.

 

[Nordling]

Oh, and there's tons of articles debunking the petition posted in this thread earlier. For example:

In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."

Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community

and

George Woodwell and John Holdren, two members of the National Academy of Sciences, responded to Jacoby in the International Herald Tribune, describing the petition as a "farce" in part because "the signatories are listed without titles or affiliations that would permit an assessment of their credentials."[19] Myanna Lahsen said, "Assuming that all the signatories reported their credentials accurately, credentialed climate experts on the list are very few." The problem is made worse, Lahsen notes, because critics "added bogus names to illustrate the lack of accountability the petition involved".[20] Approved names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H,[21] the movie Star Wars,[20] Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe".[22] When questioned about the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake".[21] A cursory examination by Todd Shelly of the Hawaii Reporter revealed duplicate entries, single names lacking any initial, and even corporate names. "These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided."[23] According to the Petition Project website, the issue of duplication has been resolved.[24] Kevin Grandia offered similar criticism, saying although the Petition Project website provides a breakdown of "areas of expertise", it fails to assort the 0.5% of signatories who claim to have a background in Climatology and Atmospheric Science by name, making independent verification difficult. "This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant"

I get all my "sciency" stuff from Geri Halliwell.

 

[Jupiter551]

I get all my "sciency" stuff from Geri Halliwell.

Who I would, in fact, trust to tell me the truth about climate change more than someone paid by the oil lobby.

 

[LadyLuna]

I have not finished reading all the replies, but I really wanted to address this concern:

I think that, regardless of my opinion, it would be would be wise for the sake of a healthy discussion to not directly.put any point of view down in the poll itself.

I love that we can have wonderful talks about heated issues here and it is (I think) always nice to give everyone equal footing, when possible.

I love your posts And know that you always strive towards fairness and open-mindedness but I know that when I clicked on this poll I felt like my view was kind of being made fun of, so I felt hesitant to answer.

The only one that I can see making fun of the actual view itself is the one saying that humans are the only reason global warming is happening. I apologize, I was not trying to single out anyone who thinks that way. I felt okay with joking about that view because my understanding is that it's the main accepted viewpoint these days, with the second most-accepted one being the one that I hold (of it would've happened anyway but humans are making it worse).

As the poll itself is anonymous, I hope no one feels intimidated from actually voting in the poll, whether or not they choose to voice their opinions in the rest of the thread.

For anyone confused (and yes, changing votes is allowed), the first four are the actual views:

-global warming isn't happening
-global warming is happening but humans have nothing to do with it
-global warming is happening, it would've happened anyway, but humans are making it worse (whether much worse or only vaguely worse is not specified here)
-global warming is happening and humans are the sole cause of it

the other options are just me having fun and trying to lighten the mood a little from what I know could become a very heated discussion. (For the record, I voted the third view and "where's my ice-cream?")

 

[Bocefish]

The bottom line is that there is no verifiable proof GW is man-made. All the past alarmist's predictions were wrong. I've said my peace and we could argue for days and not convince each other. Focus on the facts and what science can and has proven, not the politicians.

Why Do Most Scientists Believe CO2 is Responsible for the Warming? Because (as they have told me) they can’t think of anything else that might have caused it. Significantly, it’s not that there is evidence nature can’t be the cause, but a lack of sufficiently accurate measurements to determine if nature is the cause. This is a hugely important distinction, and one the public and policymakers have been misled on by the IPCC.

I'll leave this debate with the following:

My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies
I receive many e-mails, and a recurring complaint is that many of my posts are too technical to understand. This morning’s installment arrived with the subject line, “Please Talk to Us”, and suggested I provide short, concise, easily understood summaries and explanations “for dummies”.

So, here’s a list of basic climate change questions, and brief answers based upon what I know today. I might update them as I receive suggestions and comments. I will also be adding links to other sources, and some visual aids, as appropriate.

Deja vu tells me I might have done this once before, but I’m too lazy to go back and see. So, I’ll start over from scratch. (Insert smiley)

It is important to understand at the outset that those of us who are skeptical of mankind’s influence on climate have a wide variety of views on the subject, and we can’t all be right. In fact, in this business, it is really easy to be wrong. It seems like everyone has a theory of what causes climate change. But it only takes one of us to be right for the IPCC’s anthropogenic global warming (AGW) house of cards to collapse.

As I like to say, taking measurements of the climate system is much easier than figuring out what those measurements mean in terms of cause and effect. Generally speaking, it’s not the warming that is in dispute…it’s the cause of the warming.

If you disagree with my views on something, please don’t flame me. Chances are, I’ve already heard your point of view; very seldom am I provided with new evidence I haven’t already taken into account.

1) Are Global Temperatures Rising Now? There is no way to know, because natural year-to-year variability in global temperature is so large, with warming and cooling occurring all the time. What we can say is that surface and lower atmospheric temperature have risen in the last 30 to 50 years, with most of that warming in the Northern Hemisphere. Also, the magnitude of recent warming is somewhat uncertain, due to problems in making long-term temperature measurements with thermometers without those measurements being corrupted by a variety of non-climate effects. But there is no way to know if temperatures are continuing to rise now…we only see warming (or cooling) in the rearview mirror, when we look back in time.

2) Why Do Some Scientists Say It’s Cooling, while Others Say the Warming is Even Accelerating? Since there is so much year-to-year (and even decade-to-decade) variability in global average temperatures, whether it has warmed or cooled depends upon how far back you look in time. For instance, over the last 100 years, there was an overall warming which was stronger toward the end of the 20th Century. This is why some say “warming is accelerating”. But if we look at a shorter, more recent period of time, say since the record warm year of 1998, one could say that it has cooled in the last 10-12 years. But, as I mentioned above, neither of these can tell us anything about whether warming is happening “now”, or will happen in the future.

3) Haven’t Global Temperatures Risen Before? Yes. In the longer term, say hundreds to thousands of years, there is considerable indirect, proxy evidence (not from thermometers) of both warming and cooling. Since humankind can’t be responsible for these early events is evidence that nature can cause warming and cooling. If that is the case, it then opens up the possibility that some (or most) of the warming in the last 50 years has been natural, too. While many geologists like to point to much larger temperature changes are believed to have occurred over millions of years, I am unconvinced that this tells us anything of use for understanding how humans might influence climate on time scales of 10 to 100 years.

4) But Didn’t the “Hockey Stick” Show Recent Warming to be Unprecedented? The “hockey Stick” reconstructions of temperature variations over the last 1 to 2 thousand years have been a huge source of controversy. The hockey stick was previously used by the IPCC as a veritable poster child for anthropogenic warming, since it seemed to indicate there have been no substantial temperature changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years until humans got involved in the 20th Century. The various versions of the hockey stick were based upon limited amounts of temperature proxy evidence — primarily tree rings — and involved questionable statistical methods. In contrast, I think the bulk of the proxy evidence supports the view that it was at least as warm during the Medieval Warm Period, around 1000 AD. The very fact that recent tree ring data erroneously suggests cooling in the last 50 years, when in fact there has been warming, should be a warning flag about using tree ring data for figuring out how warm it was 1,000 years ago. But without actual thermometer data, we will never know for sure.

5) Isn’t the Melting of Arctic Sea Ice Evidence of Warming? Warming, yes…manmade warming, no. Arctic sea ice naturally melts back every summer, but that meltback was observed to reach a peak in 2007. But we have relatively accurate, satellite-based measurements of Arctic (and Antarctic) sea ice only since 1979. It is entirely possible that late summer Arctic Sea ice cover was just as low in the 1920s or 1930s, a period when Arctic thermometer data suggests it was just as warm. Unfortunately, there is no way to know, because we did not have satellites back then. Interestingly, Antarctic sea ice has been growing nearly as fast as Arctic ice has been melting over the last 30+ years.

6) What about rising sea levels? I must confess, I don’t pay much attention to the sea level issue. I will say that, to the extent that warming occurs, sea levels can be expected to also rise to some extent. The rise is partly due to thermal expansion of the water, and partly due to melting or shedding of land-locked ice (the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and glaciers). But this says nothing about whether or not humans are the cause of that warming. Since there is evidence that glacier retreat and sea level rise started well before humans can be blamed, causation is — once again — a major source of uncertainty.

7) Is Increasing CO2 Even Capable of Causing Warming? There are some very intelligent people out there who claim that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can’t cause warming anyway. They claim things like, “the atmospheric CO2 absorption bands are already saturated”, or something else very technical. [And for those more technically-minded persons, yes, I agree that the effective radiating temperature of the Earth in the infrared is determined by how much sunlight is absorbed by the Earth. But that doesn't mean the lower atmosphere cannot warm from adding more greenhouse gases, because at the same time they also cool the upper atmosphere]. While it is true that most of the CO2-caused warming in the atmosphere was there before humans ever started burning coal and driving SUVs, this is all taken into account by computerized climate models that predict global warming. Adding more “should” cause warming, with the magnitude of that warming being the real question. But I’m still open to the possibility that a major error has been made on this fundamental point. Stranger things have happened in science before.

8 ) Is Atmospheric CO2 Increasing? Yes, and most strongly in the last 50 years…which is why “most” climate researchers think the CO2 rise is the cause of the warming. Our site measurements of CO2 increase from around the world are possibly the most accurate long-term, climate-related, measurements in existence.

9) Are Humans Responsible for the CO2 Rise? While there are short-term (year-to-year) fluctuations in the atmospheric CO2 concentration due to natural causes, especially El Nino and La Nina, I currently believe that most of the long-term increase is probably due to our use of fossil fuels. But from what I can tell, the supposed “proof” of humans being the source of increasing CO2 — a change in the atmospheric concentration of the carbon isotope C13 — would also be consistent with a natural, biological source. The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 390 parts per million by volume, up from a pre-industrial level estimated to be around 270 ppm…maybe less. CO2 levels can be much higher in cities, and in buildings with people in them.

10) But Aren’t Natural CO2 Emissions About 20 Times the Human Emissions? Yes, but nature is believed to absorb CO2 at about the same rate it is produced. You can think of the reservoir of atmospheric CO2 as being like a giant container of water, with nature pumping in a steady stream into the bottom of the container (atmosphere) in some places, sucking out about the same amount in other places, and then humans causing a steady drip-drip-drip into the container. Significantly, about 50% of what we produce is sucked out of the atmosphere by nature, mostly through photosynthesis. Nature loves the stuff. CO2 is the elixir of life on Earth. Imagine the howls of protest there would be if we were destroying atmospheric CO2, rather than creating more of it.

11) Is Rising CO2 the Cause of Recent Warming? While this is theoretically possible, I think it is more likely that the warming is mostly natural. At the very least, we have no way of determining what proportion is natural versus human-caused.

12) Why Do Most Scientists Believe CO2 is Responsible for the Warming? Because (as they have told me) they can’t think of anything else that might have caused it. Significantly, it’s not that there is evidence nature can’t be the cause, but a lack of sufficiently accurate measurements to determine if nature is the cause. This is a hugely important distinction, and one the public and policymakers have been misled on by the IPCC.

13) If Not Humans, What could Have Caused Recent Warming? This is one of my areas of research. I believe that natural changes in the amount of sunlight being absorbed by the Earth — due to natural changes in cloud cover — are responsible for most of the warming. Whether that is the specific mechanism or not, I advance the minority view that the climate system can change all by itself. Climate change does not require an “external” source of forcing, such as a change in the sun.

14) So, What Could Cause Natural Cloud Changes? I think small, long-term changes in atmospheric and oceanic flow patterns can cause ~1% changes in how much sunlight is let in by clouds to warm the Earth. This is all that is required to cause global warming or cooling. Unfortunately, we do not have sufficiently accurate cloud measurements to determine whether this is the primary cause of warming in the last 30 to 50 years.

15) How Significant is the Climategate Release of E-Mails? While Climategate does not, by itself, invalidate the IPCC’s case that global warming has happened, or that humans are the primary cause of that warming, it DOES illustrate something I emphasized in my first book, “Climate Confusion”: climate researchers are human, and prone to bias.

16) Why Would Bias in Climate Research be Important? I thought Scientists Just Follow the Data Where It Leads Them When researchers approach a problem, their pre-conceived notions often guide them. It’s not that the IPCC’s claim that humans cause global warming is somehow untenable or impossible, it’s that political and financial pressures have resulted in the IPCC almost totally ignoring alternative explanations for that warming.

17) How Important Is “Scientific Consensus” in Climate Research? In the case of global warming, it is nearly worthless. The climate system is so complex that the vast majority of climate scientists — usually experts in variety of specialized fields — assume there are more knowledgeable scientists, and they are just supporting the opinions of their colleagues. And among that small group of most knowledgeable experts, there is a considerable element of groupthink, herd mentality, peer pressure, political pressure, support of certain energy policies, and desire to Save the Earth — whether it needs to be saved or not.

18) How Important are Computerized Climate Models? I consider climate models as being our best way of exploring cause and effect in the climate system. It is really easy to be wrong in this business, and unless you can demonstrate causation with numbers in equations, you are stuck with scientists trying to persuade one another by waving their hands. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that climate models will ever produce a useful prediction of the future. Nevertheless, we must use them, and we learn a lot from them. My biggest concern is that models have been used almost exclusively for supporting the claim that humans cause global warming, rather than for exploring alternative hypotheses — e.g. natural climate variations — as possible causes of that warming.

19) What Do I Predict for Global Temperature Changes in the Future? I tend to shy away from long-term predictions, because there are still so many uncertainties. When pressed, though, I tend to say that I think cooling in our future is just as real a possibility as warming. Of course, a third possibility is relatively steady temperatures, without significant long-term warming or cooling. Keep in mind that, while you will find out tomorrow whether your favorite weather forecaster is right or wrong, no one will remember 50 years from now a scientist today wrongly predicting we will all die from heat stroke by 2060.

Concluding Remarks

Climate researchers do not know nearly as much about the causes of climate change as they profess. We have a pretty good understanding of how the climate system works on average…but the reasons for small, long-term changes in climate system are still extremely uncertain.

The total amount of CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere in the last 100 years has upset the radiative energy budget of the Earth by only 1%. How the climate system responds to that small “poke” is very uncertain. The IPCC says there will be strong warming, with cloud changes making the warming worse. I claim there will be weak warming, with cloud changes acting to reduce the influence of that 1% change. The difference between these two outcomes is whether cloud feedbacks are positive (the IPCC view), or negative (the view I and a minority of others have).

So far, neither side has been able to prove their case. That uncertainty even exists on this core issue is not appreciated by many scientists!

Again I will emphasize, some very smart people who consider themselves skeptics will disagree with some of my views stated above, particularly when it involves explanations for what has caused warming, and what has caused atmospheric CO2 to increase.

Unlike the global marching army of climate researchers the IPCC has enlisted, we do not walk in lockstep. We are willing to admit, “we don’t really know”, rather than mislead people with phrases like, “the warming we see is consistent with an increase in CO2″, and then have the public think that means, “we have determined, through our extensive research into all the possibilities, that the warming cannot be due to anything but CO2″.

Skeptics advancing alternative explanations (hypotheses) for climate variability represent the way the researcher community used to operate, before politics, policy outcomes, and billions of dollars got involved.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-w ... r-dummies/

 

[Red7227]

I try to do my part with the little things like minimizing personal energy and water use. I also think the jury is still out on solar and wind power, electric or hybrid cars. In the long run, a lot of people believe it's just like switching cigarette brands on the overall negative impact.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1280 ... er_reviews

I know. We should switch to electric cars powered by our 37% efficient fossil fuel powered electric grid so we don't use the evil 45% efficient, emission controlled, fossil fuel engine is an argument that always gives me a migraine. Petrol and diesel engines are fucking awesome, we need to change the fuel, not replace them with some horrendous battery powered contraption with huge footprint that will be a nightmare to recycle, apart from being about 100 times more toxic if dumped in the environment.

Wind and solar power are fine as far as they go. They will make changes to the environment in the form of absorbing rather than reflecting the sun's radiation, or disturbing the air movements of the earth by robbing them of some of their energy, but the rate of change is going to be slower than fossil fuels and the effect will simply stop when they stop being used.

I really see no solution apart from sugar cane and potatoes. We need to make everything work on alcohol, accept the drop in efficiency and start designing for minimal life cycle cost and toxicity. A 4 cylinder engined car made of steel with leather seats and a wooden dash board that runs on alcohol or bio diesel, and can be driven straight into the sea or a swamp to decompose at the end of its lifecycle, is where I think we should be going. I will also say a friend of mine owned a 1930s Jag that was exactly that (except for the fuel) and it was beautiful.

 

[Red7227]

That doesn't prove squat except that he made some money.

Don't be obtuse, you know very well that his recieving significant payrolling from energy interests makes his research suspect and his scientific neutrality absolutely worthless. His science, unfortunately, is meaningless because he whored it out for cash.

All scientists are attention whores being paid by somebody. They live off grants, and those grants come from various sources. I am not an archaeologist because there is no way to work in the field without being compromised in some way. We can only trust the validity of their science if it has passed significant peer review. Nothing in the current debate on climate change is of an acceptable level of validity.

My cynical view is this...

Is there more CO2? Yes
Is this extra CO2 causing global warming? Possibly
Do increased temperatures matter? We don't know
Are increased sea levels the result of more CO2? There is no way of establishing a correlation without more information.
Should we stop fucking up the environment and minimise our output of CO2 and other toxins anyway? YES!!!

 

[God]

i remember seeing on the news 2 or 3 years ago that Al Gore's meeting on Global Warming (in Washington DC) was cancelled due to a blizzard. fun times!

 

[JerryBoBerry]

I personally think solar and wind power is not efficient enough to come close to meeting world power needs. So carbon fuels are not going to be replaced anytime soon. Well past our lifetimes at least. The technology can get better of course. But all the projected growth of those energy sectors just doesn't show it coming close to replacement values.

What is really the one thing I think has potential to replace fossil fuels is biofuel made from wood.

This is an hour long video so you may want to fast forward through a LOT of it. But it shows how it can be made and what all byproducts can come from it. From wood, he's getting diesel, oil, light oil, running a propane powered refrigerator, also running a generator to make electricity.
This is the 'final' video in a series showing how it's all up and running. He's got several more where he shows how to build all of the parts and one showing distillation of the biofuel into gasoline even.
He's also got other videos where he built a wood powered gasifier to run his pickup truck.


And if you still think this is just gimmicky. This shows that basic idea being built on a large scale right now.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...-biofuel-electricity-plant-in-california-4600

 

[Red7227]

I personally think solar and wind power is not efficient enough to come close to meeting world power needs. So carbon fuels are not going to be replaced anytime soon. Well past our lifetimes at least. The technology can get better of course. But all the projected growth of those energy sectors just doesn't show it coming close to replacement values.

What is really the one thing I think has potential to replace fossil fuels is biofuel made from wood.

This is an hour long video so you may want to fast forward through a LOT of it. But it shows how it can be made and what all byproducts can come from it. From wood, he's getting diesel, oil, light oil, running a propane powered refrigerator, also running a generator to make electricity.
This is the 'final' video in a series showing how it's all up and running. He's got several more where he shows how to build all of the parts and one showing distillation of the biofuel into gasoline even.
He's also got other videos where he built a wood powered gasifier to run his pickup truck.


And if you still think this is just gimmicky. This shows that basic idea being built on a large scale right now.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...-biofuel-electricity-plant-in-california-4600

I said much the same thing. We need to change the renewable carbon based fuels. Everything else is peripheral to that main issue.

 

[Jupiter551]

All scientists are attention whores being paid by somebody. They live off grants, and those grants come from various sources.

Yes but many, many of them gain their grants from educational institutions. Most of THOSE get their money from student enrolments (and in some cases govt assistance as well), and basically the only way to increase the value of a college or university is to enforce academic rigour.

The more unbiased the research, the more respected the school. The more respected the school, the more desirable (and expensive) their degrees are.

That is how you guarantee academic rigour and objectivity.

 

[Bocefish]

All scientists are attention whores being paid by somebody. They live off grants, and those grants come from various sources.

Yes but many, many of them gain their grants from educational institutions. Most of THOSE get their money from student enrolments (and in some cases govt assistance as well), and basically the only way to increase the value of a college or university is to enforce academic rigour.

The more unbiased the research, the more respected the school. The more respected the school, the more desirable (and expensive) their degrees are.

That is how you guarantee academic rigour and objectivity.

Yet you totally dismiss a well respected MIT professor's research that was exclusively funded by the very government he is disagreeing with because he charged for his consulting services.

 

[Bocefish]

Oh, and there's tons of articles debunking the petition posted in this thread earlier. For example:

In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."

Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community

and

George Woodwell and John Holdren, two members of the National Academy of Sciences, responded to Jacoby in the International Herald Tribune, describing the petition as a "farce" in part because "the signatories are listed without titles or affiliations that would permit an assessment of their credentials."[19] Myanna Lahsen said, "Assuming that all the signatories reported their credentials accurately, credentialed climate experts on the list are very few." The problem is made worse, Lahsen notes, because critics "added bogus names to illustrate the lack of accountability the petition involved".[20] Approved names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H,[21] the movie Star Wars,[20] Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe".[22] When questioned about the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake".[21] A cursory examination by Todd Shelly of the Hawaii Reporter revealed duplicate entries, single names lacking any initial, and even corporate names. "These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided."[23] According to the Petition Project website, the issue of duplication has been resolved.[24] Kevin Grandia offered similar criticism, saying although the Petition Project website provides a breakdown of "areas of expertise", it fails to assort the 0.5% of signatories who claim to have a background in Climatology and Atmospheric Science by name, making independent verification difficult. "This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant"

I get all my "sciency" stuff from Geri Halliwell.

It would be nice if you provided the links to your quotes and where there are "tons" of articles debunking the petition, giving credit where credit is due and such.

 

[MrTrenchcoat]

I know. We should switch to electric cars powered by our 37% efficient fossil fuel powered electric grid so we don't use the evil 45% efficient, emission controlled, fossil fuel engine is an argument that always gives me a migraine. Petrol and diesel engines are fucking awesome, we need to change the fuel, not replace them with some horrendous battery powered contraption with huge footprint that will be a nightmare to recycle, apart from being about 100 times more toxic if dumped in the environment.

Wind and solar power are fine as far as they go. They will make changes to the environment in the form of absorbing rather than reflecting the sun's radiation, or disturbing the air movements of the earth by robbing them of some of their energy, but the rate of change is going to be slower than fossil fuels and the effect will simply stop when they stop being used.

I really see no solution apart from sugar cane and potatoes. We need to make everything work on alcohol, accept the drop in efficiency and start designing for minimal life cycle cost and toxicity. A 4 cylinder engined car made of steel with leather seats and a wooden dash board that runs on alcohol or bio diesel, and can be driven straight into the sea or a swamp to decompose at the end of its lifecycle, is where I think we should be going. I will also say a friend of mine owned a 1930s Jag that was exactly that (except for the fuel) and it was beautiful.

So we should replace areas currently growing food with areas to grow fuel? That sounds completely logical and not at all likely to backfire. It's better to use available sources of fuel, such as biogas. That comes direct from our waste and does not require swapping food for fuel. They actually started doing that, corn for ethanol. That resulted in a shortage of the goods previously grown in those areas. It's far better and more efficient to change to nuclear power, modern reactors are passive-safe or have no ability to meltdown(Such as Thorium reactors). Hell you can even supply the entire core as a single unit that once it's used up, gets removed and swapped for a new unit with all waste contained inside the extremely hard to damage containment. They're discussing using those reactors for power production in areas without the education necessary to design and build their own facilities. In terms of offset you can just drop the used cores into a volcano if you're really worried about disposal...No, seriously. A significant portion of the mantle's heat comes from radioactive decay, just for the love of god don't store it in a tungsten container...Those things never melt.

But seriously, Climate change is an issue. We may be pushing it around, it has happened before, will happen again, is happening now. Currently the planet has been stuck in the cold cycle for far longer than ever before, which indicates the entire human history has been during a cold cycle. Not exactly surprising, but given our chances once it changes to warm again this could be a serious issue. Especially considering the cycles are likely to have tipping points, or points of no return. We might not see much of an issue until we hit those, then we go over the side and all hell breaks loose as the planet enters runaway warming. Do you want to know a good way to reduce greenhouse gases? Stop eating ruminants, they're currently the largest source of atmospheric methane. Am I saying stop eating meat? Hell no, just keep away from the ruminants. An "easy" way to reduce carbon dioxide is algae powered street lights, real invention, really, really cool stuff. At worst, if the containment breaks all you've got to deal with is several hundred litres of algae filled water...Assuming that strain doesn't take over the world giving us light all the time.

Anyway, I agree that electric cars are bad. Especially if your power is coming from fossil fuel power stations, because then you're swapping a more efficient engine for a less efficient one, while needing more fossil fuels burnt to keep your car running. That's without the insanely massive carbon footprint those things have before they get out of the factory. I find myself wondering if they can ever pay off their inherent costs with their lack of emissions. There's an idea for a passive power generator that uses ambient heat in your home or outside it, it only needs to alter by a few degrees to keep it running thanks to the wonders of thermodynamics. It's not amazingly powerful, but coupled with other designs you can easily create a self-powered building.

On the subject of repaying carbon debt, I always wonder about green alternatives. How long does it take them to pay back the manufacturing and construction costs in terms of atmospheric impact? No seriously, can anyone link me to a study dedicated to that? I'd really like to know.

 

[Just Me]

The science is settled and has been for quite some time. Less than 2% of all peer-reviewed studies since 1991 (12,000 in the survey) make the claim that climate change is caused by something other than human activities. If you are arguing otherwise with your "expert knowledge, feelings, religious or political beliefs", join the creationist scientists, they could use some company. If you have a degree in climatology or another related field, lets see your peer-reviewed study and then explain to us why 97% of your colleagues are wrong.

A link to common myths with corresponding answers to what the science says: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

 

[Red7227]

So we should replace areas currently growing food with areas to grow fuel? That sounds completely logical and not at all likely to backfire. It's better to use available sources of fuel, such as biogas. That comes direct from our waste and does not require swapping food for fuel. They actually started doing that, corn for ethanol. That resulted in a shortage of the goods previously grown in those areas.

Too stupid to manage the change is not that same as implausible. The world has had a surplus of food for decades. Converting that surplus to fuel is not going to be an issue. Feeding the people who still stave despite the surplus is a separate issue.

It's far better and more efficient to change to nuclear power, modern reactors are passive-safe or have no ability to meltdown(Such as Thorium reactors). Hell you can even supply the entire core as a single unit that once it's used up, gets removed and swapped for a new unit with all waste contained inside the extremely hard to damage containment. They're discussing using those reactors for power production in areas without the education necessary to design and build their own facilities. In terms of offset you can just drop the used cores into a volcano if you're really worried about disposal...No, seriously. A significant portion of the mantle's heat comes from radioactive decay, just for the love of god don't store it in a tungsten container...Those things never melt.
.

Life cycle costs of nuclear power have never been that good. The only advantage is that it can provide power on any scale required. I'd still prefer to avoid them for nearly any other source of power. Carbon based fuels manufactured from whatever seems reasonable is fully compatible with existing technology, easily transportable and can be made in low tech facilities where it is needed. The residue can be composted and the gas from that used as well.

 

[Bocefish]

On the subject of repaying carbon debt, I always wonder about green alternatives. How long does it take them to pay back the manufacturing and construction costs in terms of atmospheric impact? No seriously, can anyone link me to a study dedicated to that? I'd really like to know.

Carbon taxes are something the Gore foundation of misinformation rallied... do as I say and not how I live institute.

 

[Bocefish]

The science is settled and has been for quite some time. Less than 2% of all peer-reviewed studies since 1991 (12,000 in the survey) make the claim that climate change is caused by something other than human activities. If you are arguing otherwise with your "expert knowledge, feelings, religious or political beliefs", join the creationist scientists, they could use some company. If you have a degree in climatology or another related field, lets see your peer-reviewed study and then explain to us why 97% of your colleagues are wrong.

A link to common myths with corresponding answers to what the science says: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

 

[Jupiter551]

The science is settled and has been for quite some time. Less than 2% of all peer-reviewed studies since 1991 (12,000 in the survey) make the claim that climate change is caused by something other than human activities. If you are arguing otherwise with your "expert knowledge, feelings, religious or political beliefs", join the creationist scientists, they could use some company. If you have a degree in climatology or another related field, lets see your peer-reviewed study and then explain to us why 97% of your colleagues are wrong.

A link to common myths with corresponding answers to what the science says: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Yeah, and until recently climate-deniers claimed climate change wasn't even happening. Then after it became impossible to refute they started saying 'ok, it's happening but it's normal!'. Pfeh.

Anyway, conservatives appear undecided. Let me translate the scientific argument into Republican:

 

[Jupiter551]

One of the well-constructed ripostes that have become your trademark.

 

[Bocefish]

One of the well-constructed ripostes that have become your trademark.

You are so full of shit that it's laughable... you say one thing yet reveal your real thoughts in PM

 

[JerryBoBerry]

The science is settled and has been for quite some time. Less than 2% of all peer-reviewed studies since 1991 (12,000 in the survey) make the claim that climate change is caused by something other than human activities. If you are arguing otherwise with your "expert knowledge, feelings, religious or political beliefs", join the creationist scientists, they could use some company. If you have a degree in climatology or another related field, lets see your peer-reviewed study and then explain to us why 97% of your colleagues are wrong.

A link to common myths with corresponding answers to what the science says: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

You should have dug deeper. From the link you provided I went and looked myself. Under the 97% figure you quote there is a link with three choices to look at the data: basic, intermediate and advanced. I chose advanced which gives a link to the IOPscience abstract of the study that quote arose from. It says of the 11,944 abstracts matching 'global climate change' or 'global warming' they found the majority of them, 66.4% expressed NO position on global warming. Of the 32.6% that did support the theory (and it is just a theory by the way) 97.1% of those endorsed the idea that humans are the cause. So while it really sounds nifty to say 97% believe we are the cause, in reality the majority of all the studies DO NOT say that.

It's just fun with math and you got caught up in play time.

Break the percentages down into the raw numbers instead of letting others play games with your head.
The 97.1% (believing we are the cause) of the 32.6% (those who actually believed it is happening in the first place) of the total 11,944 papers above means that 3,781 papers (rounded off) believe we are the cause. The other 8,163 state other things. Your '97%' number doesn't look so good now does it? It went from that overwhelming sounding majority to in fact a resounding minority instantly once you actually looked at the raw data.

What this tells me, and indeed I suspected as soon as I read the 'the science is settled and has been for quite some time' quote above is the webpage you linked has an agenda and they play with numbers to promote that agenda.

Here's the abstract from the IOPscience page.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Now just for fun I decided to do some background research on the SkepticalScience site and found there's a lot of people saying it's just made up garbage with an agenda. It's getting late right now so I'll leave that as a fun project for any who may be interested. But just to give you a headstart here's an interesting site where they debunked the entire study mentioned in your post all together. They state the '97% of articles', actually only 65 endorsed that position. NOT 65%, just 65 articles. In other words less than 1%. So maybe you were right, there just might be a consensus. A consensus saying it isn't happening.

Here's the article debunking the entire survey and showing it to be a total scam.
http://wtfrly.com/2013/06/11/cookin...-scientists-affirm-agw-debunked/#.UdO0pPnU9uI

 

[Jupiter551]

One of the well-constructed ripostes that have become your trademark.

You are so full of shit that it's laughable... you say one thing yet reveal your real thoughts in PM

wut? You're referring to my occupation? Idk what else you could be referring to...