I’ll follow up this post shortly with what info has been presented to me so far.
P.S. I’m a non-science community person so the simpler the better, thanks.
There’s been a lot of controversy over the Global Climate Change issue in the last few years and I need some help understanding it. What I would like is, NOT to discus if it’s true or false, but get some facts both pro and con about the issue so that I can decide on my own what I think.
I’ll follow up this post shortly with what info has been presented to me so far.
P.S. I’m a non-science community person so the simpler the better, thanks.
I’ll follow up this post shortly with what info has been presented to me so far.
P.S. I’m a non-science community person so the simpler the better, thanks.
Like I said I’m a non-science community person so its going to be no surprise that most of my information comes from T.V. and what I heard in the 1 environmental science class I took in collage.
Ale Gore owns the company that he buys his carbon credits from. (Generation investment management) He started it in 2004 two years before he made the movie “An Inconvenient Truth”. So if he stands to profit from the global effort can he be considered a creditable source?
“Only 3% of the CO2 emitted every year is cause by humans” – John Charles president of cascade policy institute, and executive director for the Oregon environmental council for 17 years. Why would our carbon foot print matter?
I have also watched a speech given by the creator of the first NASA satellite that was used to track the breaks in the ice shelf (well it wasn’t originally the satellites purpose, that was just a byproduct). where he said the Ice shelf according to (I cant remember the name of the organization that track the ice shelf off the top of my head) the ice shelf has had an exponentially increased in the amount of breaks over the years, didn’t take into account that prior to his satellite they only reported breakages by fisherman calling them in. So of course that’s what it looks like and the majority of the breakage is a natural phenomena.
I have also heard a theory someone had about the magnetic polls filliping every so many million years. In it they showed that before the polls flip the Ozone would naturally thin and a spot would appear like that of the hole in the Ozone layer, just before a flip. It was also estimated that we are over due for a flip by 300,000 years.
- Sorry all I could think of were the con arguments because I have a friend that spouts them to me all the time. I don’t have an opinion on the subject as of yet so that’s why I wanted some help. And I know the stuff posted above are not facts. Like I said most of it just came from T.V. , School, and Friends. So that’s why I’m looking for some real almost unarguable facts.
Ale Gore owns the company that he buys his carbon credits from. (Generation investment management) He started it in 2004 two years before he made the movie “An Inconvenient Truth”. So if he stands to profit from the global effort can he be considered a creditable source?
“Only 3% of the CO2 emitted every year is cause by humans” – John Charles president of cascade policy institute, and executive director for the Oregon environmental council for 17 years. Why would our carbon foot print matter?
I have also watched a speech given by the creator of the first NASA satellite that was used to track the breaks in the ice shelf (well it wasn’t originally the satellites purpose, that was just a byproduct). where he said the Ice shelf according to (I cant remember the name of the organization that track the ice shelf off the top of my head) the ice shelf has had an exponentially increased in the amount of breaks over the years, didn’t take into account that prior to his satellite they only reported breakages by fisherman calling them in. So of course that’s what it looks like and the majority of the breakage is a natural phenomena.
I have also heard a theory someone had about the magnetic polls filliping every so many million years. In it they showed that before the polls flip the Ozone would naturally thin and a spot would appear like that of the hole in the Ozone layer, just before a flip. It was also estimated that we are over due for a flip by 300,000 years.
- Sorry all I could think of were the con arguments because I have a friend that spouts them to me all the time. I don’t have an opinion on the subject as of yet so that’s why I wanted some help. And I know the stuff posted above are not facts. Like I said most of it just came from T.V. , School, and Friends. So that’s why I’m looking for some real almost unarguable facts.
I can see this isn’t a very popular subject; perhaps it’s been done to death. I’ll go back and look through the old post; I’ll probably find what I’m looking for in there.
There are no "con" arguments against global climate change -- there are a lot of distraction, red herrings and irrelevant anecdotes. (Many examples of silly-to-sophisticated claims.) But global climate change is real.
What you need to evaluate it for yourself is not the arguments, but the totality of the data, and this is what the professionals have been doing. (In many ways, that is the definition of a professional.) Using historical readings, bedrock cores, and a variety of other sources, a remarkably consistent picture is revealed at the multi-decade timescale. That's what's meant by real -- only by ignoring the totality of the data, and focusing on the minutia can one claim to deny it exists. But the same technique works to allow people to deny air exists or the Earth is round, etc.
I can point you at some on-line links, but that is far from the totality of the data.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/p...ience_basis.htm
Somewhat shakier is the claim that this climate change is to the largest extent man-made. But that is a claim which has grown much stronger support from data and models over the past ten years while the climate change skeptics stick to old claims even when they have often been completely discredited. Until the climate change skeptics can be bothered to purge from their own ranks the discredited claims of the past, they will not be taken seriously.
What you need to evaluate it for yourself is not the arguments, but the totality of the data, and this is what the professionals have been doing. (In many ways, that is the definition of a professional.) Using historical readings, bedrock cores, and a variety of other sources, a remarkably consistent picture is revealed at the multi-decade timescale. That's what's meant by real -- only by ignoring the totality of the data, and focusing on the minutia can one claim to deny it exists. But the same technique works to allow people to deny air exists or the Earth is round, etc.
I can point you at some on-line links, but that is far from the totality of the data.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/p...ience_basis.htm
Somewhat shakier is the claim that this climate change is to the largest extent man-made. But that is a claim which has grown much stronger support from data and models over the past ten years while the climate change skeptics stick to old claims even when they have often been completely discredited. Until the climate change skeptics can be bothered to purge from their own ranks the discredited claims of the past, they will not be taken seriously.
Agreed, in the main.
This bit I can argue with:
This bit I can argue with:
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 12 2009, 03:15 PM)
Until the climate change skeptics can be bothered to purge from their own ranks the discredited claims of the past, they will not be taken seriously.
I italicized a bit of your response. Anyone may feel free to substitute the word 'reactionaries', but my objection is the part about being taken seriously.
As an example, from American politics it is apparent that at least 25% of the voters would take an animation of the Easter Bunny debarking from an alien spaceship as hard cold fact.
I italicized a bit of your response. Anyone may feel free to substitute the word 'reactionaries', but my objection is the part about being taken seriously.
As an example, from American politics it is apparent that at least 25% of the voters would take an animation of the Easter Bunny debarking from an alien spaceship as hard cold fact.
Hopefully no one minds if I reprint a post I already made here...
Global Warming as a Red Herring
but I thought it would fit here as well and save me a bit of time as well. Sorry... being a bit lazy today.
"Let me preface this discussion with the statement that I am not questioning whether global warming is happening or not.
The reason I bring this topic forward is that I think that the global warming discussion has drawn everyone away from what is the root cause of this and many other problems.
Overpopulation and pollution.
The current world population is around 6.5 billion. It is generally estimated that around 2050 it will be near 9 billion. If this trends continue, year 2100 will see about 12 to 14 billion.... easily double what we have now. 100 years may seem long to us, but civilization wise or, even worse, compared to the natural evolution of life on Earth, it's an eye blink. If you double our populace ever 50 years, in less than 500 years (a period that would have taken us from the Renaissance til now), there won't be any standing room, since humans will be standing cheek by jowl on every single foot of the planet.
One of the reasons why this growth has been sustainable has been the development of massively increased yields in agriculture. However, this increase has been the source of an enormous increase in pollution of all types. An easy comparison can be made between the material comforts of a country and it's level of pollution... similarly this goes with population levels as well.
The more populated and comfortable a country becomes.. the more polluted it becomes.
People have been arguing over global warming often without referencing at all that this is simply one aspect of a much more concerning phenomenon. As a species, we are far too successful.
There have been many solutions suggested. War, disease and famine are often on the menu as ways of reducing population growth, but this is always more fun to discuss than to experience... to say the least.
At this time I do not see many practical solutions that could be implemented. What sort of world we will have in 200 years, I do not know. However I can tell you for certain that global warming will be the least of our concerns if we do not solve a number of issues first."
Again.. I will say that I do think that global warming has a solid scientific basis. However, I don't think that it matters as much as the larger issue.
Global Warming as a Red Herring
but I thought it would fit here as well and save me a bit of time as well. Sorry... being a bit lazy today.
"Let me preface this discussion with the statement that I am not questioning whether global warming is happening or not.
The reason I bring this topic forward is that I think that the global warming discussion has drawn everyone away from what is the root cause of this and many other problems.
Overpopulation and pollution.
The current world population is around 6.5 billion. It is generally estimated that around 2050 it will be near 9 billion. If this trends continue, year 2100 will see about 12 to 14 billion.... easily double what we have now. 100 years may seem long to us, but civilization wise or, even worse, compared to the natural evolution of life on Earth, it's an eye blink. If you double our populace ever 50 years, in less than 500 years (a period that would have taken us from the Renaissance til now), there won't be any standing room, since humans will be standing cheek by jowl on every single foot of the planet.
One of the reasons why this growth has been sustainable has been the development of massively increased yields in agriculture. However, this increase has been the source of an enormous increase in pollution of all types. An easy comparison can be made between the material comforts of a country and it's level of pollution... similarly this goes with population levels as well.
The more populated and comfortable a country becomes.. the more polluted it becomes.
People have been arguing over global warming often without referencing at all that this is simply one aspect of a much more concerning phenomenon. As a species, we are far too successful.
There have been many solutions suggested. War, disease and famine are often on the menu as ways of reducing population growth, but this is always more fun to discuss than to experience... to say the least.
At this time I do not see many practical solutions that could be implemented. What sort of world we will have in 200 years, I do not know. However I can tell you for certain that global warming will be the least of our concerns if we do not solve a number of issues first."
Again.. I will say that I do think that global warming has a solid scientific basis. However, I don't think that it matters as much as the larger issue.
Well, what if I wrote:
Until a person who is skeptical of anthropogenic climate change is willing to distance him- or herself from all the downright crazy claims of the past, they are likely to be lumped in with the denialists of the past despite any new claims. That's why it pays to be professional, look at all the data, and weed out the weak arguments in favor the succinct arguments that carry just the claim.
Of course if the claim is a silly one, stripping it bare and making it easy to parse also makes it easy to debunk. So the preferred denialist strategy when all the facts go against them is to string all the denialist claims together regardless of strength, silliness or antiquity in a technique which is referred to as the Gish Gallop.
Until a person who is skeptical of anthropogenic climate change is willing to distance him- or herself from all the downright crazy claims of the past, they are likely to be lumped in with the denialists of the past despite any new claims. That's why it pays to be professional, look at all the data, and weed out the weak arguments in favor the succinct arguments that carry just the claim.
Of course if the claim is a silly one, stripping it bare and making it easy to parse also makes it easy to debunk. So the preferred denialist strategy when all the facts go against them is to string all the denialist claims together regardless of strength, silliness or antiquity in a technique which is referred to as the Gish Gallop.
Thanks for your posts so far, a lot has been good food for thought. I have a few questions.
I don’t think that more claims = more truth. I would be much more sawed by 1 study, that’s been challenged to death and proven right than I would a 1000 semi-science findings.
I’m in no way calling the link you gave me semi-science! In fact I think its great and I’m going through it as best I can right now, so thank you.
I don’t think that more claims = more truth. I would be much more sawed by 1 study, that’s been challenged to death and proven right than I would a 1000 semi-science findings.
I’m in no way calling the link you gave me semi-science! In fact I think its great and I’m going through it as best I can right now, so thank you.
There are no "con" arguments against global climate change -- there are a lot of distraction, red herrings and irrelevant anecdotes
I can see what you are saying and it’s a good point. The theories I have heard to the contrary don’t say that climate change isn’t happening; just that it’s a natural event. So I guess the better questions are:
Is global climate change a natural event and if so why are we trying to stop it?
Also, can we realistically stop it if only a small fraction of its effects are because of humans?
This is a good post and I meant to post some of my thoughts under your topic earlier but seeing as your reading this topic I’ll just post them hear. Hope you don’t mind.
This is a good post and I meant to post some of my thoughts under your topic earlier but seeing as your reading this topic I’ll just post them hear. Hope you don’t mind.
One of the reasons why this growth has been sustainable has been the development of massively increased yields in agriculture.
True, the natural caring capacity of the earth is somewhere around 4 billion and we are fast approaching 7 billion. If not for the agricultural technologies made in the last 80 years we would have had close to 3 billion people starve to death by now.
I agree, what all these arguments break down to is the survival of man. Global warming threatens to change mans landscape into something less hospitable, but over what time frame? War and Population pose a much more immediate threat in my opinion (much like you are saying). I think we need a true United Nations with a world president and world government. I fear for the day that would happen but I also fear for the possibility that it will never happen. Some basic world laws like a nuke can never be detonated again, unless it’s for the purposes of science, would help a lot. A good example is the U.S. almost ended the world 70 times in cold war, due to computer glitches. Once we had a false reading that said Russia had launched nukes at us, so we implemented our end game policy. Luckily we found out it was just a miss reading seconds before it was executed! I’m sure everyone here knows what the end game policy is but for those that might not: it’s when we (the U.S.) nuke every square mile of the earth multiple times so that all traces of man ever have existing are gone forever. Policies like these are what keeps superpowers from fighting.
I agree, what all these arguments break down to is the survival of man. Global warming threatens to change mans landscape into something less hospitable, but over what time frame? War and Population pose a much more immediate threat in my opinion (much like you are saying). I think we need a true United Nations with a world president and world government. I fear for the day that would happen but I also fear for the possibility that it will never happen. Some basic world laws like a nuke can never be detonated again, unless it’s for the purposes of science, would help a lot. A good example is the U.S. almost ended the world 70 times in cold war, due to computer glitches. Once we had a false reading that said Russia had launched nukes at us, so we implemented our end game policy. Luckily we found out it was just a miss reading seconds before it was executed! I’m sure everyone here knows what the end game policy is but for those that might not: it’s when we (the U.S.) nuke every square mile of the earth multiple times so that all traces of man ever have existing are gone forever. Policies like these are what keeps superpowers from fighting.
global climate change skeptics
It’s good to have skeptics, as long as they’re valid. It’s also good to make progress and ask that the skeptics to challenge you newest or most valid claims and not dwell on the past (but you also have to consider what it looks like if you make a lot of claims that turn out to be false). I think the problem is the global climate change issue is filled with “crazy” on both sides to the point that it’s hard to tell what a valid claim is anymore. The best thing the pro or con global climate change activists could do is purge them selves as much as possible and only allow the strongest and most valuable arguments in. I’m hopping to find some of those arguments in this forum.
P.S. sorry about not having the sources to back up some of the things I’ve heard. I really need to start a folder on my computer for this kind of stuff if I’m going to be using it in this forum.
Way to get on someone’s bad side right off the bat. Nothing makes someone understand your point of view like insulting them first thing.
Way to get on someone’s bad side right off the bat. Nothing makes someone understand your point of view like insulting them first thing.
True,co2 released from permafrost melting is far more dangerous then billions of cars,manufacturing plants and normal human needs.
It’s CH4 or Methane that’s being released from permafrost melting. It comes from animal poop being eaten by bacteria in lakes that get frozen over.
Also, it would be nice if you cited your sources. I would like to know where you heard that the melting permafrost is more dangerous than people creating global warming, because what I looked up said that the only reason the permafrost was melting was because of people creating global warming… or are you trying to imply something through a tone of writing that I’m missing.
big dumb world leaders? Again I’m assuming there’s a tone that you had in mind when you wrote this, but you’ll have to understand that it doesn’t translate very well over text like this.
You said “all nations made a statement” at G8…… You do know that G8 stands for “group of eight” as in only 8 nation’s right? There are more than 8 nations in the world, if you’re in the U.S. then the last time I checked we recognized 194 of them.
And yes I read that BBC article. I especial liked the part where everyone agreed but they still couldn’t persuade a large portion of the U.N. countries to actually do anything about it.
big dumb world leaders? Again I’m assuming there’s a tone that you had in mind when you wrote this, but you’ll have to understand that it doesn’t translate very well over text like this.
You said “all nations made a statement” at G8…… You do know that G8 stands for “group of eight” as in only 8 nation’s right? There are more than 8 nations in the world, if you’re in the U.S. then the last time I checked we recognized 194 of them.
And yes I read that BBC article. I especial liked the part where everyone agreed but they still couldn’t persuade a large portion of the U.N. countries to actually do anything about it.
I mean,come on now why would they even entertain such thoughts or comments?
See the global warming as a red haring (it has its own topic, but got dominated by a bigoted imbecile for a while. It seems to be back on track now and I posted my thoughts there) but what the heck I’ll repeat it:
It’s a great fear tactic to distract form a number of problems. Addressing topics like, the slave class we (the U.S.) have made out of illegal immigrants, the ever present religious groups pushing there beliefs into the government despite our so called “separation of church and state”, the failing economy, our sub par education system, and overpopulation don’t make politicians popular. It’s much safer to attack the global climate change issue because it doesn’t isolate any group of people or point out any of our government’s problems. It’s a great tool for politicians when you think about it.
Who are you directing your comments towards? At first it sounds like it’s to me but at the end of your post it sounds like you’re talking to RobDegraves. Oh, are you directing it all at me because I agreed with RobDegraves?
OK, I have a personal question now: Why did you even post anything? I mean you could have made some good arguments for global warming if you wanted too, its not hard will all the info out there, but instead you made yourself look like a fool by acting pampas and messing up your facts. Even if you had made some good arguments for global warming you still forgot 3 things:
1. This topic isn’t about if its true or not, its about finding good creditable studies one way or the other and letting people decide for them selves what they think.
2. The “Global Warming as a Red Herring” topic doesn’t deny the existence of global climate change.
3. Something can still be a real issue and a red herring at the same time. In fact most good red herrings are.
Dona, why am I even responding to you?
WOW… speak of the devil, conklin posted on this topic now.
And he doesn’t disappoint, delivering us yet another shining example of conklin’s epic fail!
WOW… speak of the devil, conklin posted on this topic now.
And he doesn’t disappoint, delivering us yet another shining example of conklin’s epic fail!
Please let me make an observation regarding Replies on PhysForum.
Any Topic Starter who makes statements based on opinions and "common sense" is swiftly and violently rejected by a few members who reply to numerous posts, but are rarely a Topic Starter themselves. Data: I read thru 36 pages of Replies by one Member who has not started a single Topic that I could find.
For any statement to be acceptable on PhysForum, it must be based on a factual analysis of APPROVED data.
OK, I’ll answer that:
1. (opinions and "common sense") as you put it aren’t facts
2. For you and a lot of people "common sense" isn’t "common sense" it’s outrageous assumptions based on nothing.
3. It doesn’t matter if someone is a topic starter or not, what matters is what they contribute to a topic (be it checking facts, challenging your opinion, or validating your thoughts).
4. Its not (APPROVED data) its good data.
So you have some grains of truth to what you said let me just correct it for you:
You said: For any statement to be acceptable on PhysForum, it must be based on a factual analysis of APPROVED data.
Correction: For any statement to be taken seriously by physicists, it must be based on a factual analysis of good data.
I can see why you’r having so much trouble.
I agree, overpopulation is overtaking global warming as a worse threat to humanity. It appears that in the next 10 years, the world will suffer more from unabated overpopulation, starvation.. Global warming can be worst in 20 to 50 years from now. though here in the Philippines, NOW, the worst rain-pouring typhoons hit Luzon, creating real Noah's floods, the likes never before witnessed by old folks. But, both should be addressed now as it is becoming irreversibly late, because both very, very substantially are caused by humans and activities..these overpolutation and climate change/global warming.
jsaldea12
10.16.09
Lle tela? or have you merely collapsed through intense self-boredom?
QUOTE
What you need to evaluate it for yourself is not the arguments, but the totality of the data.
I don’t think that more claims = more truth. I would be much more sawed by 1 study, that’s been challenged to death and proven right than I would a 1000 semi-science findings.
I’m in no way calling the link you gave me semi-science! In fact I think its great and I’m going through it as best I can right now, so thank you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What you need to evaluate it for yourself is not the arguments, but the totality of the data. |
I don’t think that more claims = more truth. I would be much more sawed by 1 study, that’s been challenged to death and proven right than I would a 1000 semi-science findings.
I’m in no way calling the link you gave me semi-science! In fact I think its great and I’m going through it as best I can right now, so thank you.
There are no "con" arguments against global climate change -- there are a lot of distraction, red herrings and irrelevant anecdotes
I can see what you are saying and it’s a good point. The theories I have heard to the contrary don’t say that climate change isn’t happening; just that it’s a natural event. So I guess the better questions are:
Is global climate change a natural event and if so why are we trying to stop it?
Also, can we realistically stop it if only a small fraction of its effects are because of humans?
QUOTE
Global Warming as a Red Herring
This is a good post and I meant to post some of my thoughts under your topic earlier but seeing as your reading this topic I’ll just post them hear. Hope you don’t mind.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Global Warming as a Red Herring |
This is a good post and I meant to post some of my thoughts under your topic earlier but seeing as your reading this topic I’ll just post them hear. Hope you don’t mind.
One of the reasons why this growth has been sustainable has been the development of massively increased yields in agriculture.
True, the natural caring capacity of the earth is somewhere around 4 billion and we are fast approaching 7 billion. If not for the agricultural technologies made in the last 80 years we would have had close to 3 billion people starve to death by now.
QUOTE
Again.. I will say that I do think that global warming has a solid scientific basis. However, I don't think that it matters as much as the larger issue.
I agree, what all these arguments break down to is the survival of man. Global warming threatens to change mans landscape into something less hospitable, but over what time frame? War and Population pose a much more immediate threat in my opinion (much like you are saying). I think we need a true United Nations with a world president and world government. I fear for the day that would happen but I also fear for the possibility that it will never happen. Some basic world laws like a nuke can never be detonated again, unless it’s for the purposes of science, would help a lot. A good example is the U.S. almost ended the world 70 times in cold war, due to computer glitches. Once we had a false reading that said Russia had launched nukes at us, so we implemented our end game policy. Luckily we found out it was just a miss reading seconds before it was executed! I’m sure everyone here knows what the end game policy is but for those that might not: it’s when we (the U.S.) nuke every square mile of the earth multiple times so that all traces of man ever have existing are gone forever. Policies like these are what keeps superpowers from fighting.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Again.. I will say that I do think that global warming has a solid scientific basis. However, I don't think that it matters as much as the larger issue. |
I agree, what all these arguments break down to is the survival of man. Global warming threatens to change mans landscape into something less hospitable, but over what time frame? War and Population pose a much more immediate threat in my opinion (much like you are saying). I think we need a true United Nations with a world president and world government. I fear for the day that would happen but I also fear for the possibility that it will never happen. Some basic world laws like a nuke can never be detonated again, unless it’s for the purposes of science, would help a lot. A good example is the U.S. almost ended the world 70 times in cold war, due to computer glitches. Once we had a false reading that said Russia had launched nukes at us, so we implemented our end game policy. Luckily we found out it was just a miss reading seconds before it was executed! I’m sure everyone here knows what the end game policy is but for those that might not: it’s when we (the U.S.) nuke every square mile of the earth multiple times so that all traces of man ever have existing are gone forever. Policies like these are what keeps superpowers from fighting.
global climate change skeptics
It’s good to have skeptics, as long as they’re valid. It’s also good to make progress and ask that the skeptics to challenge you newest or most valid claims and not dwell on the past (but you also have to consider what it looks like if you make a lot of claims that turn out to be false). I think the problem is the global climate change issue is filled with “crazy” on both sides to the point that it’s hard to tell what a valid claim is anymore. The best thing the pro or con global climate change activists could do is purge them selves as much as possible and only allow the strongest and most valuable arguments in. I’m hopping to find some of those arguments in this forum.
P.S. sorry about not having the sources to back up some of the things I’ve heard. I really need to start a folder on my computer for this kind of stuff if I’m going to be using it in this forum.
QUOTE (Nihilist+Jul 12 2009, 08:42 AM)
I can see this isn’t a very popular subject; perhaps it’s been done to death. I’ll go back and look through the old post; I’ll probably find what I’m looking for in there.
Perhaps you need to read daily the reports of how climate change is effecting all of us. True,co2 released from permafrost melting is far more dangerous then billions of cars,manufacturing plants and normal human needs.
For instance this week big dumb world leaders of all nations made a statement;
Developed and developing nations have agreed that global temperatures should not rise more than 2C above 1900 levels, a G8 summit declaration says.
That is the level above which, the UN says, the Earth's climate system would become dangerously unstable. <<
I mean,come on now why would they even entertain such thoughts or comments? Sure red Herring indeed.
Perhaps you need to read daily the reports of how climate change is effecting all of us. True,co2 released from permafrost melting is far more dangerous then billions of cars,manufacturing plants and normal human needs.
For instance this week big dumb world leaders of all nations made a statement;
Developed and developing nations have agreed that global temperatures should not rise more than 2C above 1900 levels, a G8 summit declaration says.
That is the level above which, the UN says, the Earth's climate system would become dangerously unstable. <<
I mean,come on now why would they even entertain such thoughts or comments? Sure red Herring indeed.
QUOTE
Perhaps you need to read daily the reports of how climate change is effecting all of us.
Way to get on someone’s bad side right off the bat. Nothing makes someone understand your point of view like insulting them first thing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Perhaps you need to read daily the reports of how climate change is effecting all of us. |
Way to get on someone’s bad side right off the bat. Nothing makes someone understand your point of view like insulting them first thing.
True,co2 released from permafrost melting is far more dangerous then billions of cars,manufacturing plants and normal human needs.
It’s CH4 or Methane that’s being released from permafrost melting. It comes from animal poop being eaten by bacteria in lakes that get frozen over.
Also, it would be nice if you cited your sources. I would like to know where you heard that the melting permafrost is more dangerous than people creating global warming, because what I looked up said that the only reason the permafrost was melting was because of people creating global warming… or are you trying to imply something through a tone of writing that I’m missing.
QUOTE
For instance this week big dumb world leaders of all nations made a statement; Developed and developing nations have agreed that global temperatures should not rise more than 2C above 1900 levels, a G8 summit declaration says. That is the level above which, the UN says, the Earth's climate system would become dangerously unstable. <<
big dumb world leaders? Again I’m assuming there’s a tone that you had in mind when you wrote this, but you’ll have to understand that it doesn’t translate very well over text like this.
You said “all nations made a statement” at G8…… You do know that G8 stands for “group of eight” as in only 8 nation’s right? There are more than 8 nations in the world, if you’re in the U.S. then the last time I checked we recognized 194 of them.
And yes I read that BBC article. I especial liked the part where everyone agreed but they still couldn’t persuade a large portion of the U.N. countries to actually do anything about it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For instance this week big dumb world leaders of all nations made a statement; Developed and developing nations have agreed that global temperatures should not rise more than 2C above 1900 levels, a G8 summit declaration says. That is the level above which, the UN says, the Earth's climate system would become dangerously unstable. << |
big dumb world leaders? Again I’m assuming there’s a tone that you had in mind when you wrote this, but you’ll have to understand that it doesn’t translate very well over text like this.
You said “all nations made a statement” at G8…… You do know that G8 stands for “group of eight” as in only 8 nation’s right? There are more than 8 nations in the world, if you’re in the U.S. then the last time I checked we recognized 194 of them.
And yes I read that BBC article. I especial liked the part where everyone agreed but they still couldn’t persuade a large portion of the U.N. countries to actually do anything about it.
I mean,come on now why would they even entertain such thoughts or comments?
See the global warming as a red haring (it has its own topic, but got dominated by a bigoted imbecile for a while. It seems to be back on track now and I posted my thoughts there) but what the heck I’ll repeat it:
It’s a great fear tactic to distract form a number of problems. Addressing topics like, the slave class we (the U.S.) have made out of illegal immigrants, the ever present religious groups pushing there beliefs into the government despite our so called “separation of church and state”, the failing economy, our sub par education system, and overpopulation don’t make politicians popular. It’s much safer to attack the global climate change issue because it doesn’t isolate any group of people or point out any of our government’s problems. It’s a great tool for politicians when you think about it.
QUOTE
Sure red Herring indeed.
Who are you directing your comments towards? At first it sounds like it’s to me but at the end of your post it sounds like you’re talking to RobDegraves. Oh, are you directing it all at me because I agreed with RobDegraves?
OK, I have a personal question now: Why did you even post anything? I mean you could have made some good arguments for global warming if you wanted too, its not hard will all the info out there, but instead you made yourself look like a fool by acting pampas and messing up your facts. Even if you had made some good arguments for global warming you still forgot 3 things:
1. This topic isn’t about if its true or not, its about finding good creditable studies one way or the other and letting people decide for them selves what they think.
2. The “Global Warming as a Red Herring” topic doesn’t deny the existence of global climate change.
3. Something can still be a real issue and a red herring at the same time. In fact most good red herrings are.
Dona, why am I even responding to you?
Please let me make an observation regarding Replies on PhysForum.
Any Topic Starter who makes statements based on opinions and "common sense" is swiftly and violently rejected by a few members who reply to numerous posts, but are rarely a Topic Starter themselves. Data: I read thru 36 pages of Replies by one Member who has not started a single Topic that I could find.
For any statement to be acceptable on PhysForum, it must be based on a factual analysis of APPROVED data. Suppose a Topic Starter were to state:
"The proof of a pudding is in the EATING of the pudding."
This Topic Starter is an idiot and may be called an imbecile. The Topic Starter made no analysis and presented no data on the recipe, the ingredients, the impurities, the appearance, the presentation, or the advanced degrees of the Cook.
Now, to the point: On July 12, rpenner stated "There are no "con" arguments against global climate change -- there are a lot of distraction, red herrings and irrelevant anecdotes." What happened to the words "Global Warming Crisis"?
The question: Are these people also idiots and imbeciles? [Moderator: No. You are the idiot for passing on easily detected lies. This seems to be a common failure mode for you. While some of them might be idiots, all of them are counting on you to be an idiot.]
1. John Theon (Hansen's supervisor in 1988 [Moderator: Incorrect. John Theon is a bureaucratic non-entity at NASA and not in Hansen's org chart..]), says that Hansen's testimony was a huge embarrassment to NASA. [Moderator: Since Theon left NASA in 1994 or 1995, Theon would seem to a) not speak for NASA,
be hopelessly out-of-date, c) not represent the consensus of data and analysis which shows that climate change is real and unprecedented, and d) not have published a lot since the 1960's.]
2. Roy Spencer, senior scientist for climate studies at NASA, says Hansen is at the extreme end of global warming alarmism. Spencer left NASA in 2001 for the University of Alabama. http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Confusion-Pa...d/dp/1594032106 [Moderator: Another way to say this is Hansen is a leader. Roy Spencer rejects Hansen. But Roy Spencer also rejects evolution and common descent,, is extreme in his use of cherry picking to get a desired result, advocates coincidental climate change that requires magic in timing and oxygen concentrations, and can't tell warming from cooling. ]
3. Alan Carlin's 100-page report that cast doubt on EPA's contention that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare was suppressed by EPA. A draft is found at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/rele...t-final-report/ where there is also a link to the final version.
Carlin writes in his preface to the report: "My conclusions do represent the best science in the sense of most closely corresponding to available observations that I currently know of, however, and are sufficiently at variance with those of the IPCC, CCSP, and the Draft TSD that I believe they support my increasing concern that EPA has not critically reviewed the findings by these other groups." [Moderator: Not exactly peer review if you do it yourself. Cutting and pasting from another's work is not the best science. That's the job of a PR hack or shill. Also cited are many untrue and self-contradictory things. And then Carlin himself "supresses" the names of his fellow co-authors, removing them from the final version.]
4. And finally, there is that little problem with some data which shows that the Earth's temperature has been decreasing. [Moderator: Yawn. Spencer and Christy found their (multiple) errors and now find that the Earth has been warming. That they took ten years to admit this does not do them proud. If you refer to some other global dataset over multi-decade timelines, I would love to hear it.]
James T. Conklin, P.E.
Sewer Rehabilitation Consultant, Idiot, and Imbecile
Any Topic Starter who makes statements based on opinions and "common sense" is swiftly and violently rejected by a few members who reply to numerous posts, but are rarely a Topic Starter themselves. Data: I read thru 36 pages of Replies by one Member who has not started a single Topic that I could find.
For any statement to be acceptable on PhysForum, it must be based on a factual analysis of APPROVED data. Suppose a Topic Starter were to state:
"The proof of a pudding is in the EATING of the pudding."
This Topic Starter is an idiot and may be called an imbecile. The Topic Starter made no analysis and presented no data on the recipe, the ingredients, the impurities, the appearance, the presentation, or the advanced degrees of the Cook.
Now, to the point: On July 12, rpenner stated "There are no "con" arguments against global climate change -- there are a lot of distraction, red herrings and irrelevant anecdotes." What happened to the words "Global Warming Crisis"?
The question: Are these people also idiots and imbeciles? [Moderator: No. You are the idiot for passing on easily detected lies. This seems to be a common failure mode for you. While some of them might be idiots, all of them are counting on you to be an idiot.]
1. John Theon (Hansen's supervisor in 1988 [Moderator: Incorrect. John Theon is a bureaucratic non-entity at NASA and not in Hansen's org chart..]), says that Hansen's testimony was a huge embarrassment to NASA. [Moderator: Since Theon left NASA in 1994 or 1995, Theon would seem to a) not speak for NASA,
be hopelessly out-of-date, c) not represent the consensus of data and analysis which shows that climate change is real and unprecedented, and d) not have published a lot since the 1960's.]2. Roy Spencer, senior scientist for climate studies at NASA, says Hansen is at the extreme end of global warming alarmism. Spencer left NASA in 2001 for the University of Alabama. http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Confusion-Pa...d/dp/1594032106 [Moderator: Another way to say this is Hansen is a leader. Roy Spencer rejects Hansen. But Roy Spencer also rejects evolution and common descent,, is extreme in his use of cherry picking to get a desired result, advocates coincidental climate change that requires magic in timing and oxygen concentrations, and can't tell warming from cooling. ]
3. Alan Carlin's 100-page report that cast doubt on EPA's contention that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare was suppressed by EPA. A draft is found at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/rele...t-final-report/ where there is also a link to the final version.
Carlin writes in his preface to the report: "My conclusions do represent the best science in the sense of most closely corresponding to available observations that I currently know of, however, and are sufficiently at variance with those of the IPCC, CCSP, and the Draft TSD that I believe they support my increasing concern that EPA has not critically reviewed the findings by these other groups." [Moderator: Not exactly peer review if you do it yourself. Cutting and pasting from another's work is not the best science. That's the job of a PR hack or shill. Also cited are many untrue and self-contradictory things. And then Carlin himself "supresses" the names of his fellow co-authors, removing them from the final version.]
4. And finally, there is that little problem with some data which shows that the Earth's temperature has been decreasing. [Moderator: Yawn. Spencer and Christy found their (multiple) errors and now find that the Earth has been warming. That they took ten years to admit this does not do them proud. If you refer to some other global dataset over multi-decade timelines, I would love to hear it.]
James T. Conklin, P.E.
Sewer Rehabilitation Consultant, Idiot, and Imbecile
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 12 2009, 09:15 PM)
There are no "con" arguments against global climate change -- there are a lot of distraction, red herrings and irrelevant anecdotes. (Many examples of silly-to-sophisticated claims.) But global climate change is real.
Conklin has gone through some trouble to make some red herrings, but when it comes to data he actually falls flat.
Where was Hansen in 1988? Before Congress. Being right about Global Warming.
http://www.grist.org/article/hansen-has-been-wrong-before/
And Roy Spencer and John Christy have proven global warming is real.
http://www.grist.org/article/the-satellites-show-cooling/
Now I'm beginning to believe that conklin might not be telling the truth about teh gays.
Conklin has gone through some trouble to make some red herrings, but when it comes to data he actually falls flat.
Where was Hansen in 1988? Before Congress. Being right about Global Warming.
http://www.grist.org/article/hansen-has-been-wrong-before/
And Roy Spencer and John Christy have proven global warming is real.
http://www.grist.org/article/the-satellites-show-cooling/
Now I'm beginning to believe that conklin might not be telling the truth about teh gays.
QUOTE
it has its own topic, but got dominated by a bigoted imbecile for a while
WOW… speak of the devil, conklin posted on this topic now.
And he doesn’t disappoint, delivering us yet another shining example of conklin’s epic fail!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| it has its own topic, but got dominated by a bigoted imbecile for a while |
WOW… speak of the devil, conklin posted on this topic now.
And he doesn’t disappoint, delivering us yet another shining example of conklin’s epic fail!
Please let me make an observation regarding Replies on PhysForum.
Any Topic Starter who makes statements based on opinions and "common sense" is swiftly and violently rejected by a few members who reply to numerous posts, but are rarely a Topic Starter themselves. Data: I read thru 36 pages of Replies by one Member who has not started a single Topic that I could find.
For any statement to be acceptable on PhysForum, it must be based on a factual analysis of APPROVED data.
OK, I’ll answer that:
1. (opinions and "common sense") as you put it aren’t facts
2. For you and a lot of people "common sense" isn’t "common sense" it’s outrageous assumptions based on nothing.
3. It doesn’t matter if someone is a topic starter or not, what matters is what they contribute to a topic (be it checking facts, challenging your opinion, or validating your thoughts).
4. Its not (APPROVED data) its good data.
So you have some grains of truth to what you said let me just correct it for you:
You said: For any statement to be acceptable on PhysForum, it must be based on a factual analysis of APPROVED data.
Correction: For any statement to be taken seriously by physicists, it must be based on a factual analysis of good data.
I can see why you’r having so much trouble.
Fractious name-calling and insults are the difference
between being smart and being a smartass on PhysForum.
Where is the Moderator? PLEASE remove all my Topics
and all my Replies, and you will not hear from me again.
Latest Global Temperature Anomaly: June 2009 = 0.00 C.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
between being smart and being a smartass on PhysForum.
Where is the Moderator? PLEASE remove all my Topics
and all my Replies, and you will not hear from me again.
Latest Global Temperature Anomaly: June 2009 = 0.00 C.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
I agree, overpopulation is overtaking global warming as a worse threat to humanity. It appears that in the next 10 years, the world will suffer more from unabated overpopulation, starvation.. Global warming can be worst in 20 to 50 years from now. though here in the Philippines, NOW, the worst rain-pouring typhoons hit Luzon, creating real Noah's floods, the likes never before witnessed by old folks. But, both should be addressed now as it is becoming irreversibly late, because both very, very substantially are caused by humans and activities..these overpolutation and climate change/global warming.
jsaldea12
10.16.09
Hi All,
It is not possible to tell anyone who has little or no scientific background and has a vested interest in the status quo that the world climate is deteriorating faster than any other global natural process seen over long geologic periods. It really does not matter who caused what... In the end some individuals with sufficient resources will have taken care of themselves and their families ensuring their positions are secure while publicly casting distraction and lies in the path of all fools that are willing to accept them. The media want you to be confused and undecided and want you to keep reading their tabloid rubbish... What you need to know is the funny papers at the back will probably have the more meaningful statements of the day and you are not getting anything worth swat dished up as "News".
There are a thousand as yet mostly unknown mutually interacting and coherently emergent factors forcing a rapidly accelerating process all in the one direction now and the mere concentration on a "simple abstraction" such as "global warming" is not about to make things the slightest bit clearer to anyone especially the scientists who are never going to have a means to even explain it to themselves let alone a highly politicized and self interested population who only want the "good news". Time has actually run out and there is nothing to be done except tell the frightened people a story to redirect their attentions in all the wrong directions. Welcome to the daily talk shows... garbage for the millions!
Some places in the world are "G*ds Own Country" .... if you live "there" then be happy and find ways to cope with what is going to happen. Other places are not so fortunate and the collective activities underway in the world are destroying the fertility of the soil, drying the watercourses, wiping out the remaining habitat of many other species in the blink of a geologic moment in time. It is certain that removal of the natural environment, tree clearing, and removal of natural ground cover and planting monoculture crops over most of the arable surface of the earth has been man's way and it has led to mostly irreversible soil degradation and erosion.
We place super-phosphate and growth accelerators into the soil and into our animals and we spray our crops and our soils with insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and all manner of agents that upset the balance in our ecosystems and drink the same runoff water on the ground in ever increasing cocktails of poison to push a higher production from that soil for a while but later destroys the the living matrix in it by killing everything that would otherwise try and return the soil to natural production.
We are also beginning to genetically enhance everything except ourselves who are the same old stupid species we ever were. . Does anyone remember DDT or the Ozone layer and Freon? I suppose not ... people have such a short memory. We would have starved already if it were not for artificial means of boosting production. The stocks of fish in our oceans are beginning to fail due to over intensive harvesting. The fishing fleets travel thousands of kilometers to different hemispheres of the globe in order to get sufficient catch while the catch in home waters would not sustain a productive industry in the way it did even thirty years ago. Soon this once bountiful harvest will also be irreversibly wrecked and there will be no going back and no way to sustain a failing terrestrial ecosystem and to feed the billions that are filling our world with ever greater need.
Humans have not been great stewards of the world and it's environment and seem unable to recognize that it was the environment that made conditions for life on planet Earth possible. They purchase their bug sprays, fly sprays, and various baits and other poisons and are horrified to find any living creature in their homes. They are so careful in their personal hygiene that their immune systems have been impaired being under-challenged. If people cannot understand this fact and if they have grown so far away from the processes that have sustained them for many millenia then they must suffer the inevitable consequences. Humans are ecosystems too and it is possible that we are upsetting these as well. In this chaos that must certainly follow there will not be any talk about reversing these effects it will be all about who will survive and what remnant of the planet will be capable of sustaining life... if any.
We live in a world where some people would not believe that smoking is bad for your health and will maintain that the risks are unproven... let alone the taking of dangerous drugs or the effects of many other negative factors that influence our lives. Humans often are unable to asses relative risk and count tiny risk factors as highly undesirable while looming larger risks will go untreated and mismanaged because some people do not want to change the way they 'do business"... like global climate change which is in all likelihood just one symptom of a much larger problem of environmental destruction. The problem "creeps" up on us all and there will be an outcry when things start to accelerate out of control. When that happens we will be past a tipping point... a point of no return. Who would believe that an "angel of death" is about to visit planet earth? None but a crazy group of Christians and Islamic extremists who do not care if they die because they are going to meet their maker... something that they have always wanted. It is a case of life... love it or leave it folks! Their faces have a wild eyed crazed look that say ... Yeah! ... Bring it on!! Their prophecies are all coming true and nothing will mean anything to them unless they do.
Some politicians are going to solve the worlds problems through Carbon Trading and Taxing Carbon products... They will take money out of your pockets and place it in other peoples pockets and ostensibly solving the problem ... but in the end it will not really change the basic environmental issues, replace the once majestic Amazon Forests, or put ice back in to the disappearing Glaciers or stop the rise in water levels drowning small oceanic nations everywhere... All these environmental factors are going downhill rapidly and are rapidly accelerating... Just another way to make a profit if you ask me. It will not change anything but the population will need to be managed and assured that their leaders are doing something "fancy" and "purposeful". There is an old joke that goes... A man falls off a high rise building and as he falls an occupant of the building hears him say as he passes the third floor... "So far so good".
For many life is still reasonably good despite the global economic collapse and these environmental factors... Get used to them... there are many more coming... More often and more severe. So keep your mouths shut... that what the politicians want... and laugh at the idiots who are trying to slow down your own self destruction. What's on TV tonight?
Just don't turn on the News because it can't really help anyone to know because they never provide a balanced point of view... I really mean that.
It is not possible to tell anyone who has little or no scientific background and has a vested interest in the status quo that the world climate is deteriorating faster than any other global natural process seen over long geologic periods. It really does not matter who caused what... In the end some individuals with sufficient resources will have taken care of themselves and their families ensuring their positions are secure while publicly casting distraction and lies in the path of all fools that are willing to accept them. The media want you to be confused and undecided and want you to keep reading their tabloid rubbish... What you need to know is the funny papers at the back will probably have the more meaningful statements of the day and you are not getting anything worth swat dished up as "News".
There are a thousand as yet mostly unknown mutually interacting and coherently emergent factors forcing a rapidly accelerating process all in the one direction now and the mere concentration on a "simple abstraction" such as "global warming" is not about to make things the slightest bit clearer to anyone especially the scientists who are never going to have a means to even explain it to themselves let alone a highly politicized and self interested population who only want the "good news". Time has actually run out and there is nothing to be done except tell the frightened people a story to redirect their attentions in all the wrong directions. Welcome to the daily talk shows... garbage for the millions!
Some places in the world are "G*ds Own Country" .... if you live "there" then be happy and find ways to cope with what is going to happen. Other places are not so fortunate and the collective activities underway in the world are destroying the fertility of the soil, drying the watercourses, wiping out the remaining habitat of many other species in the blink of a geologic moment in time. It is certain that removal of the natural environment, tree clearing, and removal of natural ground cover and planting monoculture crops over most of the arable surface of the earth has been man's way and it has led to mostly irreversible soil degradation and erosion.
We place super-phosphate and growth accelerators into the soil and into our animals and we spray our crops and our soils with insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and all manner of agents that upset the balance in our ecosystems and drink the same runoff water on the ground in ever increasing cocktails of poison to push a higher production from that soil for a while but later destroys the the living matrix in it by killing everything that would otherwise try and return the soil to natural production.
We are also beginning to genetically enhance everything except ourselves who are the same old stupid species we ever were. . Does anyone remember DDT or the Ozone layer and Freon? I suppose not ... people have such a short memory. We would have starved already if it were not for artificial means of boosting production. The stocks of fish in our oceans are beginning to fail due to over intensive harvesting. The fishing fleets travel thousands of kilometers to different hemispheres of the globe in order to get sufficient catch while the catch in home waters would not sustain a productive industry in the way it did even thirty years ago. Soon this once bountiful harvest will also be irreversibly wrecked and there will be no going back and no way to sustain a failing terrestrial ecosystem and to feed the billions that are filling our world with ever greater need.
Humans have not been great stewards of the world and it's environment and seem unable to recognize that it was the environment that made conditions for life on planet Earth possible. They purchase their bug sprays, fly sprays, and various baits and other poisons and are horrified to find any living creature in their homes. They are so careful in their personal hygiene that their immune systems have been impaired being under-challenged. If people cannot understand this fact and if they have grown so far away from the processes that have sustained them for many millenia then they must suffer the inevitable consequences. Humans are ecosystems too and it is possible that we are upsetting these as well. In this chaos that must certainly follow there will not be any talk about reversing these effects it will be all about who will survive and what remnant of the planet will be capable of sustaining life... if any.
We live in a world where some people would not believe that smoking is bad for your health and will maintain that the risks are unproven... let alone the taking of dangerous drugs or the effects of many other negative factors that influence our lives. Humans often are unable to asses relative risk and count tiny risk factors as highly undesirable while looming larger risks will go untreated and mismanaged because some people do not want to change the way they 'do business"... like global climate change which is in all likelihood just one symptom of a much larger problem of environmental destruction. The problem "creeps" up on us all and there will be an outcry when things start to accelerate out of control. When that happens we will be past a tipping point... a point of no return. Who would believe that an "angel of death" is about to visit planet earth? None but a crazy group of Christians and Islamic extremists who do not care if they die because they are going to meet their maker... something that they have always wanted. It is a case of life... love it or leave it folks! Their faces have a wild eyed crazed look that say ... Yeah! ... Bring it on!! Their prophecies are all coming true and nothing will mean anything to them unless they do.
Some politicians are going to solve the worlds problems through Carbon Trading and Taxing Carbon products... They will take money out of your pockets and place it in other peoples pockets and ostensibly solving the problem ... but in the end it will not really change the basic environmental issues, replace the once majestic Amazon Forests, or put ice back in to the disappearing Glaciers or stop the rise in water levels drowning small oceanic nations everywhere... All these environmental factors are going downhill rapidly and are rapidly accelerating... Just another way to make a profit if you ask me. It will not change anything but the population will need to be managed and assured that their leaders are doing something "fancy" and "purposeful". There is an old joke that goes... A man falls off a high rise building and as he falls an occupant of the building hears him say as he passes the third floor... "So far so good".
For many life is still reasonably good despite the global economic collapse and these environmental factors... Get used to them... there are many more coming... More often and more severe. So keep your mouths shut... that what the politicians want... and laugh at the idiots who are trying to slow down your own self destruction. What's on TV tonight?
Just don't turn on the News because it can't really help anyone to know because they never provide a balanced point of view... I really mean that.
Lle tela? or have you merely collapsed through intense self-boredom?
Hey guys,
I am just after opinions on the global carbon emissions trading scheme, and this looked like the right thread to post it.
Is this nothing more than an excuse to ramp up tax on giant corporations, which in turn will just increase the price of the product, which in turn will just deplete the pocket of the consumer, all in a justifyable belief that its helping to 'save' the enviroment? It seems that in Australia, the government is hell bent on establishing this at any cost, even though the population is completely divided on the decision as many do not see any benefits at all except increased cost, while 'other' 2nd and 3rd world countries will be exempt, who are the worst polluters.
It seems that we have lots of coal and other mineable resources (in aus), and we sell the rights to mine it to whover wants to, so it seems logical that the whole scheme is nothing more than just a way to extract more short term tax dollars.
Thanks for any input.
I am just after opinions on the global carbon emissions trading scheme, and this looked like the right thread to post it.
Is this nothing more than an excuse to ramp up tax on giant corporations, which in turn will just increase the price of the product, which in turn will just deplete the pocket of the consumer, all in a justifyable belief that its helping to 'save' the enviroment? It seems that in Australia, the government is hell bent on establishing this at any cost, even though the population is completely divided on the decision as many do not see any benefits at all except increased cost, while 'other' 2nd and 3rd world countries will be exempt, who are the worst polluters.
It seems that we have lots of coal and other mineable resources (in aus), and we sell the rights to mine it to whover wants to, so it seems logical that the whole scheme is nothing more than just a way to extract more short term tax dollars.
Thanks for any input.
Hi Matador et al,
I am Australian...
"Gut feelings" are nothing more than unfounded opinions.
"Gut feelings" are nothing more than unfounded opinions.
I like to see a close relationship between the concept of the 3D pixel universe - scale-wise ordered and like Russian Dolls - each Russian Doll representing an aleph - and infinitely deep and complex (fractal and holographic) but all the time with object of sameness preserved. In the event that object of sameness disappear it is the equivalent of no physicality - disappearance of physicality. But there is no problem with object of sameness disappearing into a dimensionless point from the frame of the observer, it just means that the observer cannot see any details except the point - but at a closer look the point transforms into an object with a shape - and this is the information which is put into any object of sameness, information cannot vanish - and the shape of the object of sameness is the ordering system of physical universe. But human is limited in the perceiving of universe to the scale that is the equivalence to human physical senses, the photon/electron scale. Probably what is the equivalent of aleph null.
Your "3d Pixel Universe" idea is not based on any real science, makes no testable predictions, is not supported by mathematical models, and is not remotely useful to scientists.
I'm not an expert, but I know what a real theory needs to have, and what fake theories have in common. If you want to label your theory as a philosophical theory, that's fine by me, but it's not science in the least.
The signs are clear: the melting of Arctic by 40 to 45% and melting in Anctartic by 10% to 15% have everything to do with the super-typhoons at the inter tropical convergence zones in the tropic zone. what causes the melting is also clear: Heat, global warming.
The cold winds from the Arctic and the cold winds from the Anctartic move upward to the tropic zone where both winds collide and sweep upward and meet the warm thick layer of cloud of troposphere, caused by global warming. The results are, not ordinary typhoons, but super-typhoons in the inter-tropical convergence zone..
Thus, it is still being debated, global warming is here. causing climate change. It is becoming clear that global warming and climate change are being caused by human and activities substantially, though to some extent, the sun is warming up too to some degree
I am Australian...
QUOTE (Matador+)
I am just after opinions on the global carbon emissions trading scheme...
[..]
Is this nothing more than an excuse to ramp up tax on giant corporations, which in turn will just increase the price of the product, which in turn will just deplete the pocket of the consumer, all in a justifyable belief that its helping to 'save' the enviroment?
[..]
Is this nothing more than an excuse to ramp up tax on giant corporations, which in turn will just increase the price of the product, which in turn will just deplete the pocket of the consumer, all in a justifyable belief that its helping to 'save' the enviroment?
I can just give you my opinion and I think that the emissions trading scheme is not going to save the situation. It is a bit of a stage show with a cast of thousands of political celebrities who would sign anything as long as the cameras were on them. The problem has passed a point where the CO2 emissions alone are problem... it not the main driving factor anymore... other factors triggered into action by CO2 emissions and the activities of man in general will continue to drive the process over a tipping point (that is if it is not there already). This problem has become far more complex and of course cannot be handled by any one nation or even group of nations. It would truly require global cooperation... I do not think that is about to happen... Do you?
These taxes are a way to extract money from those least able to afford it since it is geared to assist polluting industries continue to pollute in a way that they can. The poorer nations are not the big polluters if you consider them per capita... it is just that some of the biggest nations on earth are the poorest and are now coming on stream for a piece of the action (like China). You can't blame them because they are only doing what we have been doing for years. Per capita Australians are the biggest polluters (because Australians have committed to non-nuclear sources of energy and have little or no hydro power now that the once great Snowy River is also drying up (I could easily jump from one side of it to the other) along with the "mighty" Murray-Darling River... currently dry land and a couple of murky billabongs)... it is just lucky that Australians are small in number otherwise there would be an outrage by the rest of the world... very poor stewardship.
Speaking commercially... If you give the big commercial polluters a tax break then it only encourages them to continue doing what they are currently doing. The big polluters are the key to any real deal and they are "not negotiable". In particular we are speaking about the Coal Industry. Australia need the coal industry like a drug addict needs heroin.... desperately! Self interest will always win out over cold hard science in these cases... It always has. The point is if the Coal Industry and the Motor Vehicle Industry are forced to clean up their act the added costs will be simply passed on down the line to the consumer. It will make a "small" change but it will be very painful. It will not slow the pace of global climate change or global environmental degradation, small nations like Australia are not the key to the problem but are necessary to any deal as a "token" gesture. The problem is as much land clearing and overuse of scarce water supplies and the extremes of weather. We must also look after our fish stocks but there is no treaty or process that will stop the oceans being stripped bare and no country would ever sign a general treaty knowing that signing might mean their people would starve.
There really are no real alternatives to current means of energy production for countries like Australia since it has near zero water resources so significant Hydro Power is out of the question. Perhaps some wave power or tidal power might be useful but not sufficient to be a replacement for current sources of energy. I am laying all my bets on Hot Dry Rock Thermal Power. It is the only source of power that provides base load and has a hoot in hell of a chance since it is almost ready to go right now. Governments should be pushing the idea hard and fast if it is to make a difference but the recent Global Financial Crises has allowed them to wander into unearned respite from the heat.
I am afraid wind and solar power are far too dependent on infrastructure that will require renewing every 5 or 10 years... that is too expensive and will not supply base load. Nuclear Power is a real possibility but it is politically difficult for the Labor Government. Unless Cold Fusion or some other wild-card shows really soon everything else is much too difficult to save our butts or would take 40 or more years to implement (such as carbon sequestration). A lot of money is being spent on this alternative because it is what the Coal Industry would prefer.
Go right ahead and spend the money on these pie in the sky ideas but when you absolutely need the money for a real plan it will all be gone... the politicians will have flushed it all down the drain in schemes that they already know are not about to help us. There will always be beneficiaries and you just know they will be all the "bad guys".
Cheers
These taxes are a way to extract money from those least able to afford it since it is geared to assist polluting industries continue to pollute in a way that they can. The poorer nations are not the big polluters if you consider them per capita... it is just that some of the biggest nations on earth are the poorest and are now coming on stream for a piece of the action (like China). You can't blame them because they are only doing what we have been doing for years. Per capita Australians are the biggest polluters (because Australians have committed to non-nuclear sources of energy and have little or no hydro power now that the once great Snowy River is also drying up (I could easily jump from one side of it to the other) along with the "mighty" Murray-Darling River... currently dry land and a couple of murky billabongs)... it is just lucky that Australians are small in number otherwise there would be an outrage by the rest of the world... very poor stewardship.
Speaking commercially... If you give the big commercial polluters a tax break then it only encourages them to continue doing what they are currently doing. The big polluters are the key to any real deal and they are "not negotiable". In particular we are speaking about the Coal Industry. Australia need the coal industry like a drug addict needs heroin.... desperately! Self interest will always win out over cold hard science in these cases... It always has. The point is if the Coal Industry and the Motor Vehicle Industry are forced to clean up their act the added costs will be simply passed on down the line to the consumer. It will make a "small" change but it will be very painful. It will not slow the pace of global climate change or global environmental degradation, small nations like Australia are not the key to the problem but are necessary to any deal as a "token" gesture. The problem is as much land clearing and overuse of scarce water supplies and the extremes of weather. We must also look after our fish stocks but there is no treaty or process that will stop the oceans being stripped bare and no country would ever sign a general treaty knowing that signing might mean their people would starve.
There really are no real alternatives to current means of energy production for countries like Australia since it has near zero water resources so significant Hydro Power is out of the question. Perhaps some wave power or tidal power might be useful but not sufficient to be a replacement for current sources of energy. I am laying all my bets on Hot Dry Rock Thermal Power. It is the only source of power that provides base load and has a hoot in hell of a chance since it is almost ready to go right now. Governments should be pushing the idea hard and fast if it is to make a difference but the recent Global Financial Crises has allowed them to wander into unearned respite from the heat.
I am afraid wind and solar power are far too dependent on infrastructure that will require renewing every 5 or 10 years... that is too expensive and will not supply base load. Nuclear Power is a real possibility but it is politically difficult for the Labor Government. Unless Cold Fusion or some other wild-card shows really soon everything else is much too difficult to save our butts or would take 40 or more years to implement (such as carbon sequestration). A lot of money is being spent on this alternative because it is what the Coal Industry would prefer.
Go right ahead and spend the money on these pie in the sky ideas but when you absolutely need the money for a real plan it will all be gone... the politicians will have flushed it all down the drain in schemes that they already know are not about to help us. There will always be beneficiaries and you just know they will be all the "bad guys".
Cheers
Well said GE and others - and my comment will be very unscientific - so I expect rpenners red pen.
My gut feeling tells me that global warming is not a mankind effect - but rather a trivial fluctuation with rapid transitions in temperatures as seen and confirmed historically.
What can we do as mankind - probably very little - and to focus too much on CO2 emission is most likely a stupid action - costly and attracts too much focus on bad priorities.
Science is driven by many incentives - money among others - and science will easily be self-confirming - because attention attracts attention and money, so there is a high risk that easy and symbolic actions become the ones that earn support. Right now we are playing the CO2 play - and enormous amounts of money is at stake. Other priorities is forgotten - so perhaps Mother Nature would be better of without all this political and scientific play - and instead let the nearby principles work.
No one see any interest in shitting own nest - so pollution will probably be better controlled by near-principle and selfishness, as compared to high ideals about global thinking and global consensus about right initiatives.
My gut feeling tells me that global warming is not a mankind effect - but rather a trivial fluctuation with rapid transitions in temperatures as seen and confirmed historically.
What can we do as mankind - probably very little - and to focus too much on CO2 emission is most likely a stupid action - costly and attracts too much focus on bad priorities.
Science is driven by many incentives - money among others - and science will easily be self-confirming - because attention attracts attention and money, so there is a high risk that easy and symbolic actions become the ones that earn support. Right now we are playing the CO2 play - and enormous amounts of money is at stake. Other priorities is forgotten - so perhaps Mother Nature would be better of without all this political and scientific play - and instead let the nearby principles work.
No one see any interest in shitting own nest - so pollution will probably be better controlled by near-principle and selfishness, as compared to high ideals about global thinking and global consensus about right initiatives.
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 18 2009, 03:08 PM)
my comment will be very unscientific - so I expect rpenners red pen.
Pity he's not got a red 27 megaton yield ICBM, with the most currently fashionable; genitalia mincing "Nad-sack burgermeat" MkIII testes homogenizer attachment (for the serious moderator).
Pity he's not got a red 27 megaton yield ICBM, with the most currently fashionable; genitalia mincing "Nad-sack burgermeat" MkIII testes homogenizer attachment (for the serious moderator).
QUOTE (Dr Fred A Wolf+Oct 18 2009, 03:31 PM)
Pity he's not got a red 27 megaton yield ICBM, with the most currently fashionable; genitalia mincing "Nad-sack burgermeat" MkIII testes homogenizer attachment (for the serious moderator).
Impressing vocabulary - very impressing. Please show me more - please - please -
Impressing vocabulary - very impressing. Please show me more - please - please -
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 18 2009, 12:26 PM)
Impressing vocabulary - very impressing. Please show me more - please - please -
You seem like an intelligent individual, why can't you post something legitimate, instead of the pseudo-science that you prefer to post?
You seem like an intelligent individual, why can't you post something legitimate, instead of the pseudo-science that you prefer to post?
Two basic facts that a lot of people miss.
1. That some degree of clobal warming, or greenhouse effect exists is undeniable. There's a set of calculations that you can do that predict based on things such as insolation and albedo, that if the earths atmosphere had no effect, the earth would be up to 50k cooler (I don't recall the exact number, but I recall it's in the 20-50k range). Once this is corrected to include the ability of the atmosphere to absorb heat and radiation, this agrees with the observed average temperature to within a few percent.
2. That the processes that give rise to the insulating effects of the atmosphere are dependent on the atmospheres chemistry, and rooted in basic highschool physics (Simple Harmonic Motion), and if you have five minutes to yourself, and know what to look for, you can discover for yourself that the range of partial pressures that atmospheric carbon dioxide is observed at today are in a region that results in a linear response of the absorption of IR radiation - doubling the amount of atmospheric CO2 doubles the amount of IR radiation it absorbs.
The only reasonable response then can be to ask "How much extra heat is being retained by the atmosphere" and "What will the ultimate effects of this extra heat be"?
And while yes, it may be true that historical H. Sapiens sapiens has flourished during times of warmth, and struggled during times of cold, one has to ask "How much is too much?"
And while yes, it may be true that ultimately, Earth is capable of self correcting, this requires time frame son the order of 10^3-10^4 years (IIRC), and is true of an unmodified, undisturbed system (meanwhile we continue clearing rainforests).
I hope this has helped with the original question, and I can/will provide links when I have a little more free time.
1. That some degree of clobal warming, or greenhouse effect exists is undeniable. There's a set of calculations that you can do that predict based on things such as insolation and albedo, that if the earths atmosphere had no effect, the earth would be up to 50k cooler (I don't recall the exact number, but I recall it's in the 20-50k range). Once this is corrected to include the ability of the atmosphere to absorb heat and radiation, this agrees with the observed average temperature to within a few percent.
2. That the processes that give rise to the insulating effects of the atmosphere are dependent on the atmospheres chemistry, and rooted in basic highschool physics (Simple Harmonic Motion), and if you have five minutes to yourself, and know what to look for, you can discover for yourself that the range of partial pressures that atmospheric carbon dioxide is observed at today are in a region that results in a linear response of the absorption of IR radiation - doubling the amount of atmospheric CO2 doubles the amount of IR radiation it absorbs.
The only reasonable response then can be to ask "How much extra heat is being retained by the atmosphere" and "What will the ultimate effects of this extra heat be"?
And while yes, it may be true that historical H. Sapiens sapiens has flourished during times of warmth, and struggled during times of cold, one has to ask "How much is too much?"
And while yes, it may be true that ultimately, Earth is capable of self correcting, this requires time frame son the order of 10^3-10^4 years (IIRC), and is true of an unmodified, undisturbed system (meanwhile we continue clearing rainforests).
I hope this has helped with the original question, and I can/will provide links when I have a little more free time.
For your consideration:
Northern Limit of Sub-Arctic Forests, a study by James L. Latta.
Is the forest line moving North, indicating global warming?
Is the forest line moving South, indicating global cooling?
James L. Lat ta became interested in the position of the boundary between the northern boreal forest and the tundra as it relates to “climate change”. Latta searched for information, but most of what turned up was the speculation that the forest boundary should be moving north to be consistent with global warming. There were no facts on the actual relative position of the sub-arctic forest versus its past position.
Latta found a rather esoteric scientific paper (~1977) titled Historical Aspects of the Northern Canadian Tree line by HARVEY NICHOLS about the position of the northern forest boundary in Canada. http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic29-1-38.pdf
The paper contains a map showing the present position of the Canadian boreal forest compared to the northern limit of the forest in the past. It shows that the forest limit in the past was 50 to 400 miles north of its current position (indicating warmer temperatures in the past). The distance is greater in the interior and less near the coasts, where temperatures are moderated by the oceans.
The paper also contains a photo showing long dead tree stumps out on the tundra, with the current trees off in the distance to the south (indicating colder temperatures at present). Latta reports seeing similar pictures taken in Siberia.
Based on the location of the tree line, temperatures in the Canadian Arctic, were much warmer 2,500 to 5,800 years ago than they have been in the recent past. It takes hundreds or thousands of years for the edge of the forest to respond to climate changes, so the slight warming that occurred between 1975 and 1998, and created the global warming hysteria, is not yet showing up. In fact the northern forest boundary may still be moving south.
Northern Limit of Sub-Arctic Forests, a study by James L. Latta.
Is the forest line moving North, indicating global warming?
Is the forest line moving South, indicating global cooling?
James L. Lat ta became interested in the position of the boundary between the northern boreal forest and the tundra as it relates to “climate change”. Latta searched for information, but most of what turned up was the speculation that the forest boundary should be moving north to be consistent with global warming. There were no facts on the actual relative position of the sub-arctic forest versus its past position.
Latta found a rather esoteric scientific paper (~1977) titled Historical Aspects of the Northern Canadian Tree line by HARVEY NICHOLS about the position of the northern forest boundary in Canada. http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic29-1-38.pdf
The paper contains a map showing the present position of the Canadian boreal forest compared to the northern limit of the forest in the past. It shows that the forest limit in the past was 50 to 400 miles north of its current position (indicating warmer temperatures in the past). The distance is greater in the interior and less near the coasts, where temperatures are moderated by the oceans.
The paper also contains a photo showing long dead tree stumps out on the tundra, with the current trees off in the distance to the south (indicating colder temperatures at present). Latta reports seeing similar pictures taken in Siberia.
Based on the location of the tree line, temperatures in the Canadian Arctic, were much warmer 2,500 to 5,800 years ago than they have been in the recent past. It takes hundreds or thousands of years for the edge of the forest to respond to climate changes, so the slight warming that occurred between 1975 and 1998, and created the global warming hysteria, is not yet showing up. In fact the northern forest boundary may still be moving south.
QUOTE (conklin+Oct 18 2009, 03:20 PM)
Is the forest line moving North, indicating global warming?
Is the forest line moving South, indicating global cooling?
Only a complete idiot would assume that ONE phenomenon is indicative of a global trend.
Is the forest line moving South, indicating global cooling?
Only a complete idiot would assume that ONE phenomenon is indicative of a global trend.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 18 2009, 04:28 PM)
You seem like an intelligent individual, why can't you post something legitimate, instead of the pseudo-science that you prefer to post?
fbm - thanks - but please explain to me what you find legitimate - and even more so - how do You define science - and what is pseudo-science.
I think that GE made a very good point. - And I am seriously concerned about how science and politics influence the way that humans think and behave - I am a strong believer in diversity - and free thinking - and I am not overtly convinced that mankind is always positively benefited from science. There is good science and there is bad science - sometimes science is developed out from a pure and good basis - but turns out to be bad for mankind and sometimes science is made out from obvious questionable reasons -
As GE wisely state: "There will always be beneficiaries and you just know they will be all the "bad guys" - so I like to think that mankind in many cases will be better of if guided by their intuition and fingertip feelings and near-principles.
fbm - thanks - but please explain to me what you find legitimate - and even more so - how do You define science - and what is pseudo-science.
I think that GE made a very good point. - And I am seriously concerned about how science and politics influence the way that humans think and behave - I am a strong believer in diversity - and free thinking - and I am not overtly convinced that mankind is always positively benefited from science. There is good science and there is bad science - sometimes science is developed out from a pure and good basis - but turns out to be bad for mankind and sometimes science is made out from obvious questionable reasons -
As GE wisely state: "There will always be beneficiaries and you just know they will be all the "bad guys" - so I like to think that mankind in many cases will be better of if guided by their intuition and fingertip feelings and near-principles.
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 18 2009, 04:16 PM)
There is good science and there is bad science - sometimes science is developed out from a pure and good basis - but turns out to be bad for mankind and sometimes science is made out from obvious questionable reasons -
You are speaking in vague terms. Be more specific.
You can't attack something in a completely general way.
I could say that you are evil, sometimes, but that's worthless if I don't provide examples.
How has science hurt mankind?
You are speaking in vague terms. Be more specific.
You can't attack something in a completely general way.
I could say that you are evil, sometimes, but that's worthless if I don't provide examples.
How has science hurt mankind?
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 18 2009, 08:16 PM)
fbm - thanks - but please explain to me what you find legitimate - and even more so - how do You define science - and what is pseudo-science.
fbm - "You can't attack something in a completely general way." -
I agree - and that is why I asked you to enlighten me on what is legitimate and what is science - or perhaps better, that you try to be a bit more specific as to why you find my posting non legitimate and pseudo-scientific.
You started with an attack so the burden is on Your side. You are not even speaking in vague terms - you are not speaking at all - be specific please.
I think I recognize an old well established style of Yours - or ?
fbm - "You can't attack something in a completely general way." -
I agree - and that is why I asked you to enlighten me on what is legitimate and what is science - or perhaps better, that you try to be a bit more specific as to why you find my posting non legitimate and pseudo-scientific.
You started with an attack so the burden is on Your side. You are not even speaking in vague terms - you are not speaking at all - be specific please.
I think I recognize an old well established style of Yours - or ?
QUOTE
My gut feeling tells me that global warming is not a mankind effect - but rather a trivial fluctuation with rapid transitions in temperatures as seen and confirmed historically.
"Gut feelings" are nothing more than unfounded opinions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My gut feeling tells me that global warming is not a mankind effect - but rather a trivial fluctuation with rapid transitions in temperatures as seen and confirmed historically. |
"Gut feelings" are nothing more than unfounded opinions.
I like to see a close relationship between the concept of the 3D pixel universe - scale-wise ordered and like Russian Dolls - each Russian Doll representing an aleph - and infinitely deep and complex (fractal and holographic) but all the time with object of sameness preserved. In the event that object of sameness disappear it is the equivalent of no physicality - disappearance of physicality. But there is no problem with object of sameness disappearing into a dimensionless point from the frame of the observer, it just means that the observer cannot see any details except the point - but at a closer look the point transforms into an object with a shape - and this is the information which is put into any object of sameness, information cannot vanish - and the shape of the object of sameness is the ordering system of physical universe. But human is limited in the perceiving of universe to the scale that is the equivalence to human physical senses, the photon/electron scale. Probably what is the equivalent of aleph null.
Your "3d Pixel Universe" idea is not based on any real science, makes no testable predictions, is not supported by mathematical models, and is not remotely useful to scientists.
I'm not an expert, but I know what a real theory needs to have, and what fake theories have in common. If you want to label your theory as a philosophical theory, that's fine by me, but it's not science in the least.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 18 2009, 08:58 PM)
"Gut feelings" are nothing more than unfounded opinions.
Your "3d Pixel Universe" idea is not based on any real science, makes no testable predictions, is not supported by mathematical models, and is not remotely useful to scientists.
I'm not an expert, but I know what a real theory needs to have, and what fake theories have in common. If you want to label your theory as a philosophical theory, that's fine by me, but it's not science in the least.
fbm - you may have noticed that I have never ever claimed that what I am saying is science - not even remotely associated with so-called science.
Actually I clearly indicated that my statement on global warming was "very unscientific" and likewise I have never made any statements that my 3D Pixel idea has anything to do with so-called science.
Our moderator has invented a new term - usefulness - "if not useful it is not science" - and that is OK with me - I have no ambitions of being useful (what ever that is) - I am neither scientific nor useful - but that should be no sin.
You cannot even accuse me for coming up with fake theories - 3D Pixel Universe is not a theory - it is an idea - an idea inside my head - and if you do not like the idea you are most welcome to ignore - we are all participating of free will - please enjoy and relax - and perhaps we should revert back to the issue of this thread.
I deliberately stated that it is my gut feeling that global warming is not a mankind effect - science people would probably say that because of this and because of that bla bla bla - anyhow we are all in the same boat - we do not know the cause of the temperature fluctuations. And as long as we do not know - my take is to be cautious not to engage in actions that may be bad from a cost benefit point of view. No one can arrange for prospective cross-over tests comparing temperature fluctuations under various scenarios - (half the earth this the other half that) and everyone can claim that because this or that was being done the temperature effects was moderated in this or that direction - so for the time being I think it is fair to say that we all share the same amount of uncertainty.
Your "3d Pixel Universe" idea is not based on any real science, makes no testable predictions, is not supported by mathematical models, and is not remotely useful to scientists.
I'm not an expert, but I know what a real theory needs to have, and what fake theories have in common. If you want to label your theory as a philosophical theory, that's fine by me, but it's not science in the least.
fbm - you may have noticed that I have never ever claimed that what I am saying is science - not even remotely associated with so-called science.
Actually I clearly indicated that my statement on global warming was "very unscientific" and likewise I have never made any statements that my 3D Pixel idea has anything to do with so-called science.
Our moderator has invented a new term - usefulness - "if not useful it is not science" - and that is OK with me - I have no ambitions of being useful (what ever that is) - I am neither scientific nor useful - but that should be no sin.
You cannot even accuse me for coming up with fake theories - 3D Pixel Universe is not a theory - it is an idea - an idea inside my head - and if you do not like the idea you are most welcome to ignore - we are all participating of free will - please enjoy and relax - and perhaps we should revert back to the issue of this thread.
I deliberately stated that it is my gut feeling that global warming is not a mankind effect - science people would probably say that because of this and because of that bla bla bla - anyhow we are all in the same boat - we do not know the cause of the temperature fluctuations. And as long as we do not know - my take is to be cautious not to engage in actions that may be bad from a cost benefit point of view. No one can arrange for prospective cross-over tests comparing temperature fluctuations under various scenarios - (half the earth this the other half that) and everyone can claim that because this or that was being done the temperature effects was moderated in this or that direction - so for the time being I think it is fair to say that we all share the same amount of uncertainty.
bukh,
Please explain what you are trying to accomplish by posting here. If what you have just stated is true, your thoughts would be better suited to a private journal or blog. What value can anyone else obtain from your writings if they are not based on fact?
Please explain what you are trying to accomplish by posting here. If what you have just stated is true, your thoughts would be better suited to a private journal or blog. What value can anyone else obtain from your writings if they are not based on fact?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 18 2009, 08:08 PM)
Only a complete idiot would assume that ONE phenomenon is indicative of a global trend.
(n) phenomenon: (any state or process known through the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning)
Like the complete idiot who assumed that atmospheric CO2 is indicative of global warming.
(n) phenomenon: (any state or process known through the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning)
Like the complete idiot who assumed that atmospheric CO2 is indicative of global warming.
QUOTE (Guest_observer+Oct 18 2009, 06:40 PM)
Like the complete idiot who assumed that atmospheric CO2 is indicative of global warming.
There are so many things wrong with that sentence I don't know where to begin.
There are so many things wrong with that sentence I don't know where to begin.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 18 2009, 09:56 PM)
bukh,
Please explain what you are trying to accomplish by posting here. If what you have just stated is true, your thoughts would be better suited to a private journal or blog. What value can anyone else obtain from your writings if they are not based on fact?
fbm - oh my dear - you are in your full right to be disappointed - having thought that I was scientific and now suddenly realize that it is all fake-science.
Please explain what you are trying to accomplish by posting here. If what you have just stated is true, your thoughts would be better suited to a private journal or blog. What value can anyone else obtain from your writings if they are not based on fact?
fbm - oh my dear - you are in your full right to be disappointed - having thought that I was scientific and now suddenly realize that it is all fake-science.
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 18 2009, 07:06 PM)
fbm - oh my dear - you are in your full right to be disappointed - having thought that I was scientific and now suddenly realize that it is all fake-science.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not disappointed. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the reason why you are here.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not disappointed. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the reason why you are here.
Hi all haven’t posted in a while and I’m glad to see that you’re all still interested in this topic. So for anyone that’s curious about how their posts have influenced the decision of a person seeking knowledge on this subject. Here’s my conclusion from all the data presented to me in the post.
1: The environment changes
2: The reason for the environment change is inconclusive (we know how it’s happening, just not why its happening)
3: Environmentalism issues: are often used as a tool for a second agendas (on both sides)
4: Environmentalism: is about stopping environmental change (not returning it to its natural course)
So I’ve come to believe in “change”, not global warming. I can agree that the earth’s environment is going to change one day and it will happen no matter what we do, unless we created a machine that can act against all the forces of nature. This is why I believe we need “A weather machine”, like something out of a science fiction book. If we start now we can install all the towers, filters, and chemical release stacks we need to terraform our planet. What do you think? If we spent all our money, research, and efforts that we are currently spending on environmentalism into a terraforming machine, we could actually solve this problem.
Side note:
I don’t know why with this global problem that we seek to hold back our science and industry, blaming it as the source of our problem, rather than looking to it for solutions. It seems to me like a lot of people really have a problem with capitalism, which I’m all for a change in that department too. For all those people I have to say that this idea of mixing all your agendas together is making it hard to take any topic seriously.
1: The environment changes
2: The reason for the environment change is inconclusive (we know how it’s happening, just not why its happening)
3: Environmentalism issues: are often used as a tool for a second agendas (on both sides)
4: Environmentalism: is about stopping environmental change (not returning it to its natural course)
So I’ve come to believe in “change”, not global warming. I can agree that the earth’s environment is going to change one day and it will happen no matter what we do, unless we created a machine that can act against all the forces of nature. This is why I believe we need “A weather machine”, like something out of a science fiction book. If we start now we can install all the towers, filters, and chemical release stacks we need to terraform our planet. What do you think? If we spent all our money, research, and efforts that we are currently spending on environmentalism into a terraforming machine, we could actually solve this problem.
Side note:
I don’t know why with this global problem that we seek to hold back our science and industry, blaming it as the source of our problem, rather than looking to it for solutions. It seems to me like a lot of people really have a problem with capitalism, which I’m all for a change in that department too. For all those people I have to say that this idea of mixing all your agendas together is making it hard to take any topic seriously.
Thanks for the reply Good Elf, your post is spot on on the situation here.
Hi All,
I know that there is no certainty about the "push factors" involved with Global Climate Change but the Scientific Consensus is still there are far too many people on the surface of our planet. Nothing in nature can grow exponentially forever when limited to a finite resource. The human population, for all our attempts to do otherwise, still grows at an exponential rate. The earth is a finite resource and regardless of any fact about our future climate the real problem is the earth is becoming a monoculture composed of the human population and systems we are putting in place to sustain us. These systems are devastating and destructive to the natural environment under which humans evolved. We are reducing it's diversity and it's overall life sustaining capacity daily through massive and unrestrained land clearing. This factor alone will change the way the heat balance of the earth operates. Forests cool the planet while cleared fields are a "hot plain" where natural rain divert around.
Most of the negative features we are witnessing are not specifically related to "just" increasing temperatures or the levels CO2 in the atmosphere but we are involved in a process of increasing desertification of the habitable part of the surface of the planet. These processes have worked in the past wiping out many ancient civilizations and are still working to this day but in a world with vastly more people intensively applying themselves to acts of destruction that will cut off their own future progeny's ability to thrive. We are all "future eaters" acting in many respects like a slow moving plague on the surface of the earth.
Historically speaking the earth's atmosphere is being slowly depleted of usable oxygen. Oxygen becomes locked up in CO2 and in other compounds through "oxidation". Burning things is a form of "oxidation"... like burning coal and oil amongst other things like forests... they can be equal contributors. Fossil carbon is a real problem since it is a fuel that is not in balance with the other atmospheric processes. If for everything that was burned an equivalent amount of organic fixed carbon was produced (a tree for instance).... there would be no global problem today. When we lock away oxygen in the form of CO2 there is usually no balancing source in nature producing oxygen from additional "fossil oxygen". The sources of atmospheric oxygen are largely fixed.
Unless we put back what was lost "things" may eventually become depleted as CO2 increases. A known feature of global warming is increased bacterial activity in soils reducing the humus to inorganic minerals and allowing the soils to become a friable dust and blow away... just like in Australia and other places on earth. An overall figure of 21% used to be the norm for atmospheric oxygen ... today around some cities and some places on earth where humans gather in their millions the figure has dropped to just 16%. This can't be good for human health. Add to this the increasing CO2 in cities and these two must have a multiplier factor.
The great jungles of the world such as those in Africa, Asia and in South America... the 'lungs of the world"... are being systematically cleared using slash and burn technology to gain just a few short years of agricultural productivity and then these opportunists must move on to slash and burn even more... the ground they soon leave behind is some of the most infertile soil on earth because what they burned was all the nutrient that was ever there in the form of mulch and leaf litter.
As clouds of noxious gases gather over our cities the planet is being subjected to Global Dimming. This reduces the available sunlight at ground level which is used to increase the yield of crops (paradoxically along with the increased CO2 levels). If we were to suddenly stop polluting we could clear away the Global Dimming and we would be subject to "Global Brightening" where the atmosphere became far more transparent where the surface of the earth would then suddenly absorb far more energy from the direct rays of the sun. The heat balance of the surface of the earth relies on a goodly portion being reflected back into space... the surface must retain a high degree of reflectivity and much of it remaining snow covered for a significant portion of the year... As the albedo of our planet increases due to the receding snowline we will retain more of this radiant heat. We already know this will cause Global Temperatures to rise dramatically... we know this as a result of the effects seen during the sudden cessation of airline carriers spraying their aerosols into the upper atmosphere over the US subsequent to the 9/11 event. We would literally "cook our own goose" if we tampered stupidly with these delicate balancing factors. What we probably "know" is we do not know enough to favorably tamper with world environments... It might take several generations before we could be confident enough to tamper with the only "lifeboat for humanity" that we know exists.
There is only one sure factor that we can alter and we can know would have a positive effect on the climate of the earth and on the fertility of our soils and would increase the bounty in the seas... That is reduce the number of humans on the surface of the earth and thereby reducing our need to cover the globe with ceaseless economic activity not in the general interest of human need. I do not want to put this in a way that people think I am asking for some kind of 'genocide" of the bulk of humanity but we can certainly affect this abnormal growth curve and bring it under control very quickly with methods we know are safe and humane. Let individuals decide what is right but given a brighter outlook for their futures. Humans are privileged to be here and we do not have a right to do anything in nature... look at the natural order of things ... there is no fairness and there is no mercy. Only humans can show these traits and we need them more than ever before. The question to ask is what can possibly induce people to be less sexually productive?
The main problem is people do not like these kind of measures and the burden of pain is usually thrust on poorer peoples and nations to make all the sacrifices while rich nations would reap all the benefits. There is just one hope and it is in general prosperity brought about through a more intense emphasis on our knowledge and general education. All highly educated nations who are not driven by religious imperatives to be insanely productive have leveled their population growth curves and in many cases reversed them and any growth today in most of these affluent nations is due to immigration from poorer and less well educated nations whose instincts are still to have disproportionately large families. Personal security is clearly the problem in poor nations and also a factor even in rich nations. In North Africa the mortality rate is around 60% due to famine and war. The security of couples is in their offspring... so they have a large number. Human greed and meanness does not lead to a better world... on the contrary it leads to a world where the resources will be taken from the majority and hoarded by those who currently hold all these resources for their own personal benefit.
Cheers
I know that there is no certainty about the "push factors" involved with Global Climate Change but the Scientific Consensus is still there are far too many people on the surface of our planet. Nothing in nature can grow exponentially forever when limited to a finite resource. The human population, for all our attempts to do otherwise, still grows at an exponential rate. The earth is a finite resource and regardless of any fact about our future climate the real problem is the earth is becoming a monoculture composed of the human population and systems we are putting in place to sustain us. These systems are devastating and destructive to the natural environment under which humans evolved. We are reducing it's diversity and it's overall life sustaining capacity daily through massive and unrestrained land clearing. This factor alone will change the way the heat balance of the earth operates. Forests cool the planet while cleared fields are a "hot plain" where natural rain divert around.
Most of the negative features we are witnessing are not specifically related to "just" increasing temperatures or the levels CO2 in the atmosphere but we are involved in a process of increasing desertification of the habitable part of the surface of the planet. These processes have worked in the past wiping out many ancient civilizations and are still working to this day but in a world with vastly more people intensively applying themselves to acts of destruction that will cut off their own future progeny's ability to thrive. We are all "future eaters" acting in many respects like a slow moving plague on the surface of the earth.
Historically speaking the earth's atmosphere is being slowly depleted of usable oxygen. Oxygen becomes locked up in CO2 and in other compounds through "oxidation". Burning things is a form of "oxidation"... like burning coal and oil amongst other things like forests... they can be equal contributors. Fossil carbon is a real problem since it is a fuel that is not in balance with the other atmospheric processes. If for everything that was burned an equivalent amount of organic fixed carbon was produced (a tree for instance).... there would be no global problem today. When we lock away oxygen in the form of CO2 there is usually no balancing source in nature producing oxygen from additional "fossil oxygen". The sources of atmospheric oxygen are largely fixed.
Unless we put back what was lost "things" may eventually become depleted as CO2 increases. A known feature of global warming is increased bacterial activity in soils reducing the humus to inorganic minerals and allowing the soils to become a friable dust and blow away... just like in Australia and other places on earth. An overall figure of 21% used to be the norm for atmospheric oxygen ... today around some cities and some places on earth where humans gather in their millions the figure has dropped to just 16%. This can't be good for human health. Add to this the increasing CO2 in cities and these two must have a multiplier factor.
The great jungles of the world such as those in Africa, Asia and in South America... the 'lungs of the world"... are being systematically cleared using slash and burn technology to gain just a few short years of agricultural productivity and then these opportunists must move on to slash and burn even more... the ground they soon leave behind is some of the most infertile soil on earth because what they burned was all the nutrient that was ever there in the form of mulch and leaf litter.
As clouds of noxious gases gather over our cities the planet is being subjected to Global Dimming. This reduces the available sunlight at ground level which is used to increase the yield of crops (paradoxically along with the increased CO2 levels). If we were to suddenly stop polluting we could clear away the Global Dimming and we would be subject to "Global Brightening" where the atmosphere became far more transparent where the surface of the earth would then suddenly absorb far more energy from the direct rays of the sun. The heat balance of the surface of the earth relies on a goodly portion being reflected back into space... the surface must retain a high degree of reflectivity and much of it remaining snow covered for a significant portion of the year... As the albedo of our planet increases due to the receding snowline we will retain more of this radiant heat. We already know this will cause Global Temperatures to rise dramatically... we know this as a result of the effects seen during the sudden cessation of airline carriers spraying their aerosols into the upper atmosphere over the US subsequent to the 9/11 event. We would literally "cook our own goose" if we tampered stupidly with these delicate balancing factors. What we probably "know" is we do not know enough to favorably tamper with world environments... It might take several generations before we could be confident enough to tamper with the only "lifeboat for humanity" that we know exists.
There is only one sure factor that we can alter and we can know would have a positive effect on the climate of the earth and on the fertility of our soils and would increase the bounty in the seas... That is reduce the number of humans on the surface of the earth and thereby reducing our need to cover the globe with ceaseless economic activity not in the general interest of human need. I do not want to put this in a way that people think I am asking for some kind of 'genocide" of the bulk of humanity but we can certainly affect this abnormal growth curve and bring it under control very quickly with methods we know are safe and humane. Let individuals decide what is right but given a brighter outlook for their futures. Humans are privileged to be here and we do not have a right to do anything in nature... look at the natural order of things ... there is no fairness and there is no mercy. Only humans can show these traits and we need them more than ever before. The question to ask is what can possibly induce people to be less sexually productive?
The main problem is people do not like these kind of measures and the burden of pain is usually thrust on poorer peoples and nations to make all the sacrifices while rich nations would reap all the benefits. There is just one hope and it is in general prosperity brought about through a more intense emphasis on our knowledge and general education. All highly educated nations who are not driven by religious imperatives to be insanely productive have leveled their population growth curves and in many cases reversed them and any growth today in most of these affluent nations is due to immigration from poorer and less well educated nations whose instincts are still to have disproportionately large families. Personal security is clearly the problem in poor nations and also a factor even in rich nations. In North Africa the mortality rate is around 60% due to famine and war. The security of couples is in their offspring... so they have a large number. Human greed and meanness does not lead to a better world... on the contrary it leads to a world where the resources will be taken from the majority and hoarded by those who currently hold all these resources for their own personal benefit.
Cheers
The signs are clear: the melting of Arctic by 40 to 45% and melting in Anctartic by 10% to 15% have everything to do with the super-typhoons at the inter tropical convergence zones in the tropic zone. what causes the melting is also clear: Heat, global warming.
The cold winds from the Arctic and the cold winds from the Anctartic move upward to the tropic zone where both winds collide and sweep upward and meet the warm thick layer of cloud of troposphere, caused by global warming. The results are, not ordinary typhoons, but super-typhoons in the inter-tropical convergence zone..
Thus, it is still being debated, global warming is here. causing climate change. It is becoming clear that global warming and climate change are being caused by human and activities substantially, though to some extent, the sun is warming up too to some degree
Life expectancy is growing in virtually all the countries on the planet (places where AIDs is very high is the only real exception to this).
Quality of life is improving in virtually all the countries of the planet.
In most of the industrial world the quality of the environment is better now, than any time in the last 100 years.
Renewed use of DDT in Asia and Africa is once again halting the scourage that is Malaria. (In 2006 the DDT ban was lifted by the WHO after 30 years of arrogant stupidity: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215084,00.html )
There are fewer hungry people now (percent basis) than any time in recent memory.
As electrical energy is expanded to more and more people, the situation just continues to improve.
Significantly lower cost PV panels will accelerate this to underservered rural areas over the next several decades and cause a huge change in the quality of their lives and education. It's amazing what a few lightbulbs, a small refigerator and a small satellite tv can do to improve the quality of life.
As to the planet, the current climate has caused the Terrestrial Net Primary Productivity of the planet to increase at a rate of about 3% per decade by making conditions MORE FAVORABLE for plant growth on a GLOBAL SCALE.
This is A STUNNING amount of greening of the planet.
Why?
Because plants LOVE Warmth, Sunshine, Water and CO2.
From the NASA study:
Our results indicate that global changes in climate have eased several critical climatic constraints to plant growth, such that net primary production increased 6% (3.4 petagrams of carbon over 18 years) globally. The largest increase was in tropical ecosystems. Amazon rain forests accounted for 42% of the global increase in net primary production, owing mainly to decreased cloud cover and the resulting increase in solar radiation.
Importantly, increasing incident solar radiation was evident over radiation-limited regions of Western Europe and the equatorial tropics.
Most of the observed climatic changes have been in the direction of reducing climatic constraints to plant growth.
http://secure.ntsg.umt.edu/publications/20...nceJune6-03.pdf
Arthur
Quality of life is improving in virtually all the countries of the planet.
In most of the industrial world the quality of the environment is better now, than any time in the last 100 years.
Renewed use of DDT in Asia and Africa is once again halting the scourage that is Malaria. (In 2006 the DDT ban was lifted by the WHO after 30 years of arrogant stupidity: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215084,00.html )
There are fewer hungry people now (percent basis) than any time in recent memory.
As electrical energy is expanded to more and more people, the situation just continues to improve.
Significantly lower cost PV panels will accelerate this to underservered rural areas over the next several decades and cause a huge change in the quality of their lives and education. It's amazing what a few lightbulbs, a small refigerator and a small satellite tv can do to improve the quality of life.
As to the planet, the current climate has caused the Terrestrial Net Primary Productivity of the planet to increase at a rate of about 3% per decade by making conditions MORE FAVORABLE for plant growth on a GLOBAL SCALE.
This is A STUNNING amount of greening of the planet.
Why?
Because plants LOVE Warmth, Sunshine, Water and CO2.
From the NASA study:
Our results indicate that global changes in climate have eased several critical climatic constraints to plant growth, such that net primary production increased 6% (3.4 petagrams of carbon over 18 years) globally. The largest increase was in tropical ecosystems. Amazon rain forests accounted for 42% of the global increase in net primary production, owing mainly to decreased cloud cover and the resulting increase in solar radiation.
Importantly, increasing incident solar radiation was evident over radiation-limited regions of Western Europe and the equatorial tropics.
Most of the observed climatic changes have been in the direction of reducing climatic constraints to plant growth.
http://secure.ntsg.umt.edu/publications/20...nceJune6-03.pdf
Arthur
Fair enough, but i want to know how will the carbon emmision trading scheme affect the immediate area that you live in? What sort of an effect will it have on you? What sort of effect do you think it will have on you?
Hi adoucette, Matador et al,
I've read an interesting MacLean's Magazine article that talked about climate change and global warming. It states how many of those in the field are looking at the sun for the change. That the sun's output is the highest it's ever been.
I remember it saying something about how the sun's output will fluctuate (cycle really) and that the increase in CO2 is not from us (which is why I quoted the above because the article said something of that sort). Ice core samples that show pollution levels and CO2 levels over the course of history show a cycle although they are at their highest today. However they are linking it to the cycle of the sun and that the increase in CO2 and pollutants are a result of increases in the Earth's temp rather than the other way around.
Basically it stated that the Sun's output increases, the planet heats up, more CO2 and pollutants are generated because of it.
I've read an interesting MacLean's Magazine article that talked about climate change and global warming. It states how many of those in the field are looking at the sun for the change. That the sun's output is the highest it's ever been.
I remember it saying something about how the sun's output will fluctuate (cycle really) and that the increase in CO2 is not from us (which is why I quoted the above because the article said something of that sort). Ice core samples that show pollution levels and CO2 levels over the course of history show a cycle although they are at their highest today. However they are linking it to the cycle of the sun and that the increase in CO2 and pollutants are a result of increases in the Earth's temp rather than the other way around.
Basically it stated that the Sun's output increases, the planet heats up, more CO2 and pollutants are generated because of it.
Fair enough, but i want to know how will the carbon emmision trading scheme affect the immediate area that you live in? What sort of an effect will it have on you? What sort of effect do you think it will have on you?
Are you talking where if one business doesn't meet their limit on the annual pollution they can produce, they can sell it off to another business so that they can produce more than what they are annually entitled to?
If so then this effects those who live in the area greatly. CO2 may be 3% human caused but smog and other pollutions do exist where we are THE cause. So when some company half way across the country sells what they have left over to some other company it only makes worse any pollution problem at that location making it that much unhealthier for people to live in that area.
QUOTE (Matador+)
Fair enough, but i want to know how will the carbon emmision trading scheme affect the immediate area that you live in? What sort of an effect will it have on you? What sort of effect do you think it will have on you?
I think that is a very fair question but I have seen adoucette in action before. This is how he gets his "jollies" putting down the legitimate scientific opinion and preferring to emphasize the louder voice of "self interest". Scientists do not "scream loud enough" and speak with too small a voice... It is their way and they can be drowned out by "bully boy" tactics. It happened in Germany before World War II and it is all happening again. There is no doubt that unfortunately a carbon emissions trading scheme is going to hurt people and the money in the hands of politicians will be spent very unwisely. I have serious misgivings about all that. I have no answers to the problems of human nature. This is the result of getting what we deserve rather than getting what we want.... I am truly sorry about that. I know that is not going to help this discussion but we need to be honest about the intents of politicians and the needs of the people being in diametrically opposed directions.
Adoucette... We meet again on this subject... Unfortunately I am about to go on annual leave and I will not be pursuing this for long and others must learn to think for themselves rather than accept this simple and sometimes convincing propaganda dished up as if it was the whole truth. I want to say that I respect your opinion but I must rail against this patently false argument based on appealing to these "straw man distractions" from the real core issues. Using old News clippings is not convincing to me. As I have said above the media outlets are unworthy of being suppliers of any information at all because of the way they treat scientific information. They are not here to "educate" but to "proselytize"... Media "Giants" and politicians are in the same general business and "strut their stuff" to influence opinion for their own fiscal benefit. This article on DDT is simply opinion dished up as an appeal to an unknown pompous "authority"... a common fallacy and cheap trick used by debaters but banned in scientific circles. This stuff wouldn't get past a respected journal's peer review process... red ink would be splashed everywhere.
The media's intent is not to clarify scientific debate but to polarize and politicize issues and thereby create alarm and confusion. Some cub reporter in a backroom in the Fox Network probably was laughing his or her head off at the inside joke that is being carried off right in front of everyone. An uneducated opinion is still just an opinion no matter how it is dressed up to look. Crying "foul" that corporate criminals were sent to jail based on this misinterpretation of the intent of the lifting of the ban on the chemical is a "linguistic trick". The use of DDT, which was only banned in the US and some other developed countries like Australia, had become nearly ineffective on the primary insect (mosquito) that had long since grown immune to it's effect. The effects on native wildlife especially birds is well known and scientifically proven not to mention it's effect on the natural food chain in general where it killed "everything" by depleting all sources of insect food-stocks for prey for the other species. It's true influence will never be adequately assessed. Wherever it was used is very persistent in the environment with a half life of up to 30 years further killing in the soil and in the watercourses it leeched into eradicating benevolent species with the "noxious". DDT was a blunt tool that indiscriminately wiped out all insect species wherever it was used turning natural habitats into dead silent woods and streams. Yes it did save many people at first in mostly third world countries but it was greatly overused and is still overused to this day... unabated.
Wikipedia: DDT
Their end interest of Media Outlets such as Fox is only to sell more copy. Science is not motivating them... it is the almighty dollar and they really do not care what will happen to you or to me or to the hungry parts of the world where food production is rapidly falling. As previously... what is your motive except to try and confuse the underlying arguments and laughing at the fools we mere mortals can be?
The issues have not changed and the overwhelming weight of the scientific argument is solidly behind a very negative interpretation to outcomes related to Global Warming much more now than ever before. It is even more imperative today than even a couple of short years ago since the evidence has stacked up a lot faster than it was ever thought it would. Like the arguments supporting the plain facts regarding smoking and it's link to lung cancer... it is never possible to convince anyone who brings their self interest and prejudice to this problem rather than see this as a real threat to the survival of most of the world's ecology and perhaps even of the peoples of the world.
The second article you refer to on World Food Production is referring to data that is even much older again. The argument about Global Climate Change is not about single issues as you so cleverly zero in on using stale contributions to the subject on the side issue of what was happening in some places at that time in the past... the real issue is about the future... Unfortunately neither you or I can foretell exactly what that may bring but if you asked the bulk of the scientists of the world there is a very dark underbelly to the otherwise comic emphasis you seem to think befits this serious issue. That paper emphasizes the net primary production and says nothing about net global loss of land cover through land clearing. Without that prejudice the sums would not add up... Losses exceed gains but profits are up.
To emphasize simple profit over sustainable ecology shows the nature of your argument and betrays an unspoken hidden self interest. What you didn't say was the paper you referred to does not deny the basic facts about Global Climate Change but virtually says "... look at all this wealth we have produced". Sure.... increased CO2 and Global Warming does initially help plant growth but mass clearing most certainly does not if slash and burn activity in the Amazon Basin and elsewhere "helps" increase overall production using the firestick to clear regions which were formerly able to sustain huge natural jungles. Scientists mostly agree that the negative effects of Global Climate Change takes decades to show their "true colors" but you can be assured that when it does it will be far too late to change the ominous direction of our collective fate.
I could start to troop out the thousands of articles that have been published since our last discussions but it still would not mean anything since all your interest in this topic is concentrated in creating simple doubt and confusion using the "money trail" to lead people away from the central debate.... We must all assume that if that was your "best shot" then I can summarize your point of view easily... The argument you have expressed above reflect this one core opinion.....
They might be Giants
... I think that says it all.
Cheers
Adoucette... We meet again on this subject... Unfortunately I am about to go on annual leave and I will not be pursuing this for long and others must learn to think for themselves rather than accept this simple and sometimes convincing propaganda dished up as if it was the whole truth. I want to say that I respect your opinion but I must rail against this patently false argument based on appealing to these "straw man distractions" from the real core issues. Using old News clippings is not convincing to me. As I have said above the media outlets are unworthy of being suppliers of any information at all because of the way they treat scientific information. They are not here to "educate" but to "proselytize"... Media "Giants" and politicians are in the same general business and "strut their stuff" to influence opinion for their own fiscal benefit. This article on DDT is simply opinion dished up as an appeal to an unknown pompous "authority"... a common fallacy and cheap trick used by debaters but banned in scientific circles. This stuff wouldn't get past a respected journal's peer review process... red ink would be splashed everywhere.
The media's intent is not to clarify scientific debate but to polarize and politicize issues and thereby create alarm and confusion. Some cub reporter in a backroom in the Fox Network probably was laughing his or her head off at the inside joke that is being carried off right in front of everyone. An uneducated opinion is still just an opinion no matter how it is dressed up to look. Crying "foul" that corporate criminals were sent to jail based on this misinterpretation of the intent of the lifting of the ban on the chemical is a "linguistic trick". The use of DDT, which was only banned in the US and some other developed countries like Australia, had become nearly ineffective on the primary insect (mosquito) that had long since grown immune to it's effect. The effects on native wildlife especially birds is well known and scientifically proven not to mention it's effect on the natural food chain in general where it killed "everything" by depleting all sources of insect food-stocks for prey for the other species. It's true influence will never be adequately assessed. Wherever it was used is very persistent in the environment with a half life of up to 30 years further killing in the soil and in the watercourses it leeched into eradicating benevolent species with the "noxious". DDT was a blunt tool that indiscriminately wiped out all insect species wherever it was used turning natural habitats into dead silent woods and streams. Yes it did save many people at first in mostly third world countries but it was greatly overused and is still overused to this day... unabated.
Wikipedia: DDT
Their end interest of Media Outlets such as Fox is only to sell more copy. Science is not motivating them... it is the almighty dollar and they really do not care what will happen to you or to me or to the hungry parts of the world where food production is rapidly falling. As previously... what is your motive except to try and confuse the underlying arguments and laughing at the fools we mere mortals can be?
The issues have not changed and the overwhelming weight of the scientific argument is solidly behind a very negative interpretation to outcomes related to Global Warming much more now than ever before. It is even more imperative today than even a couple of short years ago since the evidence has stacked up a lot faster than it was ever thought it would. Like the arguments supporting the plain facts regarding smoking and it's link to lung cancer... it is never possible to convince anyone who brings their self interest and prejudice to this problem rather than see this as a real threat to the survival of most of the world's ecology and perhaps even of the peoples of the world.
The second article you refer to on World Food Production is referring to data that is even much older again. The argument about Global Climate Change is not about single issues as you so cleverly zero in on using stale contributions to the subject on the side issue of what was happening in some places at that time in the past... the real issue is about the future... Unfortunately neither you or I can foretell exactly what that may bring but if you asked the bulk of the scientists of the world there is a very dark underbelly to the otherwise comic emphasis you seem to think befits this serious issue. That paper emphasizes the net primary production and says nothing about net global loss of land cover through land clearing. Without that prejudice the sums would not add up... Losses exceed gains but profits are up.
To emphasize simple profit over sustainable ecology shows the nature of your argument and betrays an unspoken hidden self interest. What you didn't say was the paper you referred to does not deny the basic facts about Global Climate Change but virtually says "... look at all this wealth we have produced". Sure.... increased CO2 and Global Warming does initially help plant growth but mass clearing most certainly does not if slash and burn activity in the Amazon Basin and elsewhere "helps" increase overall production using the firestick to clear regions which were formerly able to sustain huge natural jungles. Scientists mostly agree that the negative effects of Global Climate Change takes decades to show their "true colors" but you can be assured that when it does it will be far too late to change the ominous direction of our collective fate.
I could start to troop out the thousands of articles that have been published since our last discussions but it still would not mean anything since all your interest in this topic is concentrated in creating simple doubt and confusion using the "money trail" to lead people away from the central debate.... We must all assume that if that was your "best shot" then I can summarize your point of view easily... The argument you have expressed above reflect this one core opinion.....
They might be Giants
... I think that says it all.
Cheers
QUOTE
“Only 3% of the CO2 emitted every year is cause by humans” – John Charles president of cascade policy institute, and executive director for the Oregon environmental council for 17 years. Why would our carbon foot print matter?
I've read an interesting MacLean's Magazine article that talked about climate change and global warming. It states how many of those in the field are looking at the sun for the change. That the sun's output is the highest it's ever been.
I remember it saying something about how the sun's output will fluctuate (cycle really) and that the increase in CO2 is not from us (which is why I quoted the above because the article said something of that sort). Ice core samples that show pollution levels and CO2 levels over the course of history show a cycle although they are at their highest today. However they are linking it to the cycle of the sun and that the increase in CO2 and pollutants are a result of increases in the Earth's temp rather than the other way around.
Basically it stated that the Sun's output increases, the planet heats up, more CO2 and pollutants are generated because of it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “Only 3% of the CO2 emitted every year is cause by humans” – John Charles president of cascade policy institute, and executive director for the Oregon environmental council for 17 years. Why would our carbon foot print matter? |
I've read an interesting MacLean's Magazine article that talked about climate change and global warming. It states how many of those in the field are looking at the sun for the change. That the sun's output is the highest it's ever been.
I remember it saying something about how the sun's output will fluctuate (cycle really) and that the increase in CO2 is not from us (which is why I quoted the above because the article said something of that sort). Ice core samples that show pollution levels and CO2 levels over the course of history show a cycle although they are at their highest today. However they are linking it to the cycle of the sun and that the increase in CO2 and pollutants are a result of increases in the Earth's temp rather than the other way around.
Basically it stated that the Sun's output increases, the planet heats up, more CO2 and pollutants are generated because of it.
Fair enough, but i want to know how will the carbon emmision trading scheme affect the immediate area that you live in? What sort of an effect will it have on you? What sort of effect do you think it will have on you?
Are you talking where if one business doesn't meet their limit on the annual pollution they can produce, they can sell it off to another business so that they can produce more than what they are annually entitled to?
If so then this effects those who live in the area greatly. CO2 may be 3% human caused but smog and other pollutions do exist where we are THE cause. So when some company half way across the country sells what they have left over to some other company it only makes worse any pollution problem at that location making it that much unhealthier for people to live in that area.
http://www.grist.org/article/its-the-sun-stupid/
there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...-solar-forcing/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...st-few-decades/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...st-few-decades/
Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.
QUOTE
there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed. |
there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...-solar-forcing/
QUOTE
In summary, although solar forcing is real, the implications of that are often rather overstated. Since there has been a clear history of people fooling themselves about the importance of solar-climate links, any new studies in the field need to be considered very carefully before conclusions are drawn, especially with respect the warming over recent decades, which despite all of this discussion about solar activity, is almost all related to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...st-few-decades/
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In summary, although solar forcing is real, the implications of that are often rather overstated. Since there has been a clear history of people fooling themselves about the importance of solar-climate links, any new studies in the field need to be considered very carefully before conclusions are drawn, especially with respect the warming over recent decades, which despite all of this discussion about solar activity, is almost all related to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. |
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...st-few-decades/
Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.
I might have the mag still so I'll take a look. Did find some stuff on wiki that relates but doesn't explain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
Solar cycles
However here is another site that talks of it...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...rs-warming.html
Now in this it talks of one scientist. So I am probably wrong about saying that the MacLean's mag mentioned "many in the field".
However the site also gave a link to...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...al_warming.html
Still an interesting find.
However the following part of a statement...
Seem to imply an obvious observation had occurred.
Just wanted to add that the Scientist in the above mentioned is Habibullo Abdussamatov.
The reason being is because I also found this...
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/06/army-vs-global/
Which mentions Dr. Bruce West.
For your consideration:
The Copenhagen Climate Change Convention is the follow-on to the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol was established in 1997 to reduce the amount of CO2 emitted world-wide, which was then supposed to then lead to a reduction in the amount of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere.
Before moving on to a new convention,
perhaps we should look at the success of the Kyoto Protocol.
The Mona Loa observatory on top of a volcanic mountain on one of the Hawaiian Islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean is widely viewed as the best site for collection of atmospheric CO2 data. If you look at the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 1959 (as far back as the data goes) through 1997, it was increasing at an average rate of 1.26 parts per million (ppm) per year. If you look at the Mona Loa data for the 10 years ahead of the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol (1988 through 1997), atmospheric CO2 was increasing at an average rate of 1.45 ppm per year. If you then compare the 11 years during which the Kyoto Protocol was in effect so far (1998 through 2008), the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased at a rate of 1.97 ppm per year. Therefore, under the Kyoto Protocol the rate of increase in CO2 in the atmosphere was 56% higher than the entire period for which data is available before the Protocol and at a rate 40% higher than the 10-year period immediately preceding the Protocol.
Look at this graph of the Mona Loa CO2 data and try to make a case
that the Kyoto Protocol starting in 1997 did anything to reduce CO2
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html
Obviously the Kyoto Protocol was an abject failure.
Here are some possible reasons why:
1. The atmosphere only contains about 2% of the CO2 in the climate system. The oceans contain the other 98%. As the oceans heat up or cool down they drive off or absorb CO2, which is why Greenland and Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 changes FOLLOW temperature changes by about 800 years or longer. (The oceans are huge and the deep oceans are poorly mixed, so it takes long time to reach equilibrium). It is highly possible the oceans are still giving off CO2 dissolved during the Little Ice Age centered around 1700.
2. The amount of CO2 given off by humans is only about 5% of the amount given off by natural causes, such as biological decay and volcanoes. We really don’t know how much CO2 is being released and consumed because of natural causes and it is highly likely that natural variations overwhelm any small changes in human emissions.
3. Even if human produced CO2 is important in determining the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, the developing nations like China, India, and Brazil, which are rapidly increasing fossil fuel usage, did not have to reduce their CO2 emissions under the Kyoto Protocol and they won’t have to under the Copenhagen Accord either.
4. The countries which sighed on to the Kyoto Protocol hired lots of bureaucrats to implement the Protocol, who attended lots of conferences, had lots of meetings, drew up lots of plans and the countries passed lots of laws, but most failed to meet their Kyoto obligations. When it came right down to shutting down needed electric power plants or profitable factories and laying off thousands of workers the politicians made special arrangements to protect their constituents and special interest groups.
The Copenhagen Climate Change Convention is an example of liberal thinking...
Take an idea that clearly did not work in the past,
and do it some more... hoping for a better result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
QUOTE
Solar cycles
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Solar cycles Solar activity minima tend to be correlated with colder temperatures, and longer than average solar cycles tend to be correlated with hotter temperatures. In the 17th century, the solar cycle appears to have stopped entirely for several decades; very few sunspots were observed during this period. During this era, which is known as the Maunder minimum or Little Ice Age, Europe experienced very cold temperatures.[94] Earlier extended minima have been discovered through analysis of tree rings and also appear to have coincided with lower-than-average global temperatures |
However here is another site that talks of it...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...rs-warming.html
Now in this it talks of one scientist. So I am probably wrong about saying that the MacLean's mag mentioned "many in the field".
However the site also gave a link to...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...al_warming.html
Still an interesting find.
However the following part of a statement...
QUOTE
the increase in solar irradiance
Seem to imply an obvious observation had occurred.
Just wanted to add that the Scientist in the above mentioned is Habibullo Abdussamatov.
The reason being is because I also found this...
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/06/army-vs-global/
Which mentions Dr. Bruce West.
Bruce J. West is not doing physics -- he is using the tools of data analysis to grasp at straws, which is easier than science and has a long history.
Here is the opinion paper by West and another author Scafetta:
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf
It was then rebutted on facts by Duffy, Santer and Wigley:
http://tinyurl.com/duffyetal2009
So over the last 60 years, we have this situation:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/06/08/memo...ng-not-the-sun/
Here is the opinion paper by West and another author Scafetta:
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf
It was then rebutted on facts by Duffy, Santer and Wigley:
http://tinyurl.com/duffyetal2009
So over the last 60 years, we have this situation:
QUOTE
So, let’s look at the problem in the simplest possible terms:
1. The Earth’s temperature is rising.
2. Solar activity and [Greenhouse Gases] both force the climate system.
3. There is no trend in solar activity.
4. There is an upwards trend in greenhouse gas concentration.
Simple reasoning will point to the trending driver (GHG) over the non-trending driver (solar) being the culprit. For a solar explanation to work, you not only have to explain why a climate forcing agent would be exerting a directional effect of the climate system when it itself is NOT changing — you also have to explain how that stationary agent is also able to negate another climate forcing agent that IS changing.
1. The Earth’s temperature is rising.
2. Solar activity and [Greenhouse Gases] both force the climate system.
3. There is no trend in solar activity.
4. There is an upwards trend in greenhouse gas concentration.
Simple reasoning will point to the trending driver (GHG) over the non-trending driver (solar) being the culprit. For a solar explanation to work, you not only have to explain why a climate forcing agent would be exerting a directional effect of the climate system when it itself is NOT changing — you also have to explain how that stationary agent is also able to negate another climate forcing agent that IS changing.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/06/08/memo...ng-not-the-sun/
Not being a scientific realist, I am slightly more independent when theorizing popular controversies like global climate change. This means that I don't try to synthesize a variety of claims and arguments one way or the other. I just focus on what arguments COULD be made one way or the other and why. This is what I've come up with:
1) If global climate science is biased, it is by a scientific interest in finding significant results. Generally in science, insignificant results are ignored while significant results are celebrated, studied, and built upon. So to the extent that relative stability in the global climate is not a noteworthy finding, "scientists" would more likely to publish findings indicating significant data on change than insignificant ones that suggest relative stability. If this rather cynical hypothesis about the sociology of science is true, which I cannot claim, then the myriad evidence of global climate change would be a noteworthy art project. Of course now that so much political opposition has mounted against the Kyoto treaty and other measures to curb climate change, there would also be as much if not more interest to find insignificance in the data or data supporting climate stability.
2) If global mean temperature would be rising, my hypothesis is that this would result in shorter winters and cooler summers. Here's why: If forests thaw earlier, they begin rejuvenating earlier in the year. This means that more sunlight is shaded earlier and trees have a longer annual growth period, which makes summer cooler than it would be otherwise. More tree-cover = more shade. If true, this would suggest that global warming could eventually lead to the rainforestation of many regions of Earth, which makes sense from the point of view that nature tends to self-correct for changes in equilibrium. The increased forestation and shorter, milder winters would mean more plants to process the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. Now if you could only figure out whether the increase in plant biomass would utilize enough water to counteract the sea-level rise, that would be a big finding.
3) Politically I think the issue of GCC polarized around "cap and trade," the idea of a global policy to limit CO2 emissions and then tax excesses at the national governmental level by allowing governments with lower emissions to sell their emissions-rights to those who wanted to expel more CO2. My impression with this was that, while it would provide a financial incentive to reduce CO2 emissions, it would also allow nation-states that import what is produced elsewhere (i.e. so-called "post industrial" countries) to receive payments from the industrial countries that supply their imports. This would in effect blame exporting countries for the consumption that takes place in post-industrial regions, and require them to pay more to those who pay them to produce goods for export in the first place. Theoretically, this could increase demand for CO2 expensive goods, because it would increase the purchasing power of consumers in post-industrial countries. My opinion.
1) If global climate science is biased, it is by a scientific interest in finding significant results. Generally in science, insignificant results are ignored while significant results are celebrated, studied, and built upon. So to the extent that relative stability in the global climate is not a noteworthy finding, "scientists" would more likely to publish findings indicating significant data on change than insignificant ones that suggest relative stability. If this rather cynical hypothesis about the sociology of science is true, which I cannot claim, then the myriad evidence of global climate change would be a noteworthy art project. Of course now that so much political opposition has mounted against the Kyoto treaty and other measures to curb climate change, there would also be as much if not more interest to find insignificance in the data or data supporting climate stability.
2) If global mean temperature would be rising, my hypothesis is that this would result in shorter winters and cooler summers. Here's why: If forests thaw earlier, they begin rejuvenating earlier in the year. This means that more sunlight is shaded earlier and trees have a longer annual growth period, which makes summer cooler than it would be otherwise. More tree-cover = more shade. If true, this would suggest that global warming could eventually lead to the rainforestation of many regions of Earth, which makes sense from the point of view that nature tends to self-correct for changes in equilibrium. The increased forestation and shorter, milder winters would mean more plants to process the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. Now if you could only figure out whether the increase in plant biomass would utilize enough water to counteract the sea-level rise, that would be a big finding.
3) Politically I think the issue of GCC polarized around "cap and trade," the idea of a global policy to limit CO2 emissions and then tax excesses at the national governmental level by allowing governments with lower emissions to sell their emissions-rights to those who wanted to expel more CO2. My impression with this was that, while it would provide a financial incentive to reduce CO2 emissions, it would also allow nation-states that import what is produced elsewhere (i.e. so-called "post industrial" countries) to receive payments from the industrial countries that supply their imports. This would in effect blame exporting countries for the consumption that takes place in post-industrial regions, and require them to pay more to those who pay them to produce goods for export in the first place. Theoretically, this could increase demand for CO2 expensive goods, because it would increase the purchasing power of consumers in post-industrial countries. My opinion.
Let me share recent experience:
:
Is there global warming?
The recent unusual dumping of extra-heavy rainfall of typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng in Luzon, Philippines. can only be caused by uncanny dense concentration of rain-carrier clouds in the troposphere which may have even reached height of 30,000 ft.. Only HEAT could have caused evaporation of the Pacific Ocean and have accumulated in a new dimension of extra-dense cloud, such HEAT, sustained heat, can only be the making of global warming. This super-flooding typhoon, Ondoy, very much like Katrina, is a new dimension of climate change that can be expected, better to be prepared, in the future. .
Why these super-typhoons, hurricanes are becoming more frequent not only in the Philippines? (Now there is a back=up super-typhoon, Ramil). Global warming is the cause. The signs of global warming are omnibus: the progressive melting of icecaps at Arctic (at north pole) by 40-45% and melting of icecaps at Antarctic (at south pole) by 10%-14% are unmistakable.. Only HEAT, sustained warming of ice caps at these cold regions can cause such sustained melting and conversion into intensifying more cold atmosphere. The sustained heat-melting causes atmosphere thereat create a new dimension, re- more dense, more cold atmosphere that crawls upward into the Intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ). where the cold air from Arctic and Anctartic converge, such ITCZ, the nursery of typhoons. and create typhoons.. How do the sustained dense clouds in the tropic region, in the Pacific Ocean, develops, that must have turned into massive, dense cloud that may have reached 30,000 ft. in height? Also, sustained HEAT during this summer, going to September, October, (the (\converging season of cold winds from Arctic and Antarctic) could massively evaporate surface of Pacific Ocean to durable, accelerating clouds making..
What are the causes of global warming? It is more clear that human and his activities, (surprising even to himself that he can change planet earth), can cause global warming. Continued belching of C02 into the atmosphere that has increased by 40% since industrial revolution, 200 years ago, is the most noticeable change in the atmosphere of planet earth, that deflect, bouncing sunlight back to earth is the obvious principal culprit of temperature raise of earth (by 1%-2%, more or less), the balding of forests, conversion of land to metropolis, wildfires, volcanoes eruptions, and continued overpopulation, all of these are causing global warming. The sun is also contributory. The sun is warming up, as evidenced by the melting of icecaps in Mars, Pluto, and other planets. Al Gore and other climate change organizations, globally, are exerting tangible efforts and concrete results.
Because global warming which causes climate change creates new dimensions, super-flooding, like Ondoy, Katrina, it is equally necessary to have satellites that not only can measure speed of super-typhoons or hurricanes but satellites, with X-ray and micro-wave imaging to see through and dissect rain-forming clouds, re-thickness, capacity of rainfall, so that such info can be relayed ahead, warn, what to expect, and to be prepared, of the potential rainfall such developing super-typhoon is carrying on its back…so that the havoc of Katrina, Ondoy, and Pepeng will be at worst, at the minimum. .
Jsaldea12
10.221.09
.. .
:
Is there global warming?
The recent unusual dumping of extra-heavy rainfall of typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng in Luzon, Philippines. can only be caused by uncanny dense concentration of rain-carrier clouds in the troposphere which may have even reached height of 30,000 ft.. Only HEAT could have caused evaporation of the Pacific Ocean and have accumulated in a new dimension of extra-dense cloud, such HEAT, sustained heat, can only be the making of global warming. This super-flooding typhoon, Ondoy, very much like Katrina, is a new dimension of climate change that can be expected, better to be prepared, in the future. .
Why these super-typhoons, hurricanes are becoming more frequent not only in the Philippines? (Now there is a back=up super-typhoon, Ramil). Global warming is the cause. The signs of global warming are omnibus: the progressive melting of icecaps at Arctic (at north pole) by 40-45% and melting of icecaps at Antarctic (at south pole) by 10%-14% are unmistakable.. Only HEAT, sustained warming of ice caps at these cold regions can cause such sustained melting and conversion into intensifying more cold atmosphere. The sustained heat-melting causes atmosphere thereat create a new dimension, re- more dense, more cold atmosphere that crawls upward into the Intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ). where the cold air from Arctic and Anctartic converge, such ITCZ, the nursery of typhoons. and create typhoons.. How do the sustained dense clouds in the tropic region, in the Pacific Ocean, develops, that must have turned into massive, dense cloud that may have reached 30,000 ft. in height? Also, sustained HEAT during this summer, going to September, October, (the (\converging season of cold winds from Arctic and Antarctic) could massively evaporate surface of Pacific Ocean to durable, accelerating clouds making..
What are the causes of global warming? It is more clear that human and his activities, (surprising even to himself that he can change planet earth), can cause global warming. Continued belching of C02 into the atmosphere that has increased by 40% since industrial revolution, 200 years ago, is the most noticeable change in the atmosphere of planet earth, that deflect, bouncing sunlight back to earth is the obvious principal culprit of temperature raise of earth (by 1%-2%, more or less), the balding of forests, conversion of land to metropolis, wildfires, volcanoes eruptions, and continued overpopulation, all of these are causing global warming. The sun is also contributory. The sun is warming up, as evidenced by the melting of icecaps in Mars, Pluto, and other planets. Al Gore and other climate change organizations, globally, are exerting tangible efforts and concrete results.
Because global warming which causes climate change creates new dimensions, super-flooding, like Ondoy, Katrina, it is equally necessary to have satellites that not only can measure speed of super-typhoons or hurricanes but satellites, with X-ray and micro-wave imaging to see through and dissect rain-forming clouds, re-thickness, capacity of rainfall, so that such info can be relayed ahead, warn, what to expect, and to be prepared, of the potential rainfall such developing super-typhoon is carrying on its back…so that the havoc of Katrina, Ondoy, and Pepeng will be at worst, at the minimum. .
Jsaldea12
10.221.09
.. .
For your consideration:
The Copenhagen Climate Change Convention is the follow-on to the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol was established in 1997 to reduce the amount of CO2 emitted world-wide, which was then supposed to then lead to a reduction in the amount of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere.
Before moving on to a new convention,
perhaps we should look at the success of the Kyoto Protocol.
The Mona Loa observatory on top of a volcanic mountain on one of the Hawaiian Islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean is widely viewed as the best site for collection of atmospheric CO2 data. If you look at the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 1959 (as far back as the data goes) through 1997, it was increasing at an average rate of 1.26 parts per million (ppm) per year. If you look at the Mona Loa data for the 10 years ahead of the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol (1988 through 1997), atmospheric CO2 was increasing at an average rate of 1.45 ppm per year. If you then compare the 11 years during which the Kyoto Protocol was in effect so far (1998 through 2008), the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased at a rate of 1.97 ppm per year. Therefore, under the Kyoto Protocol the rate of increase in CO2 in the atmosphere was 56% higher than the entire period for which data is available before the Protocol and at a rate 40% higher than the 10-year period immediately preceding the Protocol.
Look at this graph of the Mona Loa CO2 data and try to make a case
that the Kyoto Protocol starting in 1997 did anything to reduce CO2
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html
Obviously the Kyoto Protocol was an abject failure.
Here are some possible reasons why:
1. The atmosphere only contains about 2% of the CO2 in the climate system. The oceans contain the other 98%. As the oceans heat up or cool down they drive off or absorb CO2, which is why Greenland and Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 changes FOLLOW temperature changes by about 800 years or longer. (The oceans are huge and the deep oceans are poorly mixed, so it takes long time to reach equilibrium). It is highly possible the oceans are still giving off CO2 dissolved during the Little Ice Age centered around 1700.
2. The amount of CO2 given off by humans is only about 5% of the amount given off by natural causes, such as biological decay and volcanoes. We really don’t know how much CO2 is being released and consumed because of natural causes and it is highly likely that natural variations overwhelm any small changes in human emissions.
3. Even if human produced CO2 is important in determining the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, the developing nations like China, India, and Brazil, which are rapidly increasing fossil fuel usage, did not have to reduce their CO2 emissions under the Kyoto Protocol and they won’t have to under the Copenhagen Accord either.
4. The countries which sighed on to the Kyoto Protocol hired lots of bureaucrats to implement the Protocol, who attended lots of conferences, had lots of meetings, drew up lots of plans and the countries passed lots of laws, but most failed to meet their Kyoto obligations. When it came right down to shutting down needed electric power plants or profitable factories and laying off thousands of workers the politicians made special arrangements to protect their constituents and special interest groups.
The Copenhagen Climate Change Convention is an example of liberal thinking...
Take an idea that clearly did not work in the past,
and do it some more... hoping for a better result.
QUOTE (conklin+Oct 22 2009, 12:46 PM)
For your consideration:
The Copenhagen Climate Change Convention is the follow-on to the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol was established in 1997 to reduce the amount of CO2 emitted world-wide, which was then supposed to then lead to a reduction in the amount of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere.
Before moving on to a new convention,
perhaps we should look at the success of the Kyoto Protocol.
The Mona Loa observatory on top of a volcanic mountain on one of the Hawaiian Islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean is widely viewed as the best site for collection of atmospheric CO2 data. If you look at the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 1959 (as far back as the data goes) through 1997, it was increasing at an average rate of 1.26 parts per million (ppm) per year. If you look at the Mona Loa data for the 10 years ahead of the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol (1988 through 1997), atmospheric CO2 was increasing at an average rate of 1.45 ppm per year. If you then compare the 11 years during which the Kyoto Protocol was in effect so far (1998 through 2008), the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased at a rate of 1.97 ppm per year. Therefore, under the Kyoto Protocol the rate of increase in CO2 in the atmosphere was 56% higher than the entire period for which data is available before the Protocol and at a rate 40% higher than the 10-year period immediately preceding the Protocol.
Look at this graph of the Mona Loa CO2 data and try to make a case
that the Kyoto Protocol starting in 1997 did anything to reduce CO2
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html
Obviously the Kyoto Protocol was an abject failure.
Here are some possible reasons why:
1. The atmosphere only contains about 2% of the CO2 in the climate system. The oceans contain the other 98%. As the oceans heat up or cool down they drive off or absorb CO2, which is why Greenland and Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 changes FOLLOW temperature changes by about 800 years or longer. (The oceans are huge and the deep oceans are poorly mixed, so it takes long time to reach equilibrium). It is highly possible the oceans are still giving off CO2 dissolved during the Little Ice Age centered around 1700.
2. The amount of CO2 given off by humans is only about 5% of the amount given off by natural causes, such as biological decay and volcanoes. We really don’t know how much CO2 is being released and consumed because of natural causes and it is highly likely that natural variations overwhelm any small changes in human emissions.
3. Even if human produced CO2 is important in determining the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, the developing nations like China, India, and Brazil, which are rapidly increasing fossil fuel usage, did not have to reduce their CO2 emissions under the Kyoto Protocol and they won’t have to under the Copenhagen Accord either.
4. The countries which sighed on to the Kyoto Protocol hired lots of bureaucrats to implement the Protocol, who attended lots of conferences, had lots of meetings, drew up lots of plans and the countries passed lots of laws, but most failed to meet their Kyoto obligations. When it came right down to shutting down needed electric power plants or profitable factories and laying off thousands of workers the politicians made special arrangements to protect their constituents and special interest groups.
The Copenhagen Climate Change Convention is an example of liberal thinking...
Take an idea that clearly did not work in the past,
and do it some more... hoping for a better result.
I think a more effective approach would utilize free market incentives to stimulate conversion to lower CO2 emitting cultural and industrial practices. If governments and private initiatives want to support CO2-reducing industrial measures, they should stimulate research to innovate industrial processes. Such innovations may include technologies and products that replace high-polluting ones. Those products, service, and technologies that cannot be replaced may be reduced by increasing fuel prices, as global fossil-fuel scarcity increases (fossil fuels are non-renewable so they will run out eventually and then you won't have to worry about any more CO2 being emitted by burning them - although there will be other issues to worry about).
Some people want government to control culture for them, but people are actually capable of controlling their actions themselves, even though they like to make excuses and claim they will do it when government makes them.
The Copenhagen Climate Change Convention is the follow-on to the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol was established in 1997 to reduce the amount of CO2 emitted world-wide, which was then supposed to then lead to a reduction in the amount of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere.
Before moving on to a new convention,
perhaps we should look at the success of the Kyoto Protocol.
The Mona Loa observatory on top of a volcanic mountain on one of the Hawaiian Islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean is widely viewed as the best site for collection of atmospheric CO2 data. If you look at the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 1959 (as far back as the data goes) through 1997, it was increasing at an average rate of 1.26 parts per million (ppm) per year. If you look at the Mona Loa data for the 10 years ahead of the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol (1988 through 1997), atmospheric CO2 was increasing at an average rate of 1.45 ppm per year. If you then compare the 11 years during which the Kyoto Protocol was in effect so far (1998 through 2008), the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased at a rate of 1.97 ppm per year. Therefore, under the Kyoto Protocol the rate of increase in CO2 in the atmosphere was 56% higher than the entire period for which data is available before the Protocol and at a rate 40% higher than the 10-year period immediately preceding the Protocol.
Look at this graph of the Mona Loa CO2 data and try to make a case
that the Kyoto Protocol starting in 1997 did anything to reduce CO2
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html
Obviously the Kyoto Protocol was an abject failure.
Here are some possible reasons why:
1. The atmosphere only contains about 2% of the CO2 in the climate system. The oceans contain the other 98%. As the oceans heat up or cool down they drive off or absorb CO2, which is why Greenland and Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 changes FOLLOW temperature changes by about 800 years or longer. (The oceans are huge and the deep oceans are poorly mixed, so it takes long time to reach equilibrium). It is highly possible the oceans are still giving off CO2 dissolved during the Little Ice Age centered around 1700.
2. The amount of CO2 given off by humans is only about 5% of the amount given off by natural causes, such as biological decay and volcanoes. We really don’t know how much CO2 is being released and consumed because of natural causes and it is highly likely that natural variations overwhelm any small changes in human emissions.
3. Even if human produced CO2 is important in determining the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, the developing nations like China, India, and Brazil, which are rapidly increasing fossil fuel usage, did not have to reduce their CO2 emissions under the Kyoto Protocol and they won’t have to under the Copenhagen Accord either.
4. The countries which sighed on to the Kyoto Protocol hired lots of bureaucrats to implement the Protocol, who attended lots of conferences, had lots of meetings, drew up lots of plans and the countries passed lots of laws, but most failed to meet their Kyoto obligations. When it came right down to shutting down needed electric power plants or profitable factories and laying off thousands of workers the politicians made special arrangements to protect their constituents and special interest groups.
The Copenhagen Climate Change Convention is an example of liberal thinking...
Take an idea that clearly did not work in the past,
and do it some more... hoping for a better result.
I think a more effective approach would utilize free market incentives to stimulate conversion to lower CO2 emitting cultural and industrial practices. If governments and private initiatives want to support CO2-reducing industrial measures, they should stimulate research to innovate industrial processes. Such innovations may include technologies and products that replace high-polluting ones. Those products, service, and technologies that cannot be replaced may be reduced by increasing fuel prices, as global fossil-fuel scarcity increases (fossil fuels are non-renewable so they will run out eventually and then you won't have to worry about any more CO2 being emitted by burning them - although there will be other issues to worry about).
Some people want government to control culture for them, but people are actually capable of controlling their actions themselves, even though they like to make excuses and claim they will do it when government makes them.
Hi conklin et al,
QUOTE (conklin+)
Look at this graph of the Mona Loa CO2 data and try to make a case
that the Kyoto Protocol starting in 1997 did anything to reduce CO2
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html
Obviously the Kyoto Protocol was an abject failure.
Here are some possible reasons why:...
that the Kyoto Protocol starting in 1997 did anything to reduce CO2
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html
Obviously the Kyoto Protocol was an abject failure.
Here are some possible reasons why:...
All those statements "might" be valid. As you have presented them all they do is introduce confusion since anything "might" be true if you do not actually test it. This is the confusion exhibited by the public who do not understand how to evaluate the masses of data involved... they zero in on single issues and think that "logic" can resolve them one at a time. It is far more complex a problem than that. Even scientists can't evaluate this data due to it's enormous complexity. This is natural since the World and it's ecosytem is enormously complex. However... These theories are worth testing because Earth and it's biosphere is the only system that will support our lives that we know of and if we might be able to prevent it self destructing we should do something while we still can.
Each statement you made is a statement in uncertainty not a statement in actual knowledge. It matters little who or what 'causes" the current increase in atmospheric CO2 since the effect will be the same no matter what the "causes" are. My suggestion is CO2 is not the only "cause" of global climate change but the concentration of that single gas in the atmosphere will have many negative consequences in the near future which are "effects". Kyoto is about reducing "effects" which everyone agrees will change so many factors in our lives that we will find it difficult to sustain global development and maintain the ecosystem and the ever growing human population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
From the figures you have presented one thing is absolutely certain is that there is a real and accelerating increase in global CO2 shown on your graph from Scripps. You must be able to explain why this is happening over such short periods of geologic time not through guessing but through actually calculating the effects forcing these changes. Some people do not understand the vast periods of time since this planet evolved life. Those who believe that the Earth is only 5000 old will have enormous difficulties absorbing any of this discussion. They will deal with real problems by recounting traditional fairy tales and advice from their prelates. Perhaps some are waiting for miraculous intervention by deities... such is the current state of our bureaucratically politicized and religiously driven world.
I have no misguided belief that people are "logical" or that we solve our problems easily or even at all. Some of our activities suggest that a portion of the world's leaders and technocrats are actually insane or motivated to military action driven by their various self fulfilling ideologies. A lot of untested complex "gobbledygook" is driven by and is driving the media and governments everywhere to confused and muddleheaded knee jerk responses to problems. I would name some of them but it would be unfair to single out just a few from the many thousands. When confronted by a real problem governments resort to "white papers" and to committees where the issue is debated by the least able individuals who bring their little small minded views to the table. In the end you get a lowest common denominator response to critical and demanding issues. All the politicians want to happen is the problem go away so they can get on with positioning themselves for the next reshuffle.
Serious thinking people know that these levels of CO2 will become a problem even using very simple modeling involving the "greenhouse effect". I would say that the other major problem is global land clearing leading to desertification, erosion and loss of soil fertility and is a major forcing factor in regional droughts and "dust bowl" events. What you are doing is trying to propose single or multiple causes, other than the activity of man, for an acknowledged globally complex phenomenon. The way such problems must be addressed is through a truly global solution since everyone on Earth breathes the same air... and the atmosphere, despite the political differences, is no respecter of national boundaries.
The only way this problem might be scientifically addressed is through an accurate computer model. When the treaty was signed such models hardly existed at all and what there were of them were grossly inaccurate. No matter... that was the best available at the time and our science still has not come to grips with this problem though attempts to improve the models are aided by faster processors and more realistic factors being incorporated. There are some indications that a few models are beginning to show some robustness. The shortcomings of science and the current enormity of the problem of pollution is a measure of how human greed is more effective at changing systems than is logic and science... the application of available resources has no bounds when men seek wealth or power.
I do not want this statement to seem flippant but are you seriously suggesting that the data you presented from Scripps showing atmospheric CO2 increasing at that alarming rate is due to the fact that people signed a single piece of paper or that the signing of a single piece of paper would change anything at all? The reason that the first charter had no effect is because nobody noteworthy did anything about this problem because some individual polluting countries reneged on the deal (US who was responsible at the time for more than 1/3 of global emissions was not a signatory and on top of that Australia did not actually ratify plus the fact that the "third world" nations did not need to achieve any specific short term targets) These political factors rendered the charter practically void. Most of the of the other countries figured they were being duped and sat on their hands until others make the first move. As long as all countries wait for all the others to do something first... nothing will happen and the polluters win and the people lose. As I am sure a lot of shadowy individuals are saying "It is a risky plan but it just might work!"
Did the world's biggest polluters really expect that the third world should clean up what they had benefited from first? I guess they did!! One of the main problems with the initial treaty is it is still couched along national boundaries rather than per capita pollution. This was a patent political ploy reducing the value of the pollution to a single national figure rather than showing the individual regional per capita contributions to the problem. If we were to show that figure it indicates that a few highly developed nations are very big and wasteful polluters indeed by a very large factor. Most of the third world are still small per capita polluters (though rapidly catching up)... the problem is there are so many people represented in this group that this one factor has come to dominate due to the recent rapid acceleration of economic development in countries like India and China. The media, which have huge business interests, portray the third world and the likes of China and India as being "evil doers" simply because they want what the West has already got... economic prosperity. This is misdirection. Back at the Kyoto Protocol... It was business as usual except for one or two nations who had some kind of conscience. It was a bureaucratic failure to launch.
Now I realize these failures do not bode well but there is absolutely no other way forward to dealing with the problem. Only a World agreement would have any hope of working and no nation will ratify if they thought that they were being cheated out of a fair share of economic growth seeing that they have been deliberately left out for so long by the activities of other more wealthy and unfair nations. Of course "fairness" is always in the eye of the beholder and many of us are truly "one eyed". The charter will not have even a small chance to work until nations actually ratify through a significant downward change in the rate of release of fossil CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. The effects of such a change would not be seen for at least 30 years.... don't go holding your breath looking at those figures on the graphs year by year it is ignoring the basic science behind them and the sheer 'gravity" of the problem... the figures are still going to continue to rise for a very long time before they actually begin to fall even if every nation stopped burning fossil fuel tomorrow altogether. It is difficult to understand the global dynamics of this problem and the forcing factors involved that is why it is so difficult to explain to the public who never like changes of any kind.
As politicians connive against the sentiment of the charter this is not what is actually proposed (to actually decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere). Trading schemes can create an illusion of change and taxes do not necessarily get used for the purpose for which they were collected. If the indicators of "success" reflect only bureaucratic process then this could be a "great success" but everyone dies. In my humble opinion the bureaucrats will be emphasizing these kinds of indicators of success since they can guarantee that they will show "improvements". As I have stated previously signing bits of paper and levying taxes or carbon credit systems will not necessarily work... I think everyone knows that. There are many lobbyists working deliberately to thwart all plans at moderating these problems simply because it is in their economic interest to do so. Business currently has no consideration for matters which they believe should not concern them. Some business leaders do actually want to change but the shareholders would not let them act to reduce the rate of increase of profits... A "Catch 22".
This is a serious flaw in our economic and social philosophy. That is all bureaucracy and business knows what to do in a serious situation is to continue to work through self interest since it does not have any internal mechanisms to understand the science or to necessarily act on it. The issues of global climate change are a "non-sequiter" in political terms. Many of the people involved in politics do not even believe in the "tools of science" or rely on their childhood religious teachings to suggest courses of action... maybe some look in the horoscope at the back of the funny papers as guidance. It does not need to be a majority just enough to block and confuse the issues so that nothing happens.
At a time in history when science has peaked and created a whole new ball game of technologies our economic and political structures have returned to the bureaucracy that was Ancient Rome to solve their problems since the Romans "invented" the Public Service and all the foolish gambits that it employs. Of course who says that systems created to enhance the conquest of subordinate states is a system that will solve a technical and scientific problem of vast dimension? A belief in a creed or gambit that, in the end, the market knows best (... or lassiez faire) may not work. We can "kid ourselves" that these measures will do the trick when the real issue of global overpopulation continues on it's merry way to bring all our grand plans to nothing... it just means that it will take a few more years to end in the same "dirty ditch". World population will double in the next 35 years and any anthropogenic effect on global CO2 levels will continue to accelerate to the next level.
The figure of 5% anthropogenic carbon release neglects the fact that this is "new carbon" in our atmosphere that has not been there for hundreds of millions of years... it is "fossil carbon" that has come from subterranean sources where it has accumulated over the last 600 million years or so as coal and oil. This stuff has not seen the light of day since the dinosaurs roamed the earth and even longer.
Why not just start reducing CO2 emissions in any way ethically possible, with the assumption that doing so will do more good than harm? Why bother with proving it is detrimental, how much, and how? More carbon-neutral culture and economics is simply better living and fossil fuels should be conserved as much as possible anyway for when they are really needed, if such a time even comes after CO2 emissions have been reduced sustainably and ethically..
Why not just start reducing CO2 emissions in any way ethically possible, with the assumption that doing so will do more good than harm? Why bother with proving it is detrimental, how much, and how? More carbon-neutral culture and economics is simply better living and fossil fuels should be conserved as much as possible anyway for when they are really needed, if such a time even comes after CO2 emissions have been reduced sustainably and ethically..
Each statement you made is a statement in uncertainty not a statement in actual knowledge. It matters little who or what 'causes" the current increase in atmospheric CO2 since the effect will be the same no matter what the "causes" are. My suggestion is CO2 is not the only "cause" of global climate change but the concentration of that single gas in the atmosphere will have many negative consequences in the near future which are "effects". Kyoto is about reducing "effects" which everyone agrees will change so many factors in our lives that we will find it difficult to sustain global development and maintain the ecosystem and the ever growing human population.
My impression was that Kyoto was about post-industrial economies selling their carbon credits to the suppliers they import from.
And why doesn't it matter what causes the CO2? If you know what causes it, you can intervene, no?
Are you implying that starvation would result from cutting CO2 emissions? Why would it? Aren't there enough means of sustaining global agriculture without fossil-fuel based power and transport? What if everyone moved to rural areas, walked and bicycled, and worked on farms? Wouldn't all the people then have direct access to food without driving or transporting it by truck?
Sure, many people would hate to live without a car, live on or near farmland, and have to do physical farm-labor without a tractor, but would the overall efficiency and productivity of modern agricultural techniques be any different if they were being done by human or animal power than with tractors?
If nothing else, cities could be converted into farms with high-rise residential living quarters, which would maximize arable land for crops. The social-cultural resistance to this would be enormous, but so is the resistance to Kyoto.
Each statement you made is a statement in uncertainty not a statement in actual knowledge. It matters little who or what 'causes" the current increase in atmospheric CO2 since the effect will be the same no matter what the "causes" are. My suggestion is CO2 is not the only "cause" of global climate change but the concentration of that single gas in the atmosphere will have many negative consequences in the near future which are "effects". Kyoto is about reducing "effects" which everyone agrees will change so many factors in our lives that we will find it difficult to sustain global development and maintain the ecosystem and the ever growing human population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
From the figures you have presented one thing is absolutely certain is that there is a real and accelerating increase in global CO2 shown on your graph from Scripps. You must be able to explain why this is happening over such short periods of geologic time not through guessing but through actually calculating the effects forcing these changes. Some people do not understand the vast periods of time since this planet evolved life. Those who believe that the Earth is only 5000 old will have enormous difficulties absorbing any of this discussion. They will deal with real problems by recounting traditional fairy tales and advice from their prelates. Perhaps some are waiting for miraculous intervention by deities... such is the current state of our bureaucratically politicized and religiously driven world.
I have no misguided belief that people are "logical" or that we solve our problems easily or even at all. Some of our activities suggest that a portion of the world's leaders and technocrats are actually insane or motivated to military action driven by their various self fulfilling ideologies. A lot of untested complex "gobbledygook" is driven by and is driving the media and governments everywhere to confused and muddleheaded knee jerk responses to problems. I would name some of them but it would be unfair to single out just a few from the many thousands. When confronted by a real problem governments resort to "white papers" and to committees where the issue is debated by the least able individuals who bring their little small minded views to the table. In the end you get a lowest common denominator response to critical and demanding issues. All the politicians want to happen is the problem go away so they can get on with positioning themselves for the next reshuffle.
Serious thinking people know that these levels of CO2 will become a problem even using very simple modeling involving the "greenhouse effect". I would say that the other major problem is global land clearing leading to desertification, erosion and loss of soil fertility and is a major forcing factor in regional droughts and "dust bowl" events. What you are doing is trying to propose single or multiple causes, other than the activity of man, for an acknowledged globally complex phenomenon. The way such problems must be addressed is through a truly global solution since everyone on Earth breathes the same air... and the atmosphere, despite the political differences, is no respecter of national boundaries.
The only way this problem might be scientifically addressed is through an accurate computer model. When the treaty was signed such models hardly existed at all and what there were of them were grossly inaccurate. No matter... that was the best available at the time and our science still has not come to grips with this problem though attempts to improve the models are aided by faster processors and more realistic factors being incorporated. There are some indications that a few models are beginning to show some robustness. The shortcomings of science and the current enormity of the problem of pollution is a measure of how human greed is more effective at changing systems than is logic and science... the application of available resources has no bounds when men seek wealth or power.
I do not want this statement to seem flippant but are you seriously suggesting that the data you presented from Scripps showing atmospheric CO2 increasing at that alarming rate is due to the fact that people signed a single piece of paper or that the signing of a single piece of paper would change anything at all? The reason that the first charter had no effect is because nobody noteworthy did anything about this problem because some individual polluting countries reneged on the deal (US who was responsible at the time for more than 1/3 of global emissions was not a signatory and on top of that Australia did not actually ratify plus the fact that the "third world" nations did not need to achieve any specific short term targets) These political factors rendered the charter practically void. Most of the of the other countries figured they were being duped and sat on their hands until others make the first move. As long as all countries wait for all the others to do something first... nothing will happen and the polluters win and the people lose. As I am sure a lot of shadowy individuals are saying "It is a risky plan but it just might work!"
Did the world's biggest polluters really expect that the third world should clean up what they had benefited from first? I guess they did!! One of the main problems with the initial treaty is it is still couched along national boundaries rather than per capita pollution. This was a patent political ploy reducing the value of the pollution to a single national figure rather than showing the individual regional per capita contributions to the problem. If we were to show that figure it indicates that a few highly developed nations are very big and wasteful polluters indeed by a very large factor. Most of the third world are still small per capita polluters (though rapidly catching up)... the problem is there are so many people represented in this group that this one factor has come to dominate due to the recent rapid acceleration of economic development in countries like India and China. The media, which have huge business interests, portray the third world and the likes of China and India as being "evil doers" simply because they want what the West has already got... economic prosperity. This is misdirection. Back at the Kyoto Protocol... It was business as usual except for one or two nations who had some kind of conscience. It was a bureaucratic failure to launch.
Now I realize these failures do not bode well but there is absolutely no other way forward to dealing with the problem. Only a World agreement would have any hope of working and no nation will ratify if they thought that they were being cheated out of a fair share of economic growth seeing that they have been deliberately left out for so long by the activities of other more wealthy and unfair nations. Of course "fairness" is always in the eye of the beholder and many of us are truly "one eyed". The charter will not have even a small chance to work until nations actually ratify through a significant downward change in the rate of release of fossil CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. The effects of such a change would not be seen for at least 30 years.... don't go holding your breath looking at those figures on the graphs year by year it is ignoring the basic science behind them and the sheer 'gravity" of the problem... the figures are still going to continue to rise for a very long time before they actually begin to fall even if every nation stopped burning fossil fuel tomorrow altogether. It is difficult to understand the global dynamics of this problem and the forcing factors involved that is why it is so difficult to explain to the public who never like changes of any kind.
As politicians connive against the sentiment of the charter this is not what is actually proposed (to actually decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere). Trading schemes can create an illusion of change and taxes do not necessarily get used for the purpose for which they were collected. If the indicators of "success" reflect only bureaucratic process then this could be a "great success" but everyone dies. In my humble opinion the bureaucrats will be emphasizing these kinds of indicators of success since they can guarantee that they will show "improvements". As I have stated previously signing bits of paper and levying taxes or carbon credit systems will not necessarily work... I think everyone knows that. There are many lobbyists working deliberately to thwart all plans at moderating these problems simply because it is in their economic interest to do so. Business currently has no consideration for matters which they believe should not concern them. Some business leaders do actually want to change but the shareholders would not let them act to reduce the rate of increase of profits... A "Catch 22".
This is a serious flaw in our economic and social philosophy. That is all bureaucracy and business knows what to do in a serious situation is to continue to work through self interest since it does not have any internal mechanisms to understand the science or to necessarily act on it. The issues of global climate change are a "non-sequiter" in political terms. Many of the people involved in politics do not even believe in the "tools of science" or rely on their childhood religious teachings to suggest courses of action... maybe some look in the horoscope at the back of the funny papers as guidance. It does not need to be a majority just enough to block and confuse the issues so that nothing happens.
At a time in history when science has peaked and created a whole new ball game of technologies our economic and political structures have returned to the bureaucracy that was Ancient Rome to solve their problems since the Romans "invented" the Public Service and all the foolish gambits that it employs. Of course who says that systems created to enhance the conquest of subordinate states is a system that will solve a technical and scientific problem of vast dimension? A belief in a creed or gambit that, in the end, the market knows best (... or lassiez faire) may not work. We can "kid ourselves" that these measures will do the trick when the real issue of global overpopulation continues on it's merry way to bring all our grand plans to nothing... it just means that it will take a few more years to end in the same "dirty ditch". World population will double in the next 35 years and any anthropogenic effect on global CO2 levels will continue to accelerate to the next level.
The figure of 5% anthropogenic carbon release neglects the fact that this is "new carbon" in our atmosphere that has not been there for hundreds of millions of years... it is "fossil carbon" that has come from subterranean sources where it has accumulated over the last 600 million years or so as coal and oil. This stuff has not seen the light of day since the dinosaurs roamed the earth and even longer.
QUOTE (Wikipedia+)
The burning of fossil fuels produces around 21.3 billion tonnes (21.3 gigatonnes) of carbon dioxide per year, but it is estimated that natural processes can only absorb about half of that amount, so there is a net increase of 10.65 billion tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year (one tonne of atmospheric carbon is equivalent to 44/12 or 3.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide). Carbon dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases that enhances radiative forcing and contributes to global warming, causing the average surface temperature of the Earth to rise in response, which climate scientists agree will cause major adverse effects.
Wikipedia: Fossil Fuel
Wikipedia: Fossil Fuel
That is the problem... You can argue any way you want but these are the underlying facts that must be addressed. The problem of CO2 is not that it is there in the atmosphere but it is a growing factor that is not under self regulation. I do not think that is in dispute by any scientific group or faction?
A small use of fossil carbon is sustainable. If all the worlds carbon came from living sources of carbon rather than long dead forms this would not be as much of a problem since we may use up living sources of carbon energy but the supply of the resource would be limited by what we grow in return. It can still lead to problems such as desertification as noted in many ancient cultures... an example in the US would be the Anastasi Indians. They built cities, they burned wood and were out of balance with their resources and their culture simply disappeared leaving a permanent desert in their wake. This phenomenon has been repeated around the world many time in the past. Almost all the deserts of the world have been man made. Their one "shortcoming" is these ancient cultures did not use fossil carbon simply because their cultures did not discover it as a source of vast energy. And it is notable that all these cultures did not solve the other ecological problems as they evolved around them... Other Native American Indians also had difficulty with the concepts of soil fertility and the result was unending wars with their neighbors to steal their productivity from them. It was a very brutal affair but necessary given the poor technical abilities at their disposal. The bottom line was without advanced
technology the land can sustain only a few people at one time. That usage may also impact future generations. Modern civilization have "solved" some of these problems but have left other problems unanswered. Time to dot the "i"'s and cross the "t"'s
Anyhooo... I am going on leave... please carry on without me.
Cheers
A small use of fossil carbon is sustainable. If all the worlds carbon came from living sources of carbon rather than long dead forms this would not be as much of a problem since we may use up living sources of carbon energy but the supply of the resource would be limited by what we grow in return. It can still lead to problems such as desertification as noted in many ancient cultures... an example in the US would be the Anastasi Indians. They built cities, they burned wood and were out of balance with their resources and their culture simply disappeared leaving a permanent desert in their wake. This phenomenon has been repeated around the world many time in the past. Almost all the deserts of the world have been man made. Their one "shortcoming" is these ancient cultures did not use fossil carbon simply because their cultures did not discover it as a source of vast energy. And it is notable that all these cultures did not solve the other ecological problems as they evolved around them... Other Native American Indians also had difficulty with the concepts of soil fertility and the result was unending wars with their neighbors to steal their productivity from them. It was a very brutal affair but necessary given the poor technical abilities at their disposal. The bottom line was without advanced
technology the land can sustain only a few people at one time. That usage may also impact future generations. Modern civilization have "solved" some of these problems but have left other problems unanswered. Time to dot the "i"'s and cross the "t"'s
Anyhooo... I am going on leave... please carry on without me.
Cheers
Bill Gates has the right idea.
cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/08/28/hurricanes.gates.gray/index.html
(sorry I cant post links yet so you'll have to add the www)
All joking aside, Invention and innovation leads to solutions not bickering over how many people there are. Regulating birth rate and stuff like that isn't going to go over well. Some countries will accept it but some will go to war over it, and I can guarantee that a planet covered in nuclear radiation is much worse for the environment then people are. It’s the same for pushing green agendas, if green = a reduction in developing countries growth, then they wont go for it and there’s nothing we can do. Nukes made all countries equal, so the big can’t force the small to do anything they don’t want to if they have nukes. (and even the star wars missile defense program cant change that) So stop with the green ideas already if they involve making a bunch of country that dot want to be green go green, then the idea is dead. End of Idea move on to next solution!
Hey here’s and Idea a “weather machine” (that controls the climate) would fix all are problems right, even allow us to add more people on the earth? So why don’t we work on that. We can genetically engender bacteria that can help restore nutrients to the soil. We can breed more fish and develop more effective solar energy. We should focus on supporting the science and industries that will make these things possible, and not argue against human nature or try to violate human rights.
The solutions environmentalists propose are the reason why I hate environmentalists and so do so many others. They act like the world is going to end any day now and the only solution is to violate human rights. You're zealots and you don’t help your case. It took me years to be able to support the idea of environmental change because of you. I had to come to the conclusion that my beliefs should be dictated by logic dispute who represents the topic or how much I disagree with there proposed solutions. So do us all a favor think about what you can do to make a real change, like donate to a lab that does research to develop weather machines. I know I will, and I’m willing to bet that my donation does more good than your awareness rally.
cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/08/28/hurricanes.gates.gray/index.html
(sorry I cant post links yet so you'll have to add the www)
All joking aside, Invention and innovation leads to solutions not bickering over how many people there are. Regulating birth rate and stuff like that isn't going to go over well. Some countries will accept it but some will go to war over it, and I can guarantee that a planet covered in nuclear radiation is much worse for the environment then people are. It’s the same for pushing green agendas, if green = a reduction in developing countries growth, then they wont go for it and there’s nothing we can do. Nukes made all countries equal, so the big can’t force the small to do anything they don’t want to if they have nukes. (and even the star wars missile defense program cant change that) So stop with the green ideas already if they involve making a bunch of country that dot want to be green go green, then the idea is dead. End of Idea move on to next solution!
Hey here’s and Idea a “weather machine” (that controls the climate) would fix all are problems right, even allow us to add more people on the earth? So why don’t we work on that. We can genetically engender bacteria that can help restore nutrients to the soil. We can breed more fish and develop more effective solar energy. We should focus on supporting the science and industries that will make these things possible, and not argue against human nature or try to violate human rights.
The solutions environmentalists propose are the reason why I hate environmentalists and so do so many others. They act like the world is going to end any day now and the only solution is to violate human rights. You're zealots and you don’t help your case. It took me years to be able to support the idea of environmental change because of you. I had to come to the conclusion that my beliefs should be dictated by logic dispute who represents the topic or how much I disagree with there proposed solutions. So do us all a favor think about what you can do to make a real change, like donate to a lab that does research to develop weather machines. I know I will, and I’m willing to bet that my donation does more good than your awareness rally.
QUOTE
However... These theories are worth testing because Earth and it's biosphere is the only system that will support our lives that we know of and if we might be able to prevent it self destructing we should do something while we still can.
Why not just start reducing CO2 emissions in any way ethically possible, with the assumption that doing so will do more good than harm? Why bother with proving it is detrimental, how much, and how? More carbon-neutral culture and economics is simply better living and fossil fuels should be conserved as much as possible anyway for when they are really needed, if such a time even comes after CO2 emissions have been reduced sustainably and ethically..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| However... These theories are worth testing because Earth and it's biosphere is the only system that will support our lives that we know of and if we might be able to prevent it self destructing we should do something while we still can. |
Why not just start reducing CO2 emissions in any way ethically possible, with the assumption that doing so will do more good than harm? Why bother with proving it is detrimental, how much, and how? More carbon-neutral culture and economics is simply better living and fossil fuels should be conserved as much as possible anyway for when they are really needed, if such a time even comes after CO2 emissions have been reduced sustainably and ethically..
Each statement you made is a statement in uncertainty not a statement in actual knowledge. It matters little who or what 'causes" the current increase in atmospheric CO2 since the effect will be the same no matter what the "causes" are. My suggestion is CO2 is not the only "cause" of global climate change but the concentration of that single gas in the atmosphere will have many negative consequences in the near future which are "effects". Kyoto is about reducing "effects" which everyone agrees will change so many factors in our lives that we will find it difficult to sustain global development and maintain the ecosystem and the ever growing human population.
My impression was that Kyoto was about post-industrial economies selling their carbon credits to the suppliers they import from.
And why doesn't it matter what causes the CO2? If you know what causes it, you can intervene, no?
Are you implying that starvation would result from cutting CO2 emissions? Why would it? Aren't there enough means of sustaining global agriculture without fossil-fuel based power and transport? What if everyone moved to rural areas, walked and bicycled, and worked on farms? Wouldn't all the people then have direct access to food without driving or transporting it by truck?
Sure, many people would hate to live without a car, live on or near farmland, and have to do physical farm-labor without a tractor, but would the overall efficiency and productivity of modern agricultural techniques be any different if they were being done by human or animal power than with tractors?
If nothing else, cities could be converted into farms with high-rise residential living quarters, which would maximize arable land for crops. The social-cultural resistance to this would be enormous, but so is the resistance to Kyoto.
Hi light in the tunnel et al,
Last bite of the cherry!
Last bite of the cherry!
QUOTE
Why not just start reducing CO2 emissions in any way ethically possible
Naturally... But some do not want to do that because they do not have "proof". That is why we are not cutting emissions right now.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why not just start reducing CO2 emissions in any way ethically possible |
Naturally... But some do not want to do that because they do not have "proof". That is why we are not cutting emissions right now.
My impression was that Kyoto was about post-industrial economies selling their carbon credits to the suppliers they import from.
My impression was that Kyoto was about post-industrial economies selling their carbon credits to the suppliers they import from.
Not wrong! So you would agree that such practices will not necessarily cut CO2 emissions and may even increase them?
QUOTE
And why doesn't it matter what causes the CO2? If you know what causes it, you can intervene, no?
People who speak about causes are actually discussing "blame" and that means litigation. We know what is causing CO2... it is burning or oxidation in all of it's forms. That is a no brainer. Are we going to stop burning things which is the root cause? I don't think so. It does not help to then ask "which of you are the most responsible so we can punish you". In the end we want to avoid outcomes.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And why doesn't it matter what causes the CO2? If you know what causes it, you can intervene, no? |
People who speak about causes are actually discussing "blame" and that means litigation. We know what is causing CO2... it is burning or oxidation in all of it's forms. That is a no brainer. Are we going to stop burning things which is the root cause? I don't think so. It does not help to then ask "which of you are the most responsible so we can punish you". In the end we want to avoid outcomes.
Are you implying that starvation would result from cutting CO2 emissions? Why would it? Aren't there enough means of sustaining global agriculture without fossil-fuel based power and transport?
Are you implying that starvation would result from cutting CO2 emissions? Why would it? Aren't there enough means of sustaining global agriculture without fossil-fuel based power and transport?
No... Starvation will result from the environmental effects of global climate change. Rapidly cutting CO2 emissions would cause "global brightening" which would result in a sudden increase in global temperatures raising the local dew point and reducing rainfall runoff over the earth surface. You can't grow crops without water.I repeat that this is not a discussion solely about CO2. Climate change will result in the greatest changes mankind will ever have witnessed in the amount of arable land and usable water. You I and the gatepost can take a few extra degrees in temperature but can you live without the food production? The other main factor is most arable land on planet earth is within a few meters of the ocean sea level. The permanent flooding of this most productive area around the major deltas of the world will be disastrous for many countries as well as submerging many oceanic states which are under a meter or so above sea level. The CO2 emissions are simply a single factor in global warming which is one of the many factors feeding into global climate change. I did not even mention the inevitable migration of many millions of refugees around the world looking for somewhere to settle and start a new live on a fertile bit of soil. The problem is a complex one and my explanations, no matter how long or detailed, will not even "scrapes the sides" of this very big issue. Deconstructionism is not the way to approach this multi-interlocking co-dependent jigsaw puzzle.
What could be the contributory factors of global warming?
To date, it is still not clear what causes global warming and causing climate change on planet, earth. The more I analyze it, to say that global warming is caused only by CO2 is wrong, to say that it is due to sun warming up is also wrong. There are a number of factors that contribute, jointly, make global warming on planet, earth. namely:.
(1) It is true CO2 consists of only 3% or less of the total greenhouse effect on earth.. The 97% up is contributed by evaporation of water, re-oceans. But that CO2 increased by 40% (3% X 40% + 3%) since industrial revolution is the most glaring, alarming, because CO2 deflects back to earth sunlight... thus it is the biggest suspect. But does CO2 and increase the MAIN CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING, with chain-reaction of causing chaotic climate change, super-typhoons, super-hurricanes, extreme droughts, etc. CO2 is not the only cause but CO2 contributes makes earth warm, I would say 30% contribution to global warming..
(2) Deforestations and unlimited conversions of lands to metropolis and other necessity shelters of overpopulated humans. Forests cool, green plants cool, but when very material of such forests and plants of planet, earth, were scrapped and made bald, the surface of earth is made warmer. See continuity next item (3)
(3) Overpopulation – Related to above (2) The population of earth after world war II was 2 billions, more or less, now, it is over 7 billions. Never has the face of earth been mangled by occupancies of living things on planet, earth, re- dinosaurs, insects, etc., than this present short time occupancy of human.. If earth age of 6 billion years is like an encyclopedia, the present living occupancy of humans may only consists of one paragraph, yet never has the face of earth been mangled, altered ecological rhythm, materially changed, than it is now by humans. The population of earth after World War II was somewhere 2 billions, now it is over 7 billions. There was even a “mad” scientist, 40 years ago, who proposed, saliently, that earth is alive (with rivers as veins, oceans as blood, land as flesh, etc. and that if earth wee alive (guarded by four giant angels) human is the cancer of earth. I would say, 50 % contribution to global warming.
(4) Wildfires, volcanoes eruptions contribution 5%
(5)Sun warming up 15 %.
Make your own contributions and changes.
Jsaldea12
10.24.09
QUOTE
Sure, many people would hate to live without a car, live on or near farmland, and have to do physical farm-labor without a tractor, but would the overall efficiency and productivity of modern agricultural techniques be any different if they were being done by human or animal power than with tractors?
Ummm... No offense but I don't think you quite understand who or what we are talking about here. I could give a farmer a tractor, and I can give him fuel to run that tractor but you need crops to harvest to make it worthwhile. The ownership of tractors or other farm machinery is not an issue if the land is dry and desolate and cannot produce annual crops. Soil is a complex material that is composed of organic and inorganic components. The humus in soils is a balance between bacteria in them and the refurbishment of the these organic components and the "fixing" of certain inorganic components such as nitrogen and lime through certain farming practices to keep the pH value within a productive limit. There is a need to have access to plentiful water as well. If global warming does occur there is little we can do to prevent the texture of the soil breaking down in most of the most productive areas of the world. It is already known that the remainder of the earth's surface is not nearly as productive because this humus takes thousands of years to form naturally when conditions are just right.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Sure, many people would hate to live without a car, live on or near farmland, and have to do physical farm-labor without a tractor, but would the overall efficiency and productivity of modern agricultural techniques be any different if they were being done by human or animal power than with tractors? |
Ummm... No offense but I don't think you quite understand who or what we are talking about here. I could give a farmer a tractor, and I can give him fuel to run that tractor but you need crops to harvest to make it worthwhile. The ownership of tractors or other farm machinery is not an issue if the land is dry and desolate and cannot produce annual crops. Soil is a complex material that is composed of organic and inorganic components. The humus in soils is a balance between bacteria in them and the refurbishment of the these organic components and the "fixing" of certain inorganic components such as nitrogen and lime through certain farming practices to keep the pH value within a productive limit. There is a need to have access to plentiful water as well. If global warming does occur there is little we can do to prevent the texture of the soil breaking down in most of the most productive areas of the world. It is already known that the remainder of the earth's surface is not nearly as productive because this humus takes thousands of years to form naturally when conditions are just right.
If nothing else, cities could be converted into farms with high-rise residential living quarters, which would maximize arable land for crops. The social-cultural resistance to this would be enormous, but so is the resistance to Kyoto.
If nothing else, cities could be converted into farms with high-rise residential living quarters, which would maximize arable land for crops. The social-cultural resistance to this would be enormous, but so is the resistance to Kyoto.
Realistically speaking high rise buildings are not the place to perform mass food production. More likely to be the venue for designer vegetable and fruit gardens for the idle rich who we all know will not be bothered by any of these problems. If you have enough money you can grow all your produce in sealed hydroponic buildings. The problem is "if you have enough money".
Cheers
Cheers
Sorry, I find it hard to believe that a sudden drop in CO2 production would radically change the quality of arable farmland. That implies that the biosphere has adapted to a higher level of CO2 and cannot work without it anymore. Interesting concept, but I don't buy it.
As long as the luxury of living in cities far away from farms is available, why not take advantage of it? The problem is that it is not seen as a temporary luxury but a permanent state of development. So, it probably makes sense to devote a good amount of farmland to dense-population agriculture. As long as there is a reserve culture of people who are able to live in close proximity near farmland and work in agriculture without the use of fossil fuel, this culture can be expanded and or propagated as needed, when further fossil fuel scarcity raises its head.
I'm not talking about the ownership of tractors. I'm talking about producing enough food to eat using human labor, so people can feed themselves without burning any fossil fuel.
You can write off hydroponic gardening as a luxury for the designer rich, but if you give people without food and arable soil the choice between starving or working in factories to produce grow lamps and fertilizer and using these to grow vegetables to eat, I bet they wouldn't choose to starve.
I think you're right about the current distribution of property-values placing rich people in cities, but that is only because the current resources available allow the production of goods and services that can be intensively concentrated in urban consumption lifestyles. Once these lifestyle-resources start drying up, wealth will allow people to move closer to farms where they can get the food and services their money affords. Probably the end of fossil fuels will produce something of a return to feudalism, albeit with the benefits of the many technologies that have been developed since the enlightenment began.
As long as the luxury of living in cities far away from farms is available, why not take advantage of it? The problem is that it is not seen as a temporary luxury but a permanent state of development. So, it probably makes sense to devote a good amount of farmland to dense-population agriculture. As long as there is a reserve culture of people who are able to live in close proximity near farmland and work in agriculture without the use of fossil fuel, this culture can be expanded and or propagated as needed, when further fossil fuel scarcity raises its head.
I'm not talking about the ownership of tractors. I'm talking about producing enough food to eat using human labor, so people can feed themselves without burning any fossil fuel.
You can write off hydroponic gardening as a luxury for the designer rich, but if you give people without food and arable soil the choice between starving or working in factories to produce grow lamps and fertilizer and using these to grow vegetables to eat, I bet they wouldn't choose to starve.
I think you're right about the current distribution of property-values placing rich people in cities, but that is only because the current resources available allow the production of goods and services that can be intensively concentrated in urban consumption lifestyles. Once these lifestyle-resources start drying up, wealth will allow people to move closer to farms where they can get the food and services their money affords. Probably the end of fossil fuels will produce something of a return to feudalism, albeit with the benefits of the many technologies that have been developed since the enlightenment began.
What could be the contributory factors of global warming?
To date, it is still not clear what causes global warming and causing climate change on planet, earth. The more I analyze it, to say that global warming is caused only by CO2 is wrong, to say that it is due to sun warming up is also wrong. There are a number of factors that contribute, jointly, make global warming on planet, earth. namely:.
(1) It is true CO2 consists of only 3% or less of the total greenhouse effect on earth.. The 97% up is contributed by evaporation of water, re-oceans. But that CO2 increased by 40% (3% X 40% + 3%) since industrial revolution is the most glaring, alarming, because CO2 deflects back to earth sunlight... thus it is the biggest suspect. But does CO2 and increase the MAIN CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING, with chain-reaction of causing chaotic climate change, super-typhoons, super-hurricanes, extreme droughts, etc. CO2 is not the only cause but CO2 contributes makes earth warm, I would say 30% contribution to global warming..
(2) Deforestations and unlimited conversions of lands to metropolis and other necessity shelters of overpopulated humans. Forests cool, green plants cool, but when very material of such forests and plants of planet, earth, were scrapped and made bald, the surface of earth is made warmer. See continuity next item (3)
(3) Overpopulation – Related to above (2) The population of earth after world war II was 2 billions, more or less, now, it is over 7 billions. Never has the face of earth been mangled by occupancies of living things on planet, earth, re- dinosaurs, insects, etc., than this present short time occupancy of human.. If earth age of 6 billion years is like an encyclopedia, the present living occupancy of humans may only consists of one paragraph, yet never has the face of earth been mangled, altered ecological rhythm, materially changed, than it is now by humans. The population of earth after World War II was somewhere 2 billions, now it is over 7 billions. There was even a “mad” scientist, 40 years ago, who proposed, saliently, that earth is alive (with rivers as veins, oceans as blood, land as flesh, etc. and that if earth wee alive (guarded by four giant angels) human is the cancer of earth. I would say, 50 % contribution to global warming.
(4) Wildfires, volcanoes eruptions contribution 5%
(5)Sun warming up 15 %.
Make your own contributions and changes.
Jsaldea12
10.24.09
QUOTE (Nihilist+Oct 23 2009, 02:51 AM)
Regulating birth rate and stuff like that isn't going to go over well. Some countries will accept it but some will go to war over it, and I can guarantee that a planet covered in nuclear radiation is much worse for the environment then people are. It’s the same for pushing green agendas, if green = a reduction in developing countries growth, then they wont go for it and there’s nothing we can do. Nukes made all countries equal, so the big can’t force the small to do anything they don’t want to if they have nukes. (and even the star wars missile defense program cant change that) So stop with the green ideas already if they involve making a bunch of country that dot want to be green go green, then the idea is dead. End of Idea move on to next solution!
As you can see from the table below, the majority of the world's nuclear powers are not plagued by excessive birth rates, and are in agreement that their respective societies must take action to address climate change. In general, nations that posses the technical capacity to develop a credible nuclear arsenal have tended to shed the cultural and economic baggage that promote higher fertility rates. Thus nuclear conflict is not a significant factor in limiting further population growth or dealing with climate issues.
(births/woman)
Pakistan 3.52
India 2.81
Israel 2.75
US 2.05
France 1.89
N Korea 1.85
UK 1.82
China 1.73
Russia 1.34
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count..._fertility_rate
Historically these same countries were willing to exert their power to manipulate the affairs of developing nations when it suited their needs, why would it be any different now?
QUOTE
(births/woman)
Pakistan 3.52
India 2.81
Israel 2.75
US 2.05
France 1.89
N Korea 1.85
UK 1.82
China 1.73
Russia 1.34
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count..._fertility_rate
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
(births/woman) Pakistan 3.52 India 2.81 Israel 2.75 US 2.05 France 1.89 N Korea 1.85 UK 1.82 China 1.73 Russia 1.34 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count..._fertility_rate |
Historically these same countries were willing to exert their power to manipulate the affairs of developing nations when it suited their needs, why would it be any different now?
Hey here’s and Idea a “weather machine” (that controls the climate) would fix all are problems right, even allow us to add more people on the earth? So why don’t we work on that. We can genetically engender bacteria that can help restore nutrients to the soil. We can breed more fish and develop more effective solar energy. We should focus on supporting the science and industries that will make these things possible, and not argue against human nature or try to violate human rights.
Hey here’s and Idea a “weather machine” (that controls the climate) would fix all are problems right, even allow us to add more people on the earth? So why don’t we work on that. We can genetically engender bacteria that can help restore nutrients to the soil. We can breed more fish and develop more effective solar energy. We should focus on supporting the science and industries that will make these things possible, and not argue against human nature or try to violate human rights.
Refining human nature has been the goal of civilization from it's inception. It may be human nature to cling to superstition, wage wars of aggression, enslave his fellow man, exploit nature beyond reason, and to breed with the frequency of feral cats, but these actions that lesser civilizations would claim as rights, are today recognized as impediments to the progress of modern civilization.
In addition to your weather machine, we could further accommodate the culturally deficient by installing massive decontamination systems in their inland and coastal waterways, thereby allowing the free deposition of raw sewage and industrial waste.
With this cultural strategy, freedom is not having to use a toilet, one could dump anywhere and feel secure in knowing that modern technology will be dedicated to clean up their mess.
In addition to your weather machine, we could further accommodate the culturally deficient by installing massive decontamination systems in their inland and coastal waterways, thereby allowing the free deposition of raw sewage and industrial waste.
With this cultural strategy, freedom is not having to use a toilet, one could dump anywhere and feel secure in knowing that modern technology will be dedicated to clean up their mess.
QUOTE (Nihilist+Jul 12 2009, 11:42 PM)
Thanks for your posts so far, a lot has been good food for thought. I have a few questions.
I don’t think that more claims = more truth. I would be much more sawed by 1 study, that’s been challenged to death and proven right than I would a 1000 semi-science findings.
I’m in no way calling the link you gave me semi-science! In fact I think its great and I’m going through it as best I can right now, so thank you.
I can see what you are saying and it’s a good point. The theories I have heard to the contrary don’t say that climate change isn’t happening; just that it’s a natural event. So I guess the better questions are:
Is global climate change a natural event and if so why are we trying to stop it?
Also, can we realistically stop it if only a small fraction of its effects are because of humans?
This is a good post and I meant to post some of my thoughts under your topic earlier but seeing as your reading this topic I’ll just post them hear. Hope you don’t mind.
True, the natural caring capacity of the earth is somewhere around 4 billion and we are fast approaching 7 billion. If not for the agricultural technologies made in the last 80 years we would have had close to 3 billion people starve to death by now.
I agree, what all these arguments break down to is the survival of man. Global warming threatens to change mans landscape into something less hospitable, but over what time frame? War and Population pose a much more immediate threat in my opinion (much like you are saying). I think we need a true United Nations with a world president and world government. I fear for the day that would happen but I also fear for the possibility that it will never happen. Some basic world laws like a nuke can never be detonated again, unless it’s for the purposes of science, would help a lot. A good example is the U.S. almost ended the world 70 times in cold war, due to computer glitches. Once we had a false reading that said Russia had launched nukes at us, so we implemented our end game policy. Luckily we found out it was just a miss reading seconds before it was executed! I’m sure everyone here knows what the end game policy is but for those that might not: it’s when we (the U.S.) nuke every square mile of the earth multiple times so that all traces of man ever have existing are gone forever. Policies like these are what keeps superpowers from fighting.
It’s good to have skeptics, as long as they’re valid. It’s also good to make progress and ask that the skeptics to challenge you newest or most valid claims and not dwell on the past (but you also have to consider what it looks like if you make a lot of claims that turn out to be false). I think the problem is the global climate change issue is filled with “crazy” on both sides to the point that it’s hard to tell what a valid claim is anymore. The best thing the pro or con global climate change activists could do is purge them selves as much as possible and only allow the strongest and most valuable arguments in. I’m hopping to find some of those arguments in this forum.
P.S. sorry about not having the sources to back up some of the things I’ve heard. I really need to start a folder on my computer for this kind of stuff if I’m going to be using it in this forum.
Those groups arguing that it's strictly a natural event are those groups who feel addressing the problem will negatively effect their bottom line. Such as Exxon [I worked in the oil industry for 40 years]. The following is an interesting argument:
http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/244/hi...ate-change.html
A worrisome thought is a belief that there will be some technological solution discovered IE the 'necessity is the mother of invention' argument where humanity will be able to resolve this problem at the last moment. Another is the' set of fundamentalist ideologues' believing their god will deliver them from destruction or believing their god has chosen this as 'the end time'. Both support a 'back burner' approach to this monumental problem.
I don’t think that more claims = more truth. I would be much more sawed by 1 study, that’s been challenged to death and proven right than I would a 1000 semi-science findings.
I’m in no way calling the link you gave me semi-science! In fact I think its great and I’m going through it as best I can right now, so thank you.
I can see what you are saying and it’s a good point. The theories I have heard to the contrary don’t say that climate change isn’t happening; just that it’s a natural event. So I guess the better questions are:
Is global climate change a natural event and if so why are we trying to stop it?
Also, can we realistically stop it if only a small fraction of its effects are because of humans?
This is a good post and I meant to post some of my thoughts under your topic earlier but seeing as your reading this topic I’ll just post them hear. Hope you don’t mind.
True, the natural caring capacity of the earth is somewhere around 4 billion and we are fast approaching 7 billion. If not for the agricultural technologies made in the last 80 years we would have had close to 3 billion people starve to death by now.
I agree, what all these arguments break down to is the survival of man. Global warming threatens to change mans landscape into something less hospitable, but over what time frame? War and Population pose a much more immediate threat in my opinion (much like you are saying). I think we need a true United Nations with a world president and world government. I fear for the day that would happen but I also fear for the possibility that it will never happen. Some basic world laws like a nuke can never be detonated again, unless it’s for the purposes of science, would help a lot. A good example is the U.S. almost ended the world 70 times in cold war, due to computer glitches. Once we had a false reading that said Russia had launched nukes at us, so we implemented our end game policy. Luckily we found out it was just a miss reading seconds before it was executed! I’m sure everyone here knows what the end game policy is but for those that might not: it’s when we (the U.S.) nuke every square mile of the earth multiple times so that all traces of man ever have existing are gone forever. Policies like these are what keeps superpowers from fighting.
It’s good to have skeptics, as long as they’re valid. It’s also good to make progress and ask that the skeptics to challenge you newest or most valid claims and not dwell on the past (but you also have to consider what it looks like if you make a lot of claims that turn out to be false). I think the problem is the global climate change issue is filled with “crazy” on both sides to the point that it’s hard to tell what a valid claim is anymore. The best thing the pro or con global climate change activists could do is purge them selves as much as possible and only allow the strongest and most valuable arguments in. I’m hopping to find some of those arguments in this forum.
P.S. sorry about not having the sources to back up some of the things I’ve heard. I really need to start a folder on my computer for this kind of stuff if I’m going to be using it in this forum.
Those groups arguing that it's strictly a natural event are those groups who feel addressing the problem will negatively effect their bottom line. Such as Exxon [I worked in the oil industry for 40 years]. The following is an interesting argument:
http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/244/hi...ate-change.html
A worrisome thought is a belief that there will be some technological solution discovered IE the 'necessity is the mother of invention' argument where humanity will be able to resolve this problem at the last moment. Another is the' set of fundamentalist ideologues' believing their god will deliver them from destruction or believing their god has chosen this as 'the end time'. Both support a 'back burner' approach to this monumental problem.
Maybe I should start a new thread about this, but I'll go ahead and post it on this one.
I wonder, since the Kyoto notion of tradable carbon credits was so unpopular, what if a slightly different approach was taken to taxing carbon emissions and thereby encouraging reductions:
A global sales tax on oil-based fuels and other products. If OPEC and other oil-rights holding businesses could agree to levy a uniform surcharge on crude oil, the revenue could be redistributed to industries and individuals globally that do the most to reduce carbon emissions in their economic activities and cultural practices.
This would be favorable to carbon credit trading, since trading carbon credits at the national/regional level would, for example, reward a bicycle commuter in a region with many other bicycle commuters, while taxing the same bicycle commuter when s/he lives in a region with mostly other drivers of internal combustion vehicles.
Of course such a surcharge on crude oil would do nothing to address the use of coal, natural gas, ethanol, or whatever else emits carbon - but maybe once oil producers would initiate such incentives, other fuel industries would follow suit, especially since a system will have already been established for collecting and redistributing the surcharge as stimulus for emission reductions.
The other option could be to distribute carbon credits among corporations instead of countries. This could be done per industry with attention for production levels. So, for example, an auto-maker that produces 30,000 vehicles/year would receive 3 times as many carbon credits as another one producing 10,000 vehicles/year. Then, if the company producing 30,000 would increase it's vehicle output to carbon output ratio, it would have 3 times the amount of carbon credits to sell as the company producing 10,000 vehicles that would achieve the same ratio of vehicles to carbon emissions.
I wonder, since the Kyoto notion of tradable carbon credits was so unpopular, what if a slightly different approach was taken to taxing carbon emissions and thereby encouraging reductions:
A global sales tax on oil-based fuels and other products. If OPEC and other oil-rights holding businesses could agree to levy a uniform surcharge on crude oil, the revenue could be redistributed to industries and individuals globally that do the most to reduce carbon emissions in their economic activities and cultural practices.
This would be favorable to carbon credit trading, since trading carbon credits at the national/regional level would, for example, reward a bicycle commuter in a region with many other bicycle commuters, while taxing the same bicycle commuter when s/he lives in a region with mostly other drivers of internal combustion vehicles.
Of course such a surcharge on crude oil would do nothing to address the use of coal, natural gas, ethanol, or whatever else emits carbon - but maybe once oil producers would initiate such incentives, other fuel industries would follow suit, especially since a system will have already been established for collecting and redistributing the surcharge as stimulus for emission reductions.
The other option could be to distribute carbon credits among corporations instead of countries. This could be done per industry with attention for production levels. So, for example, an auto-maker that produces 30,000 vehicles/year would receive 3 times as many carbon credits as another one producing 10,000 vehicles/year. Then, if the company producing 30,000 would increase it's vehicle output to carbon output ratio, it would have 3 times the amount of carbon credits to sell as the company producing 10,000 vehicles that would achieve the same ratio of vehicles to carbon emissions.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
I have seen adoucette in action before. This is how he gets his "jollies" putting down the legitimate scientific opinion and preferring to emphasize the louder voice of "self interest". Scientists do not "scream loud enough" and speak with too small a voice... It is their way and they can be drowned out by "bully boy" tactics. It happened in Germany before World War II and it is all happening again.
==> Nice way to start the discussion, with a vile Ad Hominum...
==> Nice way to start the discussion, with a vile Ad Hominum...
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Adoucette... We meet again on this subject... Unfortunately I am about to go on annual leave and I will not be pursuing this for long and others must learn to think for themselves rather than accept this simple and sometimes convincing propaganda dished up as if it was the whole truth. I want to say that I respect your opinion but I must rail against this patently false argument based on appealing to these "straw man distractions" from the real core issues. Using old News clippings is not convincing to me. As I have said above the media outlets are unworthy of being suppliers of any information at all because of the way they treat scientific information. They are not here to "educate" but to "proselytize"... Media "Giants" and politicians are in the same general business and "strut their stuff" to influence opinion for their own fiscal benefit. This article on DDT is simply opinion dished up as an appeal to an unknown pompous "authority"... a common fallacy and cheap trick used by debaters but banned in scientific circles. This stuff wouldn't get past a respected journal's peer review process... red ink would be splashed everywhere.
The media's intent is not to clarify scientific debate but to polarize and politicize issues and thereby create alarm and confusion. Some cub reporter in a backroom in the Fox Network probably was laughing his or her head off at the inside joke that is being carried off right in front of everyone. An uneducated opinion is still just an opinion no matter how it is dressed up to look. Crying "foul" that corporate criminals were sent to jail based on this misinterpretation of the intent of the lifting of the ban on the chemical is a "linguistic trick". The use of DDT, which was only banned in the US and some other developed countries like Australia, had become nearly ineffective on the primary insect (mosquito) that had long since grown immune to it's effect. The effects on native wildlife especially birds is well known and scientifically proven not to mention it's effect on the natural food chain in general where it killed "everything" by depleting all sources of insect food-stocks for prey for the other species. It's true influence will never be adequately assessed. Wherever it was used is very persistent in the environment with a half life of up to 30 years further killing in the soil and in the watercourses it leeched into eradicating benevolent species with the "noxious". DDT was a blunt tool that indiscriminately wiped out all insect species wherever it was used turning natural habitats into dead silent woods and streams. Yes it did save many people at first in mostly third world countries but it was greatly overused and is still overused to this day... unabated.
Wikipedia: DDT
Their end interest of Media Outlets such as Fox is only to sell more copy. Science is not motivating them... it is the almighty dollar and they really do not care what will happen to you or to me or to the hungry parts of the world where food production is rapidly falling. As previously... what is your motive except to try and confuse the underlying arguments and laughing at the fools we mere mortals can be?
Does attacking the messenger usually work for you?
The Fox news article highlighted the World Health Organizations change in position to actively PROMOTE the use of DDT for Malaria control.
Since you don't believe Steve Milloy of Fox (not a cub reporter by the way)
Here's a link to the WHO site:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releas...0/en/index.html
I never argued that OUTDOOR spraying by DDT was effective against Malaria, it can be, but only in relatively limited cases where it is targeted at specific areas of very high mosquito population breeding sites that lead to Malaria transmission to humans (ie a small swampy area near human habitation), and then the sites have to be drained.
What the WHO said though was in agreement with Milloy's view, that the 30 years that DDT wasn't used resulted in a great deal of unnecessary deaths in the world.
I never argued that OUTDOOR spraying by DDT was effective against Malaria, it can be, but only in relatively limited cases where it is targeted at specific areas of very high mosquito population breeding sites that lead to Malaria transmission to humans (ie a small swampy area near human habitation), and then the sites have to be drained.
What the WHO said though was in agreement with Milloy's view, that the 30 years that DDT wasn't used resulted in a great deal of unnecessary deaths in the world.
Extensive research and testing has since demonstrated that well-managed indoor residual spraying programmes using DDT pose no harm to wildlife or to humans.
Of course, if you get your info from Wiki its likely to be tainted by activists who put their agenda ahead of the facts. Wiki used to be good, but is not very useful when people use it to push their private agendas.
The media's intent is not to clarify scientific debate but to polarize and politicize issues and thereby create alarm and confusion. Some cub reporter in a backroom in the Fox Network probably was laughing his or her head off at the inside joke that is being carried off right in front of everyone. An uneducated opinion is still just an opinion no matter how it is dressed up to look. Crying "foul" that corporate criminals were sent to jail based on this misinterpretation of the intent of the lifting of the ban on the chemical is a "linguistic trick". The use of DDT, which was only banned in the US and some other developed countries like Australia, had become nearly ineffective on the primary insect (mosquito) that had long since grown immune to it's effect. The effects on native wildlife especially birds is well known and scientifically proven not to mention it's effect on the natural food chain in general where it killed "everything" by depleting all sources of insect food-stocks for prey for the other species. It's true influence will never be adequately assessed. Wherever it was used is very persistent in the environment with a half life of up to 30 years further killing in the soil and in the watercourses it leeched into eradicating benevolent species with the "noxious". DDT was a blunt tool that indiscriminately wiped out all insect species wherever it was used turning natural habitats into dead silent woods and streams. Yes it did save many people at first in mostly third world countries but it was greatly overused and is still overused to this day... unabated.
Wikipedia: DDT
Their end interest of Media Outlets such as Fox is only to sell more copy. Science is not motivating them... it is the almighty dollar and they really do not care what will happen to you or to me or to the hungry parts of the world where food production is rapidly falling. As previously... what is your motive except to try and confuse the underlying arguments and laughing at the fools we mere mortals can be?
Does attacking the messenger usually work for you?
The Fox news article highlighted the World Health Organizations change in position to actively PROMOTE the use of DDT for Malaria control.
Since you don't believe Steve Milloy of Fox (not a cub reporter by the way)
Here's a link to the WHO site:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releas...0/en/index.html
QUOTE
Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) today announced that this intervention will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight the disease. WHO is now recommending the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa.
I never argued that OUTDOOR spraying by DDT was effective against Malaria, it can be, but only in relatively limited cases where it is targeted at specific areas of very high mosquito population breeding sites that lead to Malaria transmission to humans (ie a small swampy area near human habitation), and then the sites have to be drained.
What the WHO said though was in agreement with Milloy's view, that the 30 years that DDT wasn't used resulted in a great deal of unnecessary deaths in the world.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) today announced that this intervention will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight the disease. WHO is now recommending the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa. |
I never argued that OUTDOOR spraying by DDT was effective against Malaria, it can be, but only in relatively limited cases where it is targeted at specific areas of very high mosquito population breeding sites that lead to Malaria transmission to humans (ie a small swampy area near human habitation), and then the sites have to be drained.
What the WHO said though was in agreement with Milloy's view, that the 30 years that DDT wasn't used resulted in a great deal of unnecessary deaths in the world.
Extensive research and testing has since demonstrated that well-managed indoor residual spraying programmes using DDT pose no harm to wildlife or to humans.
Of course, if you get your info from Wiki its likely to be tainted by activists who put their agenda ahead of the facts. Wiki used to be good, but is not very useful when people use it to push their private agendas.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
The issues have not changed and the overwhelming weight of the scientific argument is solidly behind a very negative interpretation to outcomes related to Global Warming much more now than ever before. It is even more imperative today than even a couple of short years ago since the evidence has stacked up a lot faster than it was ever thought it would. Like the arguments supporting the plain facts regarding smoking and it's link to lung cancer... it is never possible to convince anyone who brings their self interest and prejudice to this problem rather than see this as a real threat to the survival of most of the world's ecology and perhaps even of the peoples of the world.
LOL, How did you convolute this argument to get to smoking? Again, no facts just trying to equate dissent with your point of view with a irrelevant Strawman argument.
LOL, How did you convolute this argument to get to smoking? Again, no facts just trying to equate dissent with your point of view with a irrelevant Strawman argument.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
The second article you refer to on World Food Production is referring to data that is even much older again. The argument about Global Climate Change is not about single issues as you so cleverly zero in on using stale contributions to the subject on the side issue of what was happening in some places at that time in the past... the real issue is about the future... Unfortunately neither you or I can foretell exactly what that may bring but if you asked the bulk of the scientists of the world there is a very dark underbelly to the otherwise comic emphasis you seem to think befits this serious issue. That paper emphasizes the net primary production and says nothing about net global loss of land cover through land clearing. Without that prejudice the sums would not add up... Losses exceed gains but profits are up.
To emphasize simple profit over sustainable ecology shows the nature of your argument and betrays an unspoken hidden self interest. What you didn't say was the paper you referred to does not deny the basic facts about Global Climate Change but virtually says "... look at all this wealth we have produced". Sure.... increased CO2 and Global Warming does initially help plant growth but mass clearing most certainly does not if slash and burn activity in the Amazon Basin and elsewhere "helps" increase overall production using the firestick to clear regions which were formerly able to sustain huge natural jungles. Scientists mostly agree that the negative effects of Global Climate Change takes decades to show their "true colors" but you can be assured that when it does it will be far too late to change the ominous direction of our collective fate.
You need to slow down and READ the article Elf.
The article is NOT about World Food Production, but about Net Primary Productivity.
That's the SUM TOTAL of the Terrestrial Biomass.
http://secure.ntsg.umt.edu/publications/20...nceJune6-03.pdf
And NO, it's not an old study, it came out in 2003 and was the result of painstaking analysis of data from the Terra Satellite launched in the late 80s. It covers two decades of plant growth over the entire globe and is the first and most extensive study of this sort. The satellite results are compared to 60 ground based stations to insure the satellite interpretation agrees with the land based observations. I keep up with the Terra program and nothing has come out to show a decrease in NPP since this last assessment.
WHAT THEY FOUND OUT:
That's right, CLIMATE CHANGE has eased MULTIPLE CLIMATIC CONSTRAINTS to plant growth on a GLOBAL SCALE.
This is NOT about slash and burn agriculture in the tropics as NO ONE is for that and there is not one mention of profit in the entire article, how you jump to these erroneous conclusions boggles the mind. And before you go painting me with your broad brush of anti-this and that, please find ONE post of mine that say's I'm not in favor of sustainable agriculture. JUST ONE. (hint, don't bother looking because one doesn't exist)
The fact is the issues you bring up (land use changes, sustainable agriculture, slash and burn of the tropics) are related to population growth and NOT global warming/climate change.
That's right, CLIMATE CHANGE has eased MULTIPLE CLIMATIC CONSTRAINTS to plant growth on a GLOBAL SCALE.
This is NOT about slash and burn agriculture in the tropics as NO ONE is for that and there is not one mention of profit in the entire article, how you jump to these erroneous conclusions boggles the mind. And before you go painting me with your broad brush of anti-this and that, please find ONE post of mine that say's I'm not in favor of sustainable agriculture. JUST ONE. (hint, don't bother looking because one doesn't exist)
The fact is the issues you bring up (land use changes, sustainable agriculture, slash and burn of the tropics) are related to population growth and NOT global warming/climate change.
I could start to troop out the thousands of articles that have been published since our last discussions but it still would not mean anything since all your interest in this topic is concentrated in creating simple doubt and confusion using the "money trail" to lead people away from the central debate.... We must all assume that if that was your "best shot" then I can summarize your point of view easily... The argument you have expressed above reflect this one core opinion.....
They might be Giants
... I think that says it all.
It does, it says instead of actually producing something worth discussing your argument rests on Ad Hominum attacks.
I thought you better than this.
My POINT Elf is not that GW can't cause problems, but that SO FAR none of these problems has manifested itself and indeed, by any objective measure, the world and its inhabitants are better off today than they were before.
Does this guarantee that these GOOD impacts of climate change will be the case over the next several decades?
No, but the TRIVIAL amount of warming that is projected over that time frame is unlikely to cause a negative change of the magnitude that alarmists claim either.
We do have REAL problems on this plant and they are primarily one of POPULATION, access to CLEAN WATER, AIDS and MALARIA.
All of these (except maybe AIDS) would benefit from MORE access to energy by the poor people of the world.
The fact is, on a global scale GW is at present and for the forseeable future a MINOR issue, and further it is NOT something that punative energy policies in the developed countries can solve.
Why, because the majority of the CO2 comes from the DEVELOPING world and further the vast majority of the growth in CO2 comes from the DEVELOPING world.
The fact is if GW is an issue than we need to look at MITIGATION stratagies because our industries, homes and economies pretty much depend on a steady flow of energy and for at least the next 50 years that energy will be highly coupled to the use of fossil fuels.
Surely you can see this?
If not how about this little graph of correlation of CO2 (Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide), percent growth, population in millions and percent growth?
1990 21,683 = 0.5% P=5,270 = 1.7%
1991 21,558 = -.6% P=5,353 = 1.6%
1992 21,510 = -.2% P=5,437 = 1.6%
1993 21,761 = 1.2% P=5,517 = 1.5%
1994 21,931 = 0.8% P=5,597 = 1.4%
1995 22,284 = 1.6% P=5,677 = 1.4%
1996 22,805 = 2.3% P=5,757 = 1.4%
1997 23,246 = 1.9% P=5,836 = 1.4%
1998 23,159 = -0.4% P=5,914 = 1.3%
1999 23,535 = 1.6% P=5,990 = 1.3%
2000 24,010 = 2.0% P=6,066 = 1.3%
2001 24,253 = 1.0% P=6,142 = 1.2%
2002 24,823 = 2.3% P=6,217 = 1.2%
2003 26,063 = 5.0% P=6,291 = 1.2%
2004 27,453 = 5.3% P=6,367 = 1.2%
2005 28,485 = 3.8% P=6,443 = 1.2%
2006 29,195 = 2.5% P=6,519 = 1.2%
What is obvious are several key facts about the world.
Global CO2 production is growing faster than population.
If you look at the last decade you can see the growth in CO2 is accelerating, which means the Kyoto accords did NOTHING to slow down this growth.
No big surprise there, the countries it targeted had essentially low population growth and already had low rates of energy growth.
The countries left out are where both the energy growth and population growth are occuring, and nothing in the latest proposals pre Copenhagen are substantially different. In fact both India and China have come out and are all about setting PER CAPITA standards for emissions. Which, since they are still quite low on that basis is simply a recipe for business as usual.
So, yes there is plenty of movement to reign in the developed world's use of energy, but it's NOT for climate control, it's simply an economic means of wealth redistribution.
Is that what you are in favor of?
Because if you think that CO2 is the real problem, then HOW can you say its OK for China to continue to increase its CO2 production at the prodigious rate that it is doing so?
China CO2, in Million Metric Tons of CO2 and % growth from just 2001.
2001 3,107 =4.8%
2002 3,440 =10.7%
2003 4,061 =18.1%
2004 4,847 =19.3%
2005 5,429 =12.0%
2006 6,017 =10.8%
Thus China, over this period, accounted for 60% of the global growth in CO2.
Arthur
To emphasize simple profit over sustainable ecology shows the nature of your argument and betrays an unspoken hidden self interest. What you didn't say was the paper you referred to does not deny the basic facts about Global Climate Change but virtually says "... look at all this wealth we have produced". Sure.... increased CO2 and Global Warming does initially help plant growth but mass clearing most certainly does not if slash and burn activity in the Amazon Basin and elsewhere "helps" increase overall production using the firestick to clear regions which were formerly able to sustain huge natural jungles. Scientists mostly agree that the negative effects of Global Climate Change takes decades to show their "true colors" but you can be assured that when it does it will be far too late to change the ominous direction of our collective fate.
You need to slow down and READ the article Elf.
The article is NOT about World Food Production, but about Net Primary Productivity.
That's the SUM TOTAL of the Terrestrial Biomass.
http://secure.ntsg.umt.edu/publications/20...nceJune6-03.pdf
And NO, it's not an old study, it came out in 2003 and was the result of painstaking analysis of data from the Terra Satellite launched in the late 80s. It covers two decades of plant growth over the entire globe and is the first and most extensive study of this sort. The satellite results are compared to 60 ground based stations to insure the satellite interpretation agrees with the land based observations. I keep up with the Terra program and nothing has come out to show a decrease in NPP since this last assessment.
WHAT THEY FOUND OUT:
QUOTE
we analyze nearly two decades of recent global climatic data and satellite observations of vegetative activity and show that climatic changes have eased multiple climatic constraints to plant growth, increasing NPP over large regions of Earth.
That's right, CLIMATE CHANGE has eased MULTIPLE CLIMATIC CONSTRAINTS to plant growth on a GLOBAL SCALE.
This is NOT about slash and burn agriculture in the tropics as NO ONE is for that and there is not one mention of profit in the entire article, how you jump to these erroneous conclusions boggles the mind. And before you go painting me with your broad brush of anti-this and that, please find ONE post of mine that say's I'm not in favor of sustainable agriculture. JUST ONE. (hint, don't bother looking because one doesn't exist)
The fact is the issues you bring up (land use changes, sustainable agriculture, slash and burn of the tropics) are related to population growth and NOT global warming/climate change.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| we analyze nearly two decades of recent global climatic data and satellite observations of vegetative activity and show that climatic changes have eased multiple climatic constraints to plant growth, increasing NPP over large regions of Earth. |
That's right, CLIMATE CHANGE has eased MULTIPLE CLIMATIC CONSTRAINTS to plant growth on a GLOBAL SCALE.
This is NOT about slash and burn agriculture in the tropics as NO ONE is for that and there is not one mention of profit in the entire article, how you jump to these erroneous conclusions boggles the mind. And before you go painting me with your broad brush of anti-this and that, please find ONE post of mine that say's I'm not in favor of sustainable agriculture. JUST ONE. (hint, don't bother looking because one doesn't exist)
The fact is the issues you bring up (land use changes, sustainable agriculture, slash and burn of the tropics) are related to population growth and NOT global warming/climate change.
I could start to troop out the thousands of articles that have been published since our last discussions but it still would not mean anything since all your interest in this topic is concentrated in creating simple doubt and confusion using the "money trail" to lead people away from the central debate.... We must all assume that if that was your "best shot" then I can summarize your point of view easily... The argument you have expressed above reflect this one core opinion.....
They might be Giants
... I think that says it all.
It does, it says instead of actually producing something worth discussing your argument rests on Ad Hominum attacks.
I thought you better than this.
My POINT Elf is not that GW can't cause problems, but that SO FAR none of these problems has manifested itself and indeed, by any objective measure, the world and its inhabitants are better off today than they were before.
Does this guarantee that these GOOD impacts of climate change will be the case over the next several decades?
No, but the TRIVIAL amount of warming that is projected over that time frame is unlikely to cause a negative change of the magnitude that alarmists claim either.
We do have REAL problems on this plant and they are primarily one of POPULATION, access to CLEAN WATER, AIDS and MALARIA.
All of these (except maybe AIDS) would benefit from MORE access to energy by the poor people of the world.
The fact is, on a global scale GW is at present and for the forseeable future a MINOR issue, and further it is NOT something that punative energy policies in the developed countries can solve.
Why, because the majority of the CO2 comes from the DEVELOPING world and further the vast majority of the growth in CO2 comes from the DEVELOPING world.
The fact is if GW is an issue than we need to look at MITIGATION stratagies because our industries, homes and economies pretty much depend on a steady flow of energy and for at least the next 50 years that energy will be highly coupled to the use of fossil fuels.
Surely you can see this?
If not how about this little graph of correlation of CO2 (Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide), percent growth, population in millions and percent growth?
1990 21,683 = 0.5% P=5,270 = 1.7%
1991 21,558 = -.6% P=5,353 = 1.6%
1992 21,510 = -.2% P=5,437 = 1.6%
1993 21,761 = 1.2% P=5,517 = 1.5%
1994 21,931 = 0.8% P=5,597 = 1.4%
1995 22,284 = 1.6% P=5,677 = 1.4%
1996 22,805 = 2.3% P=5,757 = 1.4%
1997 23,246 = 1.9% P=5,836 = 1.4%
1998 23,159 = -0.4% P=5,914 = 1.3%
1999 23,535 = 1.6% P=5,990 = 1.3%
2000 24,010 = 2.0% P=6,066 = 1.3%
2001 24,253 = 1.0% P=6,142 = 1.2%
2002 24,823 = 2.3% P=6,217 = 1.2%
2003 26,063 = 5.0% P=6,291 = 1.2%
2004 27,453 = 5.3% P=6,367 = 1.2%
2005 28,485 = 3.8% P=6,443 = 1.2%
2006 29,195 = 2.5% P=6,519 = 1.2%
What is obvious are several key facts about the world.
Global CO2 production is growing faster than population.
If you look at the last decade you can see the growth in CO2 is accelerating, which means the Kyoto accords did NOTHING to slow down this growth.
No big surprise there, the countries it targeted had essentially low population growth and already had low rates of energy growth.
The countries left out are where both the energy growth and population growth are occuring, and nothing in the latest proposals pre Copenhagen are substantially different. In fact both India and China have come out and are all about setting PER CAPITA standards for emissions. Which, since they are still quite low on that basis is simply a recipe for business as usual.
So, yes there is plenty of movement to reign in the developed world's use of energy, but it's NOT for climate control, it's simply an economic means of wealth redistribution.
Is that what you are in favor of?
Because if you think that CO2 is the real problem, then HOW can you say its OK for China to continue to increase its CO2 production at the prodigious rate that it is doing so?
China CO2, in Million Metric Tons of CO2 and % growth from just 2001.
2001 3,107 =4.8%
2002 3,440 =10.7%
2003 4,061 =18.1%
2004 4,847 =19.3%
2005 5,429 =12.0%
2006 6,017 =10.8%
Thus China, over this period, accounted for 60% of the global growth in CO2.
Arthur
QUOTE (Good Elf+Oct 20 2009, 09:32 AM)
I think that is a very fair question but I have seen adoucette in action before. This is how he gets his "jollies" putting down the legitimate scientific opinion and preferring to emphasize the louder voice of "self interest". Scientists do not "scream loud enough" and speak with too small a voice... It is their way and they can be drowned out by "bully boy" tactics. It happened in Germany before World War II and it is all happening again.
adoucette has earned more respect from the more knowledgeable folk here than you have. adoucette has argued with facts and evidence, which you haven't. Finally, adoucette isn't comparing anyone to a nazi, which you are. That in and of itself highlights your failure to present a coherent argument based on the facts, which the rest of this post goes on to evince. The next time you open up Wikipedia, look up "Godwin's Law."
This is about the fourth or fifth time I've seen you ignore hard data in favor of relying on ad hominem arguments. If you cannot come up with a logical, coherent argument based on and supported by facts, then simply stop arguing.
For the record: I hate Fox news, too. But you know what? News outlets don't proselytize. They entertain. Their entire existence is devoted to getting people to watch their shows, read their newspapers or magazines or listen to their broadcasts, in order to drive up prices on commercial advertisement. If Fox news wanted to convert liberals to conservatives (the only possible interpretation of claiming they proselytize), they'd not be such an incredibly closed-minded bastion of conservatism to begin with. It's ridiculous to think otherwise.
To that end, they tend to report science content which is sensational, can be spun to appear sensational, supports their political views or can be spun to appear to support their political views.
This is about the fourth or fifth time I've seen you ignore hard data in favor of relying on ad hominem arguments. If you cannot come up with a logical, coherent argument based on and supported by facts, then simply stop arguing.
QUOTE
Like the arguments supporting the plain facts regarding smoking and it's link to lung cancer... it is never possible to convince anyone who brings their self interest and prejudice to this problem rather than see this as a real threat to the survival of most of the world's ecology and perhaps even of the peoples of the world.
What?!?! If you know of anyone who cannot be convinced that smoking causes lung cancer, then you know a downright delusional person. There is no question whether or not there exists a link between smoking and lung cancer. Comparing adoucette's argument (which isn't about the cause of global warming) to that is extreme dishonesty.For the record: I hate Fox news, too. But you know what? News outlets don't proselytize. They entertain. Their entire existence is devoted to getting people to watch their shows, read their newspapers or magazines or listen to their broadcasts, in order to drive up prices on commercial advertisement. If Fox news wanted to convert liberals to conservatives (the only possible interpretation of claiming they proselytize), they'd not be such an incredibly closed-minded bastion of conservatism to begin with. It's ridiculous to think otherwise.
To that end, they tend to report science content which is sensational, can be spun to appear sensational, supports their political views or can be spun to appear to support their political views.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Like the arguments supporting the plain facts regarding smoking and it's link to lung cancer... it is never possible to convince anyone who brings their self interest and prejudice to this problem rather than see this as a real threat to the survival of most of the world's ecology and perhaps even of the peoples of the world. |
What?!?! If you know of anyone who cannot be convinced that smoking causes lung cancer, then you know a downright delusional person. There is no question whether or not there exists a link between smoking and lung cancer. Comparing adoucette's argument (which isn't about the cause of global warming) to that is extreme dishonesty.
For the record: I hate Fox news, too. But you know what? News outlets don't proselytize. They entertain. Their entire existence is devoted to getting people to watch their shows, read their newspapers or magazines or listen to their broadcasts, in order to drive up prices on commercial advertisement. If Fox news wanted to convert liberals to conservatives (the only possible interpretation of claiming they proselytize), they'd not be such an incredibly closed-minded bastion of conservatism to begin with. It's ridiculous to think otherwise.
To that end, they tend to report science content which is sensational, can be spun to appear sensational, supports their political views or can be spun to appear to support their political views.
Of course, if you get your info from Wiki its likely to be tainted by activists who put their agenda ahead of the facts. Wiki used to be good, but is not very useful when people use it to push their private agendas.
For the record: I hate Fox news, too. But you know what? News outlets don't proselytize. They entertain. Their entire existence is devoted to getting people to watch their shows, read their newspapers or magazines or listen to their broadcasts, in order to drive up prices on commercial advertisement. If Fox news wanted to convert liberals to conservatives (the only possible interpretation of claiming they proselytize), they'd not be such an incredibly closed-minded bastion of conservatism to begin with. It's ridiculous to think otherwise.
To that end, they tend to report science content which is sensational, can be spun to appear sensational, supports their political views or can be spun to appear to support their political views.
Of course, if you get your info from Wiki its likely to be tainted by activists who put their agenda ahead of the facts. Wiki used to be good, but is not very useful when people use it to push their private agendas.
Wiki is still good on any non-controversial topic. Even on controversial topics, it's a good starting place because of it's preference for online and publicly available sources.
QUOTE
The fact is, on a global scale GW is at present and for the forseeable future a MINOR issue, and further it is NOT something that punative energy policies in the developed countries can solve.
I disagree with the bolded portion here. We can track the potential of GW far into the future, where it can become a serious problem. If you'd said the "immediate future" instead of the "foreseeable future" I'd be in agreement with that.
First, thanks for the kind words.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
QUOTE (Arthur+)
The fact is, on a global scale GW is at present and for the forseeable future a MINOR issue, and further it is NOT something that punitive energy policies in the developed countries can solve.
I disagree with the bolded portion here. We can track the potential of GW far into the future, where it can become a serious problem. If you'd said the "immediate future" instead of the "foreseeable future" I'd be in agreement with that.
Earlier in the post I mentioned several decades, which is about what I consider "the foreseeable future".
The reason I tend to limit this is that the IPCC models are based upon input from "Scenarios" and these scenarios are based on many unknowable facets of how the global economy/population/energy use will evolve over time.
I find that most of these are just extrapolations from current trends and quickly get silly as they get three or four decades out.
A simple example would be the unexpected fall off in the growth of Methane.
It had been rising for some time but then just quit.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/i...ge-05-2006b.jpg
This is important because CH4 has far more Warming potential (per unit of increase) than CO2.
Similarly they also recently upped CH4's warming potential to 32X CO2, but the models in AR4 were run at 24X (which in effect overstates the impact of CO2)
Another area of concern is population projections. While the UN office that deals with population growth, only projects out 40 yeas to mid century, the scenarios use projections out for over twice as far. It's not likely that we can really accurately predict how many people will be around 100 years from now (or the conditions they will face), when the UN population office can only say there will be between 8 billion and 10.3 billion come 2050.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publicati..._highlights.pdf
Personally I think that the global infrastructure will suffer SEVERE problems well before we get to the mean anticipated population of ~9 billion people around 2050.
Similarly the unreality of the assumptions about economic growth in developing countries is highlighted by the scenarios posted on the IPCC’s SRES website.
I disagree with the bolded portion here. We can track the potential of GW far into the future, where it can become a serious problem. If you'd said the "immediate future" instead of the "foreseeable future" I'd be in agreement with that.
Earlier in the post I mentioned several decades, which is about what I consider "the foreseeable future".
The reason I tend to limit this is that the IPCC models are based upon input from "Scenarios" and these scenarios are based on many unknowable facets of how the global economy/population/energy use will evolve over time.
I find that most of these are just extrapolations from current trends and quickly get silly as they get three or four decades out.
A simple example would be the unexpected fall off in the growth of Methane.
It had been rising for some time but then just quit.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/i...ge-05-2006b.jpg
This is important because CH4 has far more Warming potential (per unit of increase) than CO2.
Similarly they also recently upped CH4's warming potential to 32X CO2, but the models in AR4 were run at 24X (which in effect overstates the impact of CO2)
Another area of concern is population projections. While the UN office that deals with population growth, only projects out 40 yeas to mid century, the scenarios use projections out for over twice as far. It's not likely that we can really accurately predict how many people will be around 100 years from now (or the conditions they will face), when the UN population office can only say there will be between 8 billion and 10.3 billion come 2050.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publicati..._highlights.pdf
Personally I think that the global infrastructure will suffer SEVERE problems well before we get to the mean anticipated population of ~9 billion people around 2050.
Similarly the unreality of the assumptions about economic growth in developing countries is highlighted by the scenarios posted on the IPCC’s SRES website.
QUOTE (David Henderson (former chief economist for OCED)+)
These projections imply that, even for the lowest emission scenarios, the average income of South Africans will have overtaken that of Americans by a very wide margin by the end of the century. In fact America's per capita income will then have been surpassed not only by South Africa's, but also by that of other emerging economic powerhouses, including Algeria, Argentina, Libya, Turkey and North Korea.
The SRES summary for policymakers tells us that the 40 scenarios “together encompass the current range of uncertainties of future emissions”. Plainly, this is incorrect. The panel's low-emissions scenarios make exceptionally optimistic assumptions about economic growth in the developing world. The combination of overstated gaps and of built-in assumptions about the extent of convergence in the average incomes of rich and poor countries yields projections of GDP for developing regions which are improbably high.
Even the scenarios which give the lowest figures for projected cumulative emissions in the course of the century assume that average incomes in the developing countries as a whole will increase at a much faster rate than has ever been achieved in the past.
The other issue with the scenarios is the high hot ones have totally unrealistic projections of fossil fuel use throughout this century.
The SRES summary for policymakers tells us that the 40 scenarios “together encompass the current range of uncertainties of future emissions”. Plainly, this is incorrect. The panel's low-emissions scenarios make exceptionally optimistic assumptions about economic growth in the developing world. The combination of overstated gaps and of built-in assumptions about the extent of convergence in the average incomes of rich and poor countries yields projections of GDP for developing regions which are improbably high.
Even the scenarios which give the lowest figures for projected cumulative emissions in the course of the century assume that average incomes in the developing countries as a whole will increase at a much faster rate than has ever been achieved in the past.
The other issue with the scenarios is the high hot ones have totally unrealistic projections of fossil fuel use throughout this century.
QUOTE (James Hansen+)
peak total emissions in the four SRES scenario families range from ~12 Gt C yr-1 in 2040 (B1 marker scenario) to a staggering ~28 and 29 Gt C yr-1 in 2100 (A2 and A1F1 marker scenarios, respectively). ... Thus, it is clear that the high-end SRES scenarios implicitly assume that, in the absence of climate mitigation policies, massive amounts of unconventional or ‘undiscovered’ resources will become viable substitutes for dwindling conventional reserves.
From: Implications of “peak oil” for atmospheric CO2 and climate: Pushker A. Kharecha and James E. Hansen
Clearly these HOT scenarios rely heavily on the assumption that carbon-positive substitute fuels will not be developed in the future to replace declining conventional fuel reserves and there will be little to no rising price on carbon emissions. Both of which I find highly unlikely.
Similarly the impact of other issues over more than a 2 or 3 decade timeline are unknown, like possible rapid adoption of thin film PV, vastly increased use of Wind power over expectations, resurgence of nuclear power, variations in Solar irradiance (will the current quite sun continue?), feedback from clouds (a tiny percent increase of clouds can easily negate the push from CO2 for instance), lack of any evidence for an increase in forcing from increased H2O etc etc
So, the first issue with the models is that the scenario input is suspect, but even so, using the same scenarios the models themselves show a WIDE range of values: 1.1 to 6.4 deg C/cent. in AR4. and keep in mind that the IPCC warns that you can't assume that the middle value is the most likely outcome.
BUT, most of the scary scenarios show the impact of the higher values, while the reality is the actual climate has been trending under the lower model values.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content...monktonized.jpg
Note that doesn't stop people like Monkton from screwing this concept up and OVER stating the case (as seen in the above diagram)
Arthur
Clearly these HOT scenarios rely heavily on the assumption that carbon-positive substitute fuels will not be developed in the future to replace declining conventional fuel reserves and there will be little to no rising price on carbon emissions. Both of which I find highly unlikely.
Similarly the impact of other issues over more than a 2 or 3 decade timeline are unknown, like possible rapid adoption of thin film PV, vastly increased use of Wind power over expectations, resurgence of nuclear power, variations in Solar irradiance (will the current quite sun continue?), feedback from clouds (a tiny percent increase of clouds can easily negate the push from CO2 for instance), lack of any evidence for an increase in forcing from increased H2O etc etc
So, the first issue with the models is that the scenario input is suspect, but even so, using the same scenarios the models themselves show a WIDE range of values: 1.1 to 6.4 deg C/cent. in AR4. and keep in mind that the IPCC warns that you can't assume that the middle value is the most likely outcome.
BUT, most of the scary scenarios show the impact of the higher values, while the reality is the actual climate has been trending under the lower model values.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content...monktonized.jpg
Note that doesn't stop people like Monkton from screwing this concept up and OVER stating the case (as seen in the above diagram)
Arthur
I have one question about global warming before you guys chop each other to pieces. If the global warming is so bad now, why did these same guys who are pushing this down our throats say 20 years ago that there was a global cooling? Are you trusting their word for it or are you actually doing it yourself? Trust me, you can find stats for absolutely anything if you look hard enough in all the right places. Explain this and you officially get cool point.
QUOTE
Now that's how you do it son.
QUOTE (Alaxir Zoa+Nov 10 2009, 11:56 PM)
... say 20 years ago ....? .
Technology breeds better technology breeds refined data accuracy.
We now have latest deep ice core weather/air quality projections.
Rapid polar melting causes fluctuating cold spots. But overall desertification
spreading is predicted, as polar regions are slowly depleted, with less ice
apparent each winter season.
Technology breeds innovations breeds technical solutions.
Large thin material space-arrays have been discussed as feasible solar shading
to adjust the climate. This is one of many discussed solutions.
Techno-Shock breeds technology contempt.
Anti-corporate, Green movement, New Agrarian Society, One World Government, 'Minimalistic' Culture Models, etc.
Three "doubt schools" exist:
1)"Dont try to save me...I'm making money off this deluge."
2)"There's a problem, but I don't want to discuss solutions...I'm still trying to
poo-poo human involvement in it's cause."
3)"There's no problem, just some tree-huggers trying to ruin my lifestyle."
Technology breeds better technology breeds refined data accuracy.
We now have latest deep ice core weather/air quality projections.
Rapid polar melting causes fluctuating cold spots. But overall desertification
spreading is predicted, as polar regions are slowly depleted, with less ice
apparent each winter season.
Technology breeds innovations breeds technical solutions.
Large thin material space-arrays have been discussed as feasible solar shading
to adjust the climate. This is one of many discussed solutions.
Techno-Shock breeds technology contempt.
Anti-corporate, Green movement, New Agrarian Society, One World Government, 'Minimalistic' Culture Models, etc.
Three "doubt schools" exist:
1)"Dont try to save me...I'm making money off this deluge."
2)"There's a problem, but I don't want to discuss solutions...I'm still trying to
poo-poo human involvement in it's cause."
3)"There's no problem, just some tree-huggers trying to ruin my lifestyle."
QUOTE (keith*+Nov 10 2009, 07:50 PM)
Technology breeds better technology breeds refined data accuracy.
We now have latest deep ice core weather/air quality projections.
LOL
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
Note the data on Stations.
In the first graph note that we have VERY FEW stations with very long histories
In the second graph, note that the number of reporting stations has PLUMMETED since we started talking about Global Warming?
Don't you find this STRANGE? The MORE IMPORTANT the problem, the LESS we measure the symptoms.
Most importantly, the number of RURAL stations has fallen faster than URBAN stations putting a definate URBAN bias into the long term temperature record.
GISS has gone through quite a number of ADJUSTMENTS to try to remove this Bias. The latest uses Night time satellite "light" data to rank stations as Urban or Rural, but that's only for US stations, the rest of the world is done simply by out of date population estimates.
No biggy you say, except that when you are only talking about 1 friggin degree over 100 years, then YES any adjustment is suspect.
Think the stations in the US are pretty good?
Think again
http://www.surfacestations.org/
Note how BAD the stations are.
(it's frankly embarrassing)
Then finally, look at the Third Graph, this one is on Spatial coverage by hemisphere.
Note that it too is declining, and quite poor in the Southern Hemisphere.
What's even more interesting is the definition of coverage.
GISS claims the area is "covered" if they have a station within 1200 kilometers.
WRONG.
The fact is we have no ability to tell the temp of the globe at any given time to the accuracy of 1 degree F.
To claim we can tell it to an accuracy of a tenth of a degree over the span of 110 years is LUDICROUS at best.
Arthur
We now have latest deep ice core weather/air quality projections.
LOL
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
Note the data on Stations.
In the first graph note that we have VERY FEW stations with very long histories
In the second graph, note that the number of reporting stations has PLUMMETED since we started talking about Global Warming?
Don't you find this STRANGE? The MORE IMPORTANT the problem, the LESS we measure the symptoms.
Most importantly, the number of RURAL stations has fallen faster than URBAN stations putting a definate URBAN bias into the long term temperature record.
GISS has gone through quite a number of ADJUSTMENTS to try to remove this Bias. The latest uses Night time satellite "light" data to rank stations as Urban or Rural, but that's only for US stations, the rest of the world is done simply by out of date population estimates.
No biggy you say, except that when you are only talking about 1 friggin degree over 100 years, then YES any adjustment is suspect.
Think the stations in the US are pretty good?
Think again
http://www.surfacestations.org/
Note how BAD the stations are.
(it's frankly embarrassing)
Then finally, look at the Third Graph, this one is on Spatial coverage by hemisphere.
Note that it too is declining, and quite poor in the Southern Hemisphere.
What's even more interesting is the definition of coverage.
GISS claims the area is "covered" if they have a station within 1200 kilometers.
WRONG.
The fact is we have no ability to tell the temp of the globe at any given time to the accuracy of 1 degree F.
To claim we can tell it to an accuracy of a tenth of a degree over the span of 110 years is LUDICROUS at best.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 11 2009, 02:34 PM)
The fact is we have no ability to tell the temp of the globe at any given time to the accuracy of 1 degree F.
To claim we can tell it to an accuracy of a tenth of a degree over the span of 110 years is LUDICROUS at best.
Arthur
While I understand what you're saying, i'm not sure I agree with it 100%.
I say that purely on the basis that I have some (small) amount of familiarity with krigeing and geostatistics (and yes, i'm familiar with some of the examples of this producing very wrong answers).
The LSD's/Confidence intervals produced by krigeing, IIRC take distance from the sampling point into account - so depending on a bunch of factors including (but not limited to) distance between stations, and temperature spread within and between stations, it MIGHT, and I can not stress the MIGHT enough, be possible to pin these things down to the sorts of accuracy you're talking about here, but, as a statistical measure, they should always always always always be accompanied with a margin (LSD/CI) and a percentage confidence.
PS.
Good to have you back.
To claim we can tell it to an accuracy of a tenth of a degree over the span of 110 years is LUDICROUS at best.
Arthur
While I understand what you're saying, i'm not sure I agree with it 100%.
I say that purely on the basis that I have some (small) amount of familiarity with krigeing and geostatistics (and yes, i'm familiar with some of the examples of this producing very wrong answers).
The LSD's/Confidence intervals produced by krigeing, IIRC take distance from the sampling point into account - so depending on a bunch of factors including (but not limited to) distance between stations, and temperature spread within and between stations, it MIGHT, and I can not stress the MIGHT enough, be possible to pin these things down to the sorts of accuracy you're talking about here, but, as a statistical measure, they should always always always always be accompanied with a margin (LSD/CI) and a percentage confidence.
PS.
Good to have you back.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 10 2009, 03:20 PM)
First, thanks for the kind words.
No problem. The funny thing is that on many individual points related to the basic disagreement between you two, I'm actually in agreement with GE. I think it's distinctly possible for him to present a coherent argument for his case. I just find it incredibly telling (and typical, given my own history with him) that instead of actually doing so, he relies on fallacies to make his case.
As far as my contribution to the original argument goes, I look at it this way.
Mankind has always altered his environment. It is in our nature. In most cases, we do not think much about it, but when we do, we often tend to see this as wholly bad. Deforestation, the extinction of rare species... Even popular culture embraces the idea that changing our environment is bad, playing songs with choruses like "They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."
But the truth is that change is just that; change. It's neither inherently good or bad, just different. GW has opened up the arctic for ship travel and oil drilling, created new arable land, reduced heating costs in certain areas, and cooling costs in others. Yes, it has the potential to be catastrophic for mankind, but that's only if we allow it to go too far. GW is not inherently bad, it simply has an apparently undesirable risk/reward ratio.
I don't have a problem with most radical environmentalists (I don't mean the most radical of them, such as eco-terrorists, only the moderately radical, as in the uneducated-but-concerned-self-righteous-and-preachy kind) because their passion helps to keep the radical anti-environmentalists (GW deniers in this case) in check. Yes, GW presents several problems, and yes we should endeavor to solve those problems efficiently and with all due haste. But that's as far as it goes. There may very well be solutions which don't correct GW, and those are fine with me.
My main concern is the quality of life of this planet's human population. I encourage the building of coal and gas burning power plants in developing nations because the benefit they offer to their people far outweighs the risks they pose. On the other hand, I encourage research into alternative energy sources, especially renewable energy sources (one of which may one day be fossil fuels, as anyone who closely follows technological advances may know), and most especially eco-friendly renewable sources, because these offer many distinct advantages of their own.
I think that tighter restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions in developed nations is a good thing, for two reasons: First, it encourages research into alternative energy sources, driving down the cost of alternative energy. Second, it sets an example for developing nations to emulate.
All in all, while I'm no GW denier, I don't see this as the sort of problem other people tend to see it as. Yes, most scientists are alarmed (mostly biologists and meteorologists), but those scientists have many different reasons for their concern, the potential survival of mankind being but one of them. Find me a biologist who doesn't think the extinction of any species -no matter how insignificant or harmful to mankind- is a wholly bad thing and I'll find you a jaded cynic who doesn't care about his work anymore.
No problem. The funny thing is that on many individual points related to the basic disagreement between you two, I'm actually in agreement with GE. I think it's distinctly possible for him to present a coherent argument for his case. I just find it incredibly telling (and typical, given my own history with him) that instead of actually doing so, he relies on fallacies to make his case.
QUOTE
Earlier in the post I mentioned several decades, which is about what I consider "the foreseeable future".
Then I am in agreement with that. I don't think that GW is going to result in Florida being flooded and Los Angeles breaking off the continent in the next 60 years, the way many GW proponents do.As far as my contribution to the original argument goes, I look at it this way.
Mankind has always altered his environment. It is in our nature. In most cases, we do not think much about it, but when we do, we often tend to see this as wholly bad. Deforestation, the extinction of rare species... Even popular culture embraces the idea that changing our environment is bad, playing songs with choruses like "They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."
But the truth is that change is just that; change. It's neither inherently good or bad, just different. GW has opened up the arctic for ship travel and oil drilling, created new arable land, reduced heating costs in certain areas, and cooling costs in others. Yes, it has the potential to be catastrophic for mankind, but that's only if we allow it to go too far. GW is not inherently bad, it simply has an apparently undesirable risk/reward ratio.
I don't have a problem with most radical environmentalists (I don't mean the most radical of them, such as eco-terrorists, only the moderately radical, as in the uneducated-but-concerned-self-righteous-and-preachy kind) because their passion helps to keep the radical anti-environmentalists (GW deniers in this case) in check. Yes, GW presents several problems, and yes we should endeavor to solve those problems efficiently and with all due haste. But that's as far as it goes. There may very well be solutions which don't correct GW, and those are fine with me.
My main concern is the quality of life of this planet's human population. I encourage the building of coal and gas burning power plants in developing nations because the benefit they offer to their people far outweighs the risks they pose. On the other hand, I encourage research into alternative energy sources, especially renewable energy sources (one of which may one day be fossil fuels, as anyone who closely follows technological advances may know), and most especially eco-friendly renewable sources, because these offer many distinct advantages of their own.
I think that tighter restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions in developed nations is a good thing, for two reasons: First, it encourages research into alternative energy sources, driving down the cost of alternative energy. Second, it sets an example for developing nations to emulate.
All in all, while I'm no GW denier, I don't see this as the sort of problem other people tend to see it as. Yes, most scientists are alarmed (mostly biologists and meteorologists), but those scientists have many different reasons for their concern, the potential survival of mankind being but one of them. Find me a biologist who doesn't think the extinction of any species -no matter how insignificant or harmful to mankind- is a wholly bad thing and I'll find you a jaded cynic who doesn't care about his work anymore.
Hi Trippy,
If they published anything about margin of error, or how it was determined, that would be one thing, but they don't.
In fact, they won't even publish the data.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6618
Thermometers used for MOST of the earlier record period (I have a NWS official mercury thermometer) were about 12 inches long and had markings every 2 deg F. The markings were thus a little less than 1 mm apart.
There is no way to get an accuracy greater than possibly 1/2 of a degree out of this thermometer, on any given reading.
And that's if the thermometer is properly sited and more importantly, the impact from the surroundings doesn't change over the lifetime of the station.
That last point is a key issue (remember we are only talking about a change of 1 degree over 100 years)
Is that realistic?
Considering that the population of the globe has gone up by 5 billion people over that period?
Yet check the record and you will find that they report the ANNUAL temperature of the GLOBE down to the 1/10th of a degree, all the way back to 1890.
Impossible.
Worse, the siting STINKS.
http://www.surfacestations.org/
Where 60% of the US stations have an accuracy estimated no better than 2 deg C, and most have had substantial changes in both the station location, the time of day measurement, the actual physical method of measurement and most stations have been encroached on by urbanization.
Real life example
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/resea...st3mTDeptUS.png
Note the Southwest corner of Utah.
Do you really think that an extra 100 ppm of CO2 caused this area to run over 5 degrees ABOVE average? (particularly when the areas around it are running several degrees below normal?)
Or might it be that this area (St George) is the fastest growing part of the country and they just put in a new airport with huge paved runways and moved the reporting station to the new airport?
http://www.sgcity.org/airport/
Arthur
If they published anything about margin of error, or how it was determined, that would be one thing, but they don't.
In fact, they won't even publish the data.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6618
Thermometers used for MOST of the earlier record period (I have a NWS official mercury thermometer) were about 12 inches long and had markings every 2 deg F. The markings were thus a little less than 1 mm apart.
There is no way to get an accuracy greater than possibly 1/2 of a degree out of this thermometer, on any given reading.
And that's if the thermometer is properly sited and more importantly, the impact from the surroundings doesn't change over the lifetime of the station.
That last point is a key issue (remember we are only talking about a change of 1 degree over 100 years)
Is that realistic?
Considering that the population of the globe has gone up by 5 billion people over that period?
Yet check the record and you will find that they report the ANNUAL temperature of the GLOBE down to the 1/10th of a degree, all the way back to 1890.
Impossible.
Worse, the siting STINKS.
http://www.surfacestations.org/
Where 60% of the US stations have an accuracy estimated no better than 2 deg C, and most have had substantial changes in both the station location, the time of day measurement, the actual physical method of measurement and most stations have been encroached on by urbanization.
Real life example
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/resea...st3mTDeptUS.png
Note the Southwest corner of Utah.
Do you really think that an extra 100 ppm of CO2 caused this area to run over 5 degrees ABOVE average? (particularly when the areas around it are running several degrees below normal?)
Or might it be that this area (St George) is the fastest growing part of the country and they just put in a new airport with huge paved runways and moved the reporting station to the new airport?
http://www.sgcity.org/airport/
Arthur
MjolnirPants,
I think you and I are in general agreement.
We need to work on alternate energy simply because the cost of relying on fossil fuels will limit our economies if we don't find reasonable replacements reasonably soon.
The fact of the matter is we are (and have been) on a global basis spending enormous sums of money on this, and also on subsidizing alternate energy.
The good news is it looks like they are nearing in on a relatively inexpensive means of burning coal and capturing 90% of the CO2 (Ammonia method)
http://www.powermag.com/POWERnews/Pleasant...s-Say_2223.html
The good news is that the large modern efficient wind turbines are reasonably cost effective.
The good news is that PV sales are over $30 billion per year and climbing (retail prices are now down to about $4 per watt installed prior to subsidies, still too high for most users, but getting there)
The bad news is we haven't made much progress on the energy storage front, and the successful utilization of wind and PV would be greatly enhanced with cost effective energy storage devices.
Arthur
I think you and I are in general agreement.
We need to work on alternate energy simply because the cost of relying on fossil fuels will limit our economies if we don't find reasonable replacements reasonably soon.
The fact of the matter is we are (and have been) on a global basis spending enormous sums of money on this, and also on subsidizing alternate energy.
The good news is it looks like they are nearing in on a relatively inexpensive means of burning coal and capturing 90% of the CO2 (Ammonia method)
http://www.powermag.com/POWERnews/Pleasant...s-Say_2223.html
The good news is that the large modern efficient wind turbines are reasonably cost effective.
The good news is that PV sales are over $30 billion per year and climbing (retail prices are now down to about $4 per watt installed prior to subsidies, still too high for most users, but getting there)
The bad news is we haven't made much progress on the energy storage front, and the successful utilization of wind and PV would be greatly enhanced with cost effective energy storage devices.
Arthur
QUOTE (Alaxir Zoa+Nov 11 2009, 12:56 PM)
I have one question about global warming before you guys chop each other to pieces. If the global warming is so bad now, why did these same guys who are pushing this down our throats say 20 years ago that there was a global cooling? Are you trusting their word for it or are you actually doing it yourself? Trust me, you can find stats for absolutely anything if you look hard enough in all the right places. Explain this and you officially get cool point.
Time for a history lesson, although, I wouldn't need to do this if people like yourself did a little research for themselves before opening their yaps and mouthing off.
The Greenhouse effect was first discovered in 1824 by Joseph Fourier.
John Tyndall conducted the first experiments regarding it in 1858, and it was first qualitatively reported on by Svante Arrhenius, who predicted that at (then) current rates of burning coal, we might begin to see some effects in about 3000 years.
The idea that human beings might be actively affecting the environment through CO2 discharges was first proposed in 1938, but the idea was regarded as something of a scientific curiosity up until the 50's or 60's (it wasn't until Richard Nixon in 1969 that the issue of the greenhouse effect and global warming became politicized) because it was generally accepted as the status quo that because Water and Carbon Dioxide absorbed at the same wavelengths, that the increasing carbon dioxide wouldn't play a significant role, because the water vapor in the atmosphere was already absorbing most of the available radiation. What changed was more accurate experimental data became available, and spectra with higher resolutions became available, and it was realized that the absorption spectra for water and carbon dioxide had a fine structure - narrow bands where they were or weren't absorbing radiation in the absorption band, and that the overlap was nowhere near as good as originally believed. It was 1969 that Richard Nixon became aware of the issue and bought it into the political arena (incidentally, it was in 1960 that the scientific mainstream began accepting the idea).
If I had to frame a hypothesis regarding the global cooling flap, it would be that some scientists (I have it in my head that it was only ever a minority, but I can't back that claim up) got it into their heads that because the Milankovich cycles were entering a cooling phase, and because the levels atmospheric aerosols were increasing, and because carbon dioxide and water absorb at the same frequencies (they don't but in some respects it might still have been considered a new idea that they didn't at the time) then all of these factors might combine to outweigh any additional warming that the rising CO2 levels might produce.
On top of that, most of the information I can find suggests that the global cooling flap in the '70s was largely due to the press mis-representing one or two articles that suggested the possible in context of the wider picture.
Peterson, Thomas & Connolley, William & Fleck, John (September 2008). The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No
Newsweel discussion
Oh, and apparently Time mentioned the idea in an article as well.
So as I say - it was the media hyping up the ideas of a few scientists.
Kukla, G. J., R.K. Matthews & J.M. Mitchell. "Atmospheric particles and climate: can we evaluate the impact of mans activities?: Schneider". Quaternary Research, 2, 261- 9, 1972: "The end of the present interglacial".
(In other words, there was no flip-flop, just media misrepresenting ideas that were being discussed, and a few scifi authors picking up on a cool idea).
Time for a history lesson, although, I wouldn't need to do this if people like yourself did a little research for themselves before opening their yaps and mouthing off.
The Greenhouse effect was first discovered in 1824 by Joseph Fourier.
John Tyndall conducted the first experiments regarding it in 1858, and it was first qualitatively reported on by Svante Arrhenius, who predicted that at (then) current rates of burning coal, we might begin to see some effects in about 3000 years.
The idea that human beings might be actively affecting the environment through CO2 discharges was first proposed in 1938, but the idea was regarded as something of a scientific curiosity up until the 50's or 60's (it wasn't until Richard Nixon in 1969 that the issue of the greenhouse effect and global warming became politicized) because it was generally accepted as the status quo that because Water and Carbon Dioxide absorbed at the same wavelengths, that the increasing carbon dioxide wouldn't play a significant role, because the water vapor in the atmosphere was already absorbing most of the available radiation. What changed was more accurate experimental data became available, and spectra with higher resolutions became available, and it was realized that the absorption spectra for water and carbon dioxide had a fine structure - narrow bands where they were or weren't absorbing radiation in the absorption band, and that the overlap was nowhere near as good as originally believed. It was 1969 that Richard Nixon became aware of the issue and bought it into the political arena (incidentally, it was in 1960 that the scientific mainstream began accepting the idea).
If I had to frame a hypothesis regarding the global cooling flap, it would be that some scientists (I have it in my head that it was only ever a minority, but I can't back that claim up) got it into their heads that because the Milankovich cycles were entering a cooling phase, and because the levels atmospheric aerosols were increasing, and because carbon dioxide and water absorb at the same frequencies (they don't but in some respects it might still have been considered a new idea that they didn't at the time) then all of these factors might combine to outweigh any additional warming that the rising CO2 levels might produce.
On top of that, most of the information I can find suggests that the global cooling flap in the '70s was largely due to the press mis-representing one or two articles that suggested the possible in context of the wider picture.
Peterson, Thomas & Connolley, William & Fleck, John (September 2008). The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No
Newsweel discussion
Oh, and apparently Time mentioned the idea in an article as well.
So as I say - it was the media hyping up the ideas of a few scientists.
Kukla, G. J., R.K. Matthews & J.M. Mitchell. "Atmospheric particles and climate: can we evaluate the impact of mans activities?: Schneider". Quaternary Research, 2, 261- 9, 1972: "The end of the present interglacial".
(In other words, there was no flip-flop, just media misrepresenting ideas that were being discussed, and a few scifi authors picking up on a cool idea).
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 11 2009, 05:52 PM)
MjolnirPants,
I think you and I are in general agreement.
We need to work on alternate energy simply because the cost of relying on fossil fuels will limit our economies if we don't find reasonable replacements reasonably soon.
The fact of the matter is we are (and have been) on a global basis spending enormous sums of money on this, and also on subsidizing alternate energy.
The good news is it looks like they are nearing in on a relatively inexpensive means of burning coal and capturing 90% of the CO2 (Ammonia method)
http://www.powermag.com/POWERnews/Pleasant...s-Say_2223.html
The good news is that the large modern efficient wind turbines are reasonably cost effective.
The good news is that PV sales are over $30 billion per year and climbing (retail prices are now down to about $4 per watt installed prior to subsidies, still too high for most users, but getting there)
The bad news is we haven't made much progress on the energy storage front, and the successful utilization of wind and PV would be greatly enhanced with cost effective energy storage devices.
Arthur
There's been some interesting work done in storing Hydrogen as Ammonia, and extracting useful energy from the ammonia.
When I have more time, I'll see if I can dig out some articles for you.
I think you and I are in general agreement.
We need to work on alternate energy simply because the cost of relying on fossil fuels will limit our economies if we don't find reasonable replacements reasonably soon.
The fact of the matter is we are (and have been) on a global basis spending enormous sums of money on this, and also on subsidizing alternate energy.
The good news is it looks like they are nearing in on a relatively inexpensive means of burning coal and capturing 90% of the CO2 (Ammonia method)
http://www.powermag.com/POWERnews/Pleasant...s-Say_2223.html
The good news is that the large modern efficient wind turbines are reasonably cost effective.
The good news is that PV sales are over $30 billion per year and climbing (retail prices are now down to about $4 per watt installed prior to subsidies, still too high for most users, but getting there)
The bad news is we haven't made much progress on the energy storage front, and the successful utilization of wind and PV would be greatly enhanced with cost effective energy storage devices.
Arthur
There's been some interesting work done in storing Hydrogen as Ammonia, and extracting useful energy from the ammonia.
When I have more time, I'll see if I can dig out some articles for you.
As often happens, I'm not entirely sure how to respond to some of what you say, except to make the point that if you have a sufficient volume of data, you can smooth out random errors, and improve data quality, and to point out that outliers often make themselves readily apparent. Having said that, i'm not going to vouch for someone else's data handling techniques and comment on the accuracy of the methods they used when there is so little information generally available.
Although, this AP News article might interest you.
Although, this AP News article might interest you.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 11 2009, 05:35 PM)
Hi Trippy,
If they published anything about margin of error, or how it was determined, that would be one thing, but they don't.
This always makes me a little cranky.
If they published anything about margin of error, or how it was determined, that would be one thing, but they don't.
This always makes me a little cranky.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 11 2009, 05:35 PM)
That last point is a key issue (remember we are only talking about a change of 1 degree over 100 years)
Is that realistic?
I'm not going to comment on whether or not it's realistic for a bunch of reasons, some of which i've mentioned.
However, I will say that it's potentially realistic, although it's not something I would generally do in anything I am likely to publish. I was always taught that when you're quoting a calculated result and it's error margin, you only quote to the same number of significant figures as your least accurate data. So I suppose from a strictly technical stand point it may be valid to discuss a change of 1 degree, even if reading the initial data to that accuracy is taxing the limits of the accuracy of the measurement. A warming of 1±2F may be a meaninful result (although somewhat annoying to anybody trying to understand it, and probably to the reasearcher as well).
Is that realistic?
I'm not going to comment on whether or not it's realistic for a bunch of reasons, some of which i've mentioned.
However, I will say that it's potentially realistic, although it's not something I would generally do in anything I am likely to publish. I was always taught that when you're quoting a calculated result and it's error margin, you only quote to the same number of significant figures as your least accurate data. So I suppose from a strictly technical stand point it may be valid to discuss a change of 1 degree, even if reading the initial data to that accuracy is taxing the limits of the accuracy of the measurement. A warming of 1±2F may be a meaninful result (although somewhat annoying to anybody trying to understand it, and probably to the reasearcher as well).
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 11 2009, 05:35 PM)
Yet check the record and you will find that they report the ANNUAL temperature of the GLOBE down to the 1/10th of a degree, all the way back to 1890.
Krigeing, I believe, can be applied to a time series as well as a spatial distribution.
Krigeing, I believe, can be applied to a time series as well as a spatial distribution.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 11 2009, 05:35 PM)
Real life example
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/resea...st3mTDeptUS.png
Note the Southwest corner of Utah.
Do you really think that an extra 100 ppm of CO2 caused this area to run over 5 degrees ABOVE average? (particularly when the areas around it are running several degrees below normal?)
Or might it be that this area (St George) is the fastest growing part of the country and they just put in a new airport with huge paved runways and moved the reporting station to the new airport?
http://www.sgcity.org/airport/
Arthur
You've made this point before, and I believe I agreed with it then, however, one point to bear in mind, is that this is also the part of Utah that the Mojave Desert encroaches upon, most of which displays similar trends, although it appears some small parts might have experienced cooling, and this area topographically appears to be a partially enclosed basin that is relatively 'isolated' (i'm using isolated as a relative term, but I know it isn't strictly speaking completely isolated). I'm suggesting here that Topography probably plays a role, and the fact that it's a mountainous desert basin, which will create it's own microclimate is probably significant.
(PS - don't forget. Not American, never been to the states let alone Utah).
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/resea...st3mTDeptUS.png
Note the Southwest corner of Utah.
Do you really think that an extra 100 ppm of CO2 caused this area to run over 5 degrees ABOVE average? (particularly when the areas around it are running several degrees below normal?)
Or might it be that this area (St George) is the fastest growing part of the country and they just put in a new airport with huge paved runways and moved the reporting station to the new airport?
http://www.sgcity.org/airport/
Arthur
You've made this point before, and I believe I agreed with it then, however, one point to bear in mind, is that this is also the part of Utah that the Mojave Desert encroaches upon, most of which displays similar trends, although it appears some small parts might have experienced cooling, and this area topographically appears to be a partially enclosed basin that is relatively 'isolated' (i'm using isolated as a relative term, but I know it isn't strictly speaking completely isolated). I'm suggesting here that Topography probably plays a role, and the fact that it's a mountainous desert basin, which will create it's own microclimate is probably significant.
(PS - don't forget. Not American, never been to the states let alone Utah).
Sure, places can have microclimates, but the overall topography hasn't changed, so there is no accounting for this rather huge anomaly.
What HAS changed though is the airport and with it, the location of the weather station. If you look at the previous years, prior to opening the new airport, you won't find this anomaly at all, in fact that corner of Utah was almost always the same anomaly as its surroundings.
I've spent a lot of time looking at the station data and what I can say without a doubt is that the station data sucks and it appears to be highly contaminated by urbanization and land use changes.
A simple example is the large number of stations which have been around for 70 to 80 years and are situated at airports, which of course have slowly changed from grass strips in rural areas to huge paved multi-runway airports with urban encroachment.
Virtually all of which have effects that tend to generate an artificial warming trend in the data.
Which gets magnified by the fact that many thousands of stations have been shut down since the 70s, thus each station's data is used for ever greater spatial coverage.
Which might explain why the anomaly maps don't show global warming at all, but primarily localized warming in the normally coldest spots on the planet, primarily in the Northern Hemisphere and primarily during winter.
User posted image: User posted image
What HAS changed though is the airport and with it, the location of the weather station. If you look at the previous years, prior to opening the new airport, you won't find this anomaly at all, in fact that corner of Utah was almost always the same anomaly as its surroundings.
I've spent a lot of time looking at the station data and what I can say without a doubt is that the station data sucks and it appears to be highly contaminated by urbanization and land use changes.
A simple example is the large number of stations which have been around for 70 to 80 years and are situated at airports, which of course have slowly changed from grass strips in rural areas to huge paved multi-runway airports with urban encroachment.
Virtually all of which have effects that tend to generate an artificial warming trend in the data.
Which gets magnified by the fact that many thousands of stations have been shut down since the 70s, thus each station's data is used for ever greater spatial coverage.
Which might explain why the anomaly maps don't show global warming at all, but primarily localized warming in the normally coldest spots on the planet, primarily in the Northern Hemisphere and primarily during winter.
User posted image: User posted image
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 12 2009, 03:29 AM)
Sure, places can have microclimates, but the overall topography hasn't changed, so there is no accounting for this rather huge anomaly.
I wasn't suggesting that the topography had changed. What I was suggesting is that certain micro climates (and i'm not referring to those generated by airports here) may be amplifying any warming.
I wasn't suggesting that the topography had changed. What I was suggesting is that certain micro climates (and i'm not referring to those generated by airports here) may be amplifying any warming.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 12 2009, 03:29 AM)
What HAS changed though is the airport and with it, the location of the weather station. If you look at the previous years, prior to opening the new airport, you won't find this anomaly at all, in fact that corner of Utah was almost always the same anomaly as its surroundings.
I've spent a lot of time looking at the station data and what I can say without a doubt is that the station data sucks and it appears to be highly contaminated by urbanization and land use changes.
A simple example is the large number of stations which have been around for 70 to 80 years and are situated at airports, which of course have slowly changed from grass strips in rural areas to huge paved multi-runway airports with urban encroachment.
Virtually all of which have effects that tend to generate an artificial warming trend in the data.
Which gets magnified by the fact that many thousands of stations have been shut down since the 70s, thus each station's data is used for ever greater spatial coverage.
Which might explain why the anomaly maps don't show global warming at all, but primarily localized warming in the normally coldest spots on the planet, primarily in the Northern Hemisphere and primarily during winter.
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom1106_1990_2009_1935_1975/GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom1106_1990_2009_1935_1975.gif'>User posted image</a>
So then what about trends obeserved in satelite data, and trends observed in local or regional temperature proxies?
I've spent a lot of time looking at the station data and what I can say without a doubt is that the station data sucks and it appears to be highly contaminated by urbanization and land use changes.
A simple example is the large number of stations which have been around for 70 to 80 years and are situated at airports, which of course have slowly changed from grass strips in rural areas to huge paved multi-runway airports with urban encroachment.
Virtually all of which have effects that tend to generate an artificial warming trend in the data.
Which gets magnified by the fact that many thousands of stations have been shut down since the 70s, thus each station's data is used for ever greater spatial coverage.
Which might explain why the anomaly maps don't show global warming at all, but primarily localized warming in the normally coldest spots on the planet, primarily in the Northern Hemisphere and primarily during winter.
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom1106_1990_2009_1935_1975/GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom1106_1990_2009_1935_1975.gif'>User posted image</a>
So then what about trends obeserved in satelite data, and trends observed in local or regional temperature proxies?
Apparently in the Dec issue of Environmental Science and Technology Professor Brian Stone publishes a paper that addresses the influence of global deforestation and urbanization on climate change, in addition to greenhouse gas emissions.
According to Stone’s paper, as the international community meets in Copenhagen in December to develop a new framework for responding to climate change, policymakers need to give serious consideration to broadening the range of management strategies beyond greenhouse gas reductions alone.
“Across the U.S. as a whole, approximately 50 percent of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes (usually in the form of clearing forest for crops or cities) rather than to the emission of greenhouse gases,”
I found this diagram in support of that concept:
User posted image: User posted image
Its a tad small, but the red color for Pop Density is an increase of > 50%
for the percent Exurban red is > 60%
It's this kind of dramatic change in land use that makes it difficult (if not impossible) to separate out the impact of GHGs and Land Use changes on the quite poor data set that is our surface temp record over the last 100 years.
Arthur
According to Stone’s paper, as the international community meets in Copenhagen in December to develop a new framework for responding to climate change, policymakers need to give serious consideration to broadening the range of management strategies beyond greenhouse gas reductions alone.
“Across the U.S. as a whole, approximately 50 percent of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes (usually in the form of clearing forest for crops or cities) rather than to the emission of greenhouse gases,”
I found this diagram in support of that concept:
User posted image: User posted image
Its a tad small, but the red color for Pop Density is an increase of > 50%
for the percent Exurban red is > 60%
It's this kind of dramatic change in land use that makes it difficult (if not impossible) to separate out the impact of GHGs and Land Use changes on the quite poor data set that is our surface temp record over the last 100 years.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 12 2009, 06:13 AM)
Apparently in the Dec issue of Environmental Science and Technology Professor Brian Stone publishes a paper that addresses the influence of global deforestation and urbanization on climate change, in addition to greenhouse gas emissions.
According to Stone’s paper, as the international community meets in Copenhagen in December to develop a new framework for responding to climate change, policymakers need to give serious consideration to broadening the range of management strategies beyond greenhouse gas reductions alone.
“Across the U.S. as a whole, approximately 50 percent of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes (usually in the form of clearing forest for crops or cities) rather than to the emission of greenhouse gases,”
I found this diagram in support of that concept:
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://lcluc.umd.edu/images/Science_Themes/DBrown1.jpg'>User posted image</a>
Its a tad small, but the red color for Pop Density is an increase of > 50%
for the percent Exurban red is > 60%
It's this kind of dramatic change in land use that makes it difficult (if not impossible) to separate out the impact of GHGs and Land Use changes on the quite poor data set that is our surface temp record over the last 100 years.
Arthur
I'm not sure what to say to this other than awesome.
According to Stone’s paper, as the international community meets in Copenhagen in December to develop a new framework for responding to climate change, policymakers need to give serious consideration to broadening the range of management strategies beyond greenhouse gas reductions alone.
“Across the U.S. as a whole, approximately 50 percent of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes (usually in the form of clearing forest for crops or cities) rather than to the emission of greenhouse gases,”
I found this diagram in support of that concept:
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://lcluc.umd.edu/images/Science_Themes/DBrown1.jpg'>User posted image</a>
Its a tad small, but the red color for Pop Density is an increase of > 50%
for the percent Exurban red is > 60%
It's this kind of dramatic change in land use that makes it difficult (if not impossible) to separate out the impact of GHGs and Land Use changes on the quite poor data set that is our surface temp record over the last 100 years.
Arthur
I'm not sure what to say to this other than awesome.
QUOTE (Trippy+)
I wasn't suggesting that the topography had changed. What I was suggesting is that certain micro climates (and i'm not referring to those generated by airports here) may be amplifying any warming.
Yes, but as I said, if you look at the temps from years before the new airport was built, you don't see any microclimate amplification.
The more likely answer is that the only microclimate that really matters is the one nearest to the measuring point.
Because the method we use (which was not set up for doing climate research, but simply because of the technology available made it easy to gather the high and low for a day (the early NWS thermometers would, like the typical mercury thermometers used for telling body temp, have to be shook down, otherwise they would hold their high readings, the low temp was typically taken to be what ever was recorded as the first reading of the day)
New automated systems actually record the High/Low, even though this is NOT the same as how it used to be done. Why? well because no one needed that kind of data, think of it, in 1890 do you think someone out in the boonies checked the thermometer EVERY HOUR of every day? not hardly.
Thus what we have inherited is a temp measuring system that has used multiple different means of measuring the "daily temperature" and unfortunately our current method is heavily influenced by anything which can create a temporary spike in the temperature.
Consider the following temp charts.
24hr - Temp
0 20
1 20
2 19
3 18
4 17
5 14
6 14
7 16
8 18
9 22
10 25
11 32
12 35
13 40
14 44
15 47
16 48
17 50
18 46
19 42
20 38
21 34
22 30
23 26
deg hours 715 <== sum of temps by hour
avg temp 29.79 <== divided by 24
High 50
Low 14
Aver 32 (average (I've kept all even so as to avoid the rounding issue)
Reported 32 <== this is what will be used as the temp for that station
Now watch what happens if the afternoon temps spike by just 2 degrees because of thermal effects from black tarmac adjacent to the the measuring point.
0 20
1 20
2 19
3 18
4 17
5 14
6 14
7 16
8 18
9 22
10 25
11 32
12 35
13 40
14 44
15 47
16 48
17 52 <== Was 50
18 46
19 42
20 38
21 34
22 30
23 26
deg hours 717 <== a trivial rise of 2 degree hours
avg temp 29.88
Actual 0.08 <== this is the actual average increase in temp
High 52
Low 14
Reported 33
Change 1 <== this is the new reported ANOMALY, which is significantly higher than the actual station warming.
(because of rounding, an increase of just one degree hour would cause the change to be reported as 1 degree for the day!)
What's clear is this method of deducing temp is VERY sensitive to anything which can cause a rise in either the low point or the high point, pretty much regardless of what happens over the majority of the measuring period.
Unfortunately human land use influences are much more likely to cause these spikes than a general warming caused by increased GHGs.
Yes, but as I said, if you look at the temps from years before the new airport was built, you don't see any microclimate amplification.
The more likely answer is that the only microclimate that really matters is the one nearest to the measuring point.
Because the method we use (which was not set up for doing climate research, but simply because of the technology available made it easy to gather the high and low for a day (the early NWS thermometers would, like the typical mercury thermometers used for telling body temp, have to be shook down, otherwise they would hold their high readings, the low temp was typically taken to be what ever was recorded as the first reading of the day)
New automated systems actually record the High/Low, even though this is NOT the same as how it used to be done. Why? well because no one needed that kind of data, think of it, in 1890 do you think someone out in the boonies checked the thermometer EVERY HOUR of every day? not hardly.
Thus what we have inherited is a temp measuring system that has used multiple different means of measuring the "daily temperature" and unfortunately our current method is heavily influenced by anything which can create a temporary spike in the temperature.
Consider the following temp charts.
24hr - Temp
0 20
1 20
2 19
3 18
4 17
5 14
6 14
7 16
8 18
9 22
10 25
11 32
12 35
13 40
14 44
15 47
16 48
17 50
18 46
19 42
20 38
21 34
22 30
23 26
deg hours 715 <== sum of temps by hour
avg temp 29.79 <== divided by 24
High 50
Low 14
Aver 32 (average (I've kept all even so as to avoid the rounding issue)
Reported 32 <== this is what will be used as the temp for that station
Now watch what happens if the afternoon temps spike by just 2 degrees because of thermal effects from black tarmac adjacent to the the measuring point.
0 20
1 20
2 19
3 18
4 17
5 14
6 14
7 16
8 18
9 22
10 25
11 32
12 35
13 40
14 44
15 47
16 48
17 52 <== Was 50
18 46
19 42
20 38
21 34
22 30
23 26
deg hours 717 <== a trivial rise of 2 degree hours
avg temp 29.88
Actual 0.08 <== this is the actual average increase in temp
High 52
Low 14
Reported 33
Change 1 <== this is the new reported ANOMALY, which is significantly higher than the actual station warming.
(because of rounding, an increase of just one degree hour would cause the change to be reported as 1 degree for the day!)
What's clear is this method of deducing temp is VERY sensitive to anything which can cause a rise in either the low point or the high point, pretty much regardless of what happens over the majority of the measuring period.
Unfortunately human land use influences are much more likely to cause these spikes than a general warming caused by increased GHGs.
QUOTE (Trippy+)
So then what about trends obeserved in satelite data, and trends observed in local or regional temperature proxies?
Well the satellite data is in effect a proxy, it doesn't actually measure temperature.
And it only goes back to 1979, so one can't use it to see if the pre-79 data (some of the most suspect) was accurate.
And it has its own measuring problems. To simplify the issue, due to orbital changes the satellites don't cross the same point on the globe at the same time every day and so this drift has to be compensated for, and there is no absolute way to do it, since the earth below it doesn't change temps on a linear basis. UAH and RSS both use essentially the same data but because their method of adjustment differes they don't come out with the same temps (though they are in broad agreement, most of the year) No one has independently figured out which is the BETTER data, so NOAA still publishes both. Sorta take your pick situation.
To add more challenge they both report temps as anomalies, but they don't use the same base periods as the land base temps, so again comparing them can be problematic.
With all that said, the satellite data has been generally running somewhat cooler than the land based temps. Particularly the GISS data set.
This is the NOAA land/sea combined data set over the last 100 or so years.
User posted image: User posted image
This is the UAH satellite data from Dr Roy Spencer:
User posted image: User posted image
Arthur
Well the satellite data is in effect a proxy, it doesn't actually measure temperature.
And it only goes back to 1979, so one can't use it to see if the pre-79 data (some of the most suspect) was accurate.
And it has its own measuring problems. To simplify the issue, due to orbital changes the satellites don't cross the same point on the globe at the same time every day and so this drift has to be compensated for, and there is no absolute way to do it, since the earth below it doesn't change temps on a linear basis. UAH and RSS both use essentially the same data but because their method of adjustment differes they don't come out with the same temps (though they are in broad agreement, most of the year) No one has independently figured out which is the BETTER data, so NOAA still publishes both. Sorta take your pick situation.
To add more challenge they both report temps as anomalies, but they don't use the same base periods as the land base temps, so again comparing them can be problematic.
With all that said, the satellite data has been generally running somewhat cooler than the land based temps. Particularly the GISS data set.
This is the NOAA land/sea combined data set over the last 100 or so years.
User posted image: User posted image
This is the UAH satellite data from Dr Roy Spencer:
User posted image: User posted image
Arthur
This is standard denialism at work, not science.
QUOTE (rpenner+Nov 11 2009, 02:27 PM)
This is standard denialism at work, not science.
rpenner,
If you are referring to my posts, what do you claim I am denying?
Please be specific.
Arthur
rpenner,
If you are referring to my posts, what do you claim I am denying?
Please be specific.
Arthur
You have introduced an aphysical model for tarmacs, for one, and introduced a second strawman in measurement methodology. The tactics smack of the denial of scientific truth on any one of another commonly accepted topics: (Earth is round, Earth is old, Eath is not hollow, Sun is not hollow, Relativity works, Evolution happened, the guy seen having the loud argument seconds before the gunshots were heard is the criminal as evidenced by the fingerprints on the registered weapon and the shell casings from the completely discharged clip, etc).
http://www.grist.org/article/the-temperatu...ply-unreliable/
http://www.grist.org/article/warming-is-du...-island-effect/ (with pictures)
http://www.grist.org/article/warming-is-du...-island-effect/ (with pictures)
Urban Heat Island Effect has been examined quite thoroughly (PDF) and found to have a negligible effect on temperature trends. ... It is a real phenomenon, but it is one climate scientists are well aware of and have taken any required steps to remove its influence from the raw data. ... Look at North America, look at Europe, at Asia, Australia, Africa and the Poles and compare them to the urbanization in the image from APOD. There is quite simply no way to discern any correlation whatsoever between urbanization and warming. If the UHI effect were the cause of warming in the globally averaged record, we would see it in this map.
Other of your posts pooh-pooh the IPCC documents, without actually doing any work to contradict them.
http://www.grist.org/article/there-is-no-consensus/
http://www.grist.org/article/position-stat...ts-hide-debate/
http://www.grist.org/article/position-stat...ts-hide-debate/
Naomi Oreskes took on [the topic of finding what the actual scientists say in 923 journal papers from 1993 to 2003, starting even before the 1995 IPCC report.]She then divided the papers into six categories:
1. explicit endorsement of the consensus position,
2. evaluation of impacts,
3. mitigation proposals,
4. methods,
5. paleoclimate analysis, and
6. rejection of the consensus position.
Oreskes' key finding is that none of the papers fell into the last category, while 75% fell into the first three.
http://www.grist.org/article/peiser-refuted-oreskes/
http://www.grist.org/article/consensus-is-collusion/
http://www.grist.org/article/consensus-is-collusion/
Viewing the increasing agreement among climate models and climate scientists as collusion instead of consensus is a rather conspiratorial take on the normal course of scientific investigation. I suppose that fewer and fewer scientists disagreeing with the status quo is indeed consistent with some kind of widespread and insidious suppression of ideas, but you know, it is also consistent with having the right answer.
Yes, but as I said, if you look at the temps from years before the new airport was built, you don't see any microclimate amplification.
The more likely answer is that the only microclimate that really matters is the one nearest to the measuring point.
As i've previously said, I understand the point that you're endeavouring to illustrate, i'm just not sure that I agree with it.
http://www.grist.org/article/the-temperatu...ply-unreliable/
QUOTE
while it is true that differing weather station locations, from proximity to lakes or rivers or elevation above sea level, probably make it impossible to arrive at a meaningful figure for global average surface temperature, that is not what we are really interested in. The investigation is focused on trends, not the absolute level. Often, as in this case, it is easier to determine how much a given property is changing than what its exact value is. If one station is near an airport at three feet above sea level and another is in a park at 3000 feet, it doesn't really matter -- they both show rising temperature, and that is the critical information.
So how do we finally know when all the reasoning is reasonable and the corrections correct? One good way is to cross check your conclusion against other completely unrelated data sets.
So how do we finally know when all the reasoning is reasonable and the corrections correct? One good way is to cross check your conclusion against other completely unrelated data sets.
http://www.grist.org/article/warming-is-du...-island-effect/ (with pictures)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| while it is true that differing weather station locations, from proximity to lakes or rivers or elevation above sea level, probably make it impossible to arrive at a meaningful figure for global average surface temperature, that is not what we are really interested in. The investigation is focused on trends, not the absolute level. Often, as in this case, it is easier to determine how much a given property is changing than what its exact value is. If one station is near an airport at three feet above sea level and another is in a park at 3000 feet, it doesn't really matter -- they both show rising temperature, and that is the critical information. So how do we finally know when all the reasoning is reasonable and the corrections correct? One good way is to cross check your conclusion against other completely unrelated data sets. |
http://www.grist.org/article/warming-is-du...-island-effect/ (with pictures)
Urban Heat Island Effect has been examined quite thoroughly (PDF) and found to have a negligible effect on temperature trends. ... It is a real phenomenon, but it is one climate scientists are well aware of and have taken any required steps to remove its influence from the raw data. ... Look at North America, look at Europe, at Asia, Australia, Africa and the Poles and compare them to the urbanization in the image from APOD. There is quite simply no way to discern any correlation whatsoever between urbanization and warming. If the UHI effect were the cause of warming in the globally averaged record, we would see it in this map.
Other of your posts pooh-pooh the IPCC documents, without actually doing any work to contradict them.
http://www.grist.org/article/there-is-no-consensus/
QUOTE
Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are [over details only of interest to specialists].
No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century. ...
Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
* the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
* the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
* the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
* if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
* a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can't be sure the earth isn't hollow either.
No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century. ...
Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
* the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
* the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
* the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
* if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
* a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can't be sure the earth isn't hollow either.
http://www.grist.org/article/position-stat...ts-hide-debate/
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are [over details only of interest to specialists]. No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century. ... Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following: * the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability; * the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2; * the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels; * if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and * a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment. While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can't be sure the earth isn't hollow either. |
http://www.grist.org/article/position-stat...ts-hide-debate/
Naomi Oreskes took on [the topic of finding what the actual scientists say in 923 journal papers from 1993 to 2003, starting even before the 1995 IPCC report.]She then divided the papers into six categories:
1. explicit endorsement of the consensus position,
2. evaluation of impacts,
3. mitigation proposals,
4. methods,
5. paleoclimate analysis, and
6. rejection of the consensus position.
Oreskes' key finding is that none of the papers fell into the last category, while 75% fell into the first three.
http://www.grist.org/article/peiser-refuted-oreskes/
QUOTE
Peiser altered the search criteria [in an attempt to refute Orekes, but when pressed on the 34 claims] has backed down to the position that just one of his 34 abstracts fit his description as rejecting the consensus view on climate change -- and it was an editorial, not research of any kind.
http://www.grist.org/article/consensus-is-collusion/
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Peiser altered the search criteria [in an attempt to refute Orekes, but when pressed on the 34 claims] has backed down to the position that just one of his 34 abstracts fit his description as rejecting the consensus view on climate change -- and it was an editorial, not research of any kind. |
http://www.grist.org/article/consensus-is-collusion/
Viewing the increasing agreement among climate models and climate scientists as collusion instead of consensus is a rather conspiratorial take on the normal course of scientific investigation. I suppose that fewer and fewer scientists disagreeing with the status quo is indeed consistent with some kind of widespread and insidious suppression of ideas, but you know, it is also consistent with having the right answer.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 12 2009, 08:24 AM)
Yes, but as I said, if you look at the temps from years before the new airport was built, you don't see any microclimate amplification.
The more likely answer is that the only microclimate that really matters is the one nearest to the measuring point.
As i've previously said, I understand the point that you're endeavouring to illustrate, i'm just not sure that I agree with it.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 12 2009, 08:24 AM)
Because the method we use (which was not set up for doing climate research, but simply because of the technology available made it easy to gather the high and low for a day (the early NWS thermometers would, like the typical mercury thermometers used for telling body temp, have to be shook down, otherwise they would hold their high readings, the low temp was typically taken to be what ever was recorded as the first reading of the day)
You can also get Hi/Low thermometers that have what look like floats in the tube to record the daily maximum/minimum.
You can also get Hi/Low thermometers that have what look like floats in the tube to record the daily maximum/minimum.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 12 2009, 08:24 AM)
New automated systems actually record the High/Low, even though this is NOT the same as how it used to be done. Why? well because no one needed that kind of data, think of it, in 1890 do you think someone out in the boonies checked the thermometer EVERY HOUR of every day? not hardly.
Maybe not, but regardless, there were people in 1890 who were doing this (for their own reasons.
Maybe not, but regardless, there were people in 1890 who were doing this (for their own reasons.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 12 2009, 08:24 AM)
Thus what we have inherited is a temp measuring system that has used multiple different means of measuring the "daily temperature" and unfortunately our current method is heavily influenced by anything which can create a temporary spike in the temperature.
Right, which is why it becomes the individual researchers responsibility to check what methods were used when, and take that into account during their analysis.
Right, which is why it becomes the individual researchers responsibility to check what methods were used when, and take that into account during their analysis.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 12 2009, 08:24 AM)
Consider the following temp charts.
24hr - Temp
0 20
1 20
2 19
3 18
4 17
5 14
6 14
7 16
8 18
9 22
10 25
11 32
12 35
13 40
14 44
15 47
16 48
17 50
18 46
19 42
20 38
21 34
22 30
23 26
deg hours 715 <== sum of temps by hour
avg temp 29.79 <== divided by 24
High 50
Low 14
Aver 32 (average (I've kept all even so as to avoid the rounding issue)
Reported 32 <== this is what will be used as the temp for that station
Now watch what happens if the afternoon temps spike by just 2 degrees because of thermal effects from black tarmac adjacent to the the measuring point.
0 20
1 20
2 19
3 18
4 17
5 14
6 14
7 16
8 18
9 22
10 25
11 32
12 35
13 40
14 44
15 47
16 48
17 52 <== Was 50
18 46
19 42
20 38
21 34
22 30
23 26
deg hours 717 <== a trivial rise of 2 degree hours
avg temp 29.88
Actual 0.08 <== this is the actual average increase in temp
High 52
Low 14
Reported 33
Change 1 <== this is the new reported ANOMALY, which is significantly higher than the actual station warming.
(because of rounding, an increase of just one degree hour would cause the change to be reported as 1 degree for the day!)
What's clear is this method of deducing temp is VERY sensitive to anything which can cause a rise in either the low point or the high point, pretty much regardless of what happens over the majority of the measuring period.
And thus you demonstrate what any trained statistician already understands about using averages to measure the middle point of the data - that a simple arithmetic average is prone to outliers. This is why we have so many different methods for determining the center point of any given data set (median, mode, Geometric mean, Harmonic mean to name a few) each of which has different strengths and weaknesses, depending on precisely what it is that you're looking for in the data.
Personally, I would expect that any sensible resercher should be able to identify that single point as an outlier (it's easy enough to do, and there are a number of methods of doing this), and treat it appropriately (it may be that they ignore the data point, or assign it a weighting to reduce it's influence (similar to LOWESS smoothing), and yes, this would still apply if the spike happened at about the same time every day. Irrespective of whether it was a one off excursion, or a recurring one, I would also expect any sensible researcher to either explain the excursion, or include a reference to an explanation if somebody else has already investigated it.
24hr - Temp
0 20
1 20
2 19
3 18
4 17
5 14
6 14
7 16
8 18
9 22
10 25
11 32
12 35
13 40
14 44
15 47
16 48
17 50
18 46
19 42
20 38
21 34
22 30
23 26
deg hours 715 <== sum of temps by hour
avg temp 29.79 <== divided by 24
High 50
Low 14
Aver 32 (average (I've kept all even so as to avoid the rounding issue)
Reported 32 <== this is what will be used as the temp for that station
Now watch what happens if the afternoon temps spike by just 2 degrees because of thermal effects from black tarmac adjacent to the the measuring point.
0 20
1 20
2 19
3 18
4 17
5 14
6 14
7 16
8 18
9 22
10 25
11 32
12 35
13 40
14 44
15 47
16 48
17 52 <== Was 50
18 46
19 42
20 38
21 34
22 30
23 26
deg hours 717 <== a trivial rise of 2 degree hours
avg temp 29.88
Actual 0.08 <== this is the actual average increase in temp
High 52
Low 14
Reported 33
Change 1 <== this is the new reported ANOMALY, which is significantly higher than the actual station warming.
(because of rounding, an increase of just one degree hour would cause the change to be reported as 1 degree for the day!)
What's clear is this method of deducing temp is VERY sensitive to anything which can cause a rise in either the low point or the high point, pretty much regardless of what happens over the majority of the measuring period.
And thus you demonstrate what any trained statistician already understands about using averages to measure the middle point of the data - that a simple arithmetic average is prone to outliers. This is why we have so many different methods for determining the center point of any given data set (median, mode, Geometric mean, Harmonic mean to name a few) each of which has different strengths and weaknesses, depending on precisely what it is that you're looking for in the data.
Personally, I would expect that any sensible resercher should be able to identify that single point as an outlier (it's easy enough to do, and there are a number of methods of doing this), and treat it appropriately (it may be that they ignore the data point, or assign it a weighting to reduce it's influence (similar to LOWESS smoothing), and yes, this would still apply if the spike happened at about the same time every day. Irrespective of whether it was a one off excursion, or a recurring one, I would also expect any sensible researcher to either explain the excursion, or include a reference to an explanation if somebody else has already investigated it.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 12 2009, 08:24 AM)
Unfortunately human land use influences are much more likely to cause these spikes than a general warming caused by increased GHGs.
Nobody is neccessarily claiming that GHG's are responsible for individual spikes (or at least they shouldn't be).
They are, however claiming that they're directly influencing the 'average' behaviour of the system, as well as increasing the variance of the system (the spikes in both directions are expected to become more frequent, a 1 in 20 storm is generally expected to become a 1 in 10 or 1 in 2 in the next - I have 10-50 years stuck in my head for some reason).
Nobody is neccessarily claiming that GHG's are responsible for individual spikes (or at least they shouldn't be).
They are, however claiming that they're directly influencing the 'average' behaviour of the system, as well as increasing the variance of the system (the spikes in both directions are expected to become more frequent, a 1 in 20 storm is generally expected to become a 1 in 10 or 1 in 2 in the next - I have 10-50 years stuck in my head for some reason).
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 12 2009, 08:24 AM)
Well the satellite data is in effect a proxy, it doesn't actually measure temperature.
And it only goes back to 1979, so one can't use it to see if the pre-79 data (some of the most suspect) was accurate.
I disagree - we can use the same techniques, and the same equipment used pre 1979 in an area that has satelite coverage to verify the accuracy of the pre 1979 measurements, and even to get an idea of what corrections need to be applied to it.
And it only goes back to 1979, so one can't use it to see if the pre-79 data (some of the most suspect) was accurate.
I disagree - we can use the same techniques, and the same equipment used pre 1979 in an area that has satelite coverage to verify the accuracy of the pre 1979 measurements, and even to get an idea of what corrections need to be applied to it.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 12 2009, 08:24 AM)
And it has its own measuring problems. To simplify the issue, due to orbital changes the satellites don't cross the same point on the globe at the same time every day and so this drift has to be compensated for, and there is no absolute way to do it, since the earth below it doesn't change temps on a linear basis.
There's no need to simplify the matter for my benefit, and i'm also aware that there are a number of orbits available to ensure that the satelite passes over the same place at the same time each day (for example, a Sun-synchronous orbit).
There's no need to simplify the matter for my benefit, and i'm also aware that there are a number of orbits available to ensure that the satelite passes over the same place at the same time each day (for example, a Sun-synchronous orbit).
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 12 2009, 08:24 AM)
UAH and RSS both use essentially the same data but because their method of adjustment differes they don't come out with the same temps (though they are in broad agreement, most of the year) No one has independently figured out which is the BETTER data, so NOAA still publishes both. Sorta take your pick situation.
It would seem sensible to me then to use both data sets.
It would seem sensible to me then to use both data sets.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 12 2009, 08:24 AM)
To add more challenge they both report temps as anomalies, but they don't use the same base periods as the land base temps, so again comparing them can be problematic.
As I understand it, however, raw temperature data is available.
As I understand it, however, raw temperature data is available.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 12 2009, 08:24 AM)
With all that said, the satellite data has been generally running somewhat cooler than the land based temps. Particularly the GISS data set.
This is the NOAA land/sea combined data set over the last 100 or so years.
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/dec/glob-jan-dec-pg.gif'>User posted image</a>
This is the UAH satellite data from Dr Roy Spencer:
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/nasa_cooling_graph.jpg'>User posted image</a>
Arthur
I assume you noticed that Spencers data is based on atmospheric temperatures?
The point being tha Oceans introduce a strong smoothing effect (because of the heat capacity of saline water) that is probably the best indicator of multi year trends, and can be collected by satelite (ensuring mroe complete spatial and temporal coverage).
This is the NOAA land/sea combined data set over the last 100 or so years.
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/dec/glob-jan-dec-pg.gif'>User posted image</a>
This is the UAH satellite data from Dr Roy Spencer:
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/nasa_cooling_graph.jpg'>User posted image</a>
Arthur
I assume you noticed that Spencers data is based on atmospheric temperatures?
The point being tha Oceans introduce a strong smoothing effect (because of the heat capacity of saline water) that is probably the best indicator of multi year trends, and can be collected by satelite (ensuring mroe complete spatial and temporal coverage).
QUOTE (rpenner+Nov 11 2009, 04:03 PM)
You have introduced an aphysical model for tarmacs, for one, and introduced a second strawman in measurement methodology. The tactics smack of the denial of scientific truth on any one of another commonly accepted topics: (Earth is round, Earth is old, Eath is not hollow, Sun is not hollow, Relativity works, Evolution happened, the guy seen having the loud argument seconds before the gunshots were heard is the criminal as evidenced by the fingerprints on the registered weapon and the shell casings from the completely discharged clip, etc).
http://www.grist.org/article/the-temperatu...ply-unreliable/
http://www.grist.org/article/warming-is-du...-island-effect/ (with pictures)
Other of your posts pooh-pooh the IPCC documents, without actually doing any work to contradict them.
http://www.grist.org/article/there-is-no-consensus/
http://www.grist.org/article/position-stat...ts-hide-debate/
http://www.grist.org/article/peiser-refuted-oreskes/
http://www.grist.org/article/consensus-is-collusion/
Take one at a time:
Nice strawmen, except no examples of DENIAL.
I was pointing out how a 5 degree anomaly pops out of this corner of SW Utah at the same time the station is moved to the new airport coupled with the fact that that county is the fastest growing Urban area in the country.
Maybe it isn't the reason, but clearly a 5 degree anomaly is an outlier on that map and deserves an EXPLANATION (most of the country was below normal for that period) but also within its region, and very atypically it had cooler areas both north and south of it.
To simply accept that a 3 month long 5 degree anomalies exists without a rational explanation for it is silly, and smacks of people unwilling to examine the data they base their beliefs on.
Nice strawmen, except no examples of DENIAL.
I was pointing out how a 5 degree anomaly pops out of this corner of SW Utah at the same time the station is moved to the new airport coupled with the fact that that county is the fastest growing Urban area in the country.
Maybe it isn't the reason, but clearly a 5 degree anomaly is an outlier on that map and deserves an EXPLANATION (most of the country was below normal for that period) but also within its region, and very atypically it had cooler areas both north and south of it.
To simply accept that a 3 month long 5 degree anomalies exists without a rational explanation for it is silly, and smacks of people unwilling to examine the data they base their beliefs on.
while it is true that differing weather station locations, from proximity to lakes or rivers or elevation above sea level, probably make it impossible to arrive at a meaningful figure for global average surface temperature, that is not what we are really interested in. The investigation is focused on trends, not the absolute level. Often, as in this case, it is easier to determine how much a given property is changing than what its exact value is. If one station is near an airport at three feet above sea level and another is in a park at 3000 feet, it doesn't really matter -- they both show rising temperature, and that is the critical information.
So how do we finally know when all the reasoning is reasonable and the corrections correct? One good way is to cross check your conclusion against other completely unrelated data sets.
Except the quote doesn't not prove the assertion.
Yes we all know that we are dealing with anomalies, and we all know that no one is claiming that the temps recorded represent the actual temperature of a station, but that in itself is a strawman.
The issue is that changes over time in the urban nature of the stations can introduce a warming trend that increases the anomaly over time.
I find it funny that this is challenged since the need to ADJUST the station data is acknowledged by the people who do the measuring. GISS at least publishes the METHOD they use to correct for Urban bias, but CRU does not. (and GISS runs hotter than CRU)
My concern here is not that the method they use doesn't HELP, but is not sufficient to remove the bias in the record, since they still assume that rural stations have no bias. Again, please remember we are talking about fractions of a degree per century.
So was I surprised when I read that in the Dec issue of Environmental Science and Technology Professor Brian Stone will publish a paper that addresses the influence of global deforestation and urbanization on climate change, in addition to greenhouse gas emissions, or that he concluded that:
“Across the U.S. as a whole, approximately 50 percent of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes (usually in the form of clearing forest for crops or cities) rather than to the emission of greenhouse gases,”
Not at all, because that is a central theme of my posts, that the impact of this urban growth is in fact reflected in the land temperature record, even in supposedly rural areas.
Why is that important? because in a circular methodolgy they used the warming they couldn't ascribe to solar forcing, aerosols, and land use changes to help determine the forcing impact of CO2.
Net/Net, if you over-estimate the warming trend by even a small amount, then you assign a higher forcing value to CO2, which causes your models to run hot.
Well guess what, they ARE running hot.
How much?
Not much, but considering that the lower end of the AR4 models results in only 1.1 d rise over this century, if we are trending lower than the lowest models then that is VERY GOOD NEWS and should help shape policy.
Arthur
New automated systems actually record the High/Low, even though this is NOT the same as how it used to be done. Why? well because no one needed that kind of data, think of it, in 1890 do you think someone out in the boonies checked the thermometer EVERY HOUR of every day? not hardly.
Maybe not, but regardless, there were people in 1890 who were doing this (for their own reasons.
Yes, but generally speaking that level of record keeping isn't typical of the data that was used for these reports.
You can download the station data yourself, and its not hourly totals.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/access.html
You can also find the data sheets on line, and many older stations computed the daily average temperature by taking two readings at the same time each day and averaging them. So they weren't even on the high/low method.
To make the process work better (remember they are getting data from a global network), they only use the monthly value for the stations.
The Average monthly value is generally computed as the sum of the highs and lows divided by twice the number of days (round only once per month, not once per day).
Arthur
Yes, but generally speaking that level of record keeping isn't typical of the data that was used for these reports.
Right, and nothing I said disputes that - I wasn't addressing typical behaviour, I was addressing atypical behaviour, and freely aknowledged that in my post (Or I thought I did).
http://www.grist.org/article/the-temperatu...ply-unreliable/
http://www.grist.org/article/warming-is-du...-island-effect/ (with pictures)
Other of your posts pooh-pooh the IPCC documents, without actually doing any work to contradict them.
http://www.grist.org/article/there-is-no-consensus/
http://www.grist.org/article/position-stat...ts-hide-debate/
http://www.grist.org/article/peiser-refuted-oreskes/
http://www.grist.org/article/consensus-is-collusion/
Take one at a time:
QUOTE
You have introduced an aphysical model for tarmacs, for one, and introduced a second strawman in measurement methodology. The tactics smack of the denial of scientific truth on any one of another commonly accepted topics: (Earth is round, Earth is old, Eath is not hollow, Sun is not hollow, Relativity works, Evolution happened, the guy seen having the loud argument seconds before the gunshots were heard is the criminal as evidenced by the fingerprints on the registered weapon and the shell casings from the completely discharged clip, etc).
Nice strawmen, except no examples of DENIAL.
I was pointing out how a 5 degree anomaly pops out of this corner of SW Utah at the same time the station is moved to the new airport coupled with the fact that that county is the fastest growing Urban area in the country.
Maybe it isn't the reason, but clearly a 5 degree anomaly is an outlier on that map and deserves an EXPLANATION (most of the country was below normal for that period) but also within its region, and very atypically it had cooler areas both north and south of it.
To simply accept that a 3 month long 5 degree anomalies exists without a rational explanation for it is silly, and smacks of people unwilling to examine the data they base their beliefs on.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You have introduced an aphysical model for tarmacs, for one, and introduced a second strawman in measurement methodology. The tactics smack of the denial of scientific truth on any one of another commonly accepted topics: (Earth is round, Earth is old, Eath is not hollow, Sun is not hollow, Relativity works, Evolution happened, the guy seen having the loud argument seconds before the gunshots were heard is the criminal as evidenced by the fingerprints on the registered weapon and the shell casings from the completely discharged clip, etc). |
Nice strawmen, except no examples of DENIAL.
I was pointing out how a 5 degree anomaly pops out of this corner of SW Utah at the same time the station is moved to the new airport coupled with the fact that that county is the fastest growing Urban area in the country.
Maybe it isn't the reason, but clearly a 5 degree anomaly is an outlier on that map and deserves an EXPLANATION (most of the country was below normal for that period) but also within its region, and very atypically it had cooler areas both north and south of it.
To simply accept that a 3 month long 5 degree anomalies exists without a rational explanation for it is silly, and smacks of people unwilling to examine the data they base their beliefs on.
while it is true that differing weather station locations, from proximity to lakes or rivers or elevation above sea level, probably make it impossible to arrive at a meaningful figure for global average surface temperature, that is not what we are really interested in. The investigation is focused on trends, not the absolute level. Often, as in this case, it is easier to determine how much a given property is changing than what its exact value is. If one station is near an airport at three feet above sea level and another is in a park at 3000 feet, it doesn't really matter -- they both show rising temperature, and that is the critical information.
So how do we finally know when all the reasoning is reasonable and the corrections correct? One good way is to cross check your conclusion against other completely unrelated data sets.
Except the quote doesn't not prove the assertion.
Yes we all know that we are dealing with anomalies, and we all know that no one is claiming that the temps recorded represent the actual temperature of a station, but that in itself is a strawman.
The issue is that changes over time in the urban nature of the stations can introduce a warming trend that increases the anomaly over time.
I find it funny that this is challenged since the need to ADJUST the station data is acknowledged by the people who do the measuring. GISS at least publishes the METHOD they use to correct for Urban bias, but CRU does not. (and GISS runs hotter than CRU)
My concern here is not that the method they use doesn't HELP, but is not sufficient to remove the bias in the record, since they still assume that rural stations have no bias. Again, please remember we are talking about fractions of a degree per century.
So was I surprised when I read that in the Dec issue of Environmental Science and Technology Professor Brian Stone will publish a paper that addresses the influence of global deforestation and urbanization on climate change, in addition to greenhouse gas emissions, or that he concluded that:
“Across the U.S. as a whole, approximately 50 percent of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes (usually in the form of clearing forest for crops or cities) rather than to the emission of greenhouse gases,”
Not at all, because that is a central theme of my posts, that the impact of this urban growth is in fact reflected in the land temperature record, even in supposedly rural areas.
Why is that important? because in a circular methodolgy they used the warming they couldn't ascribe to solar forcing, aerosols, and land use changes to help determine the forcing impact of CO2.
Net/Net, if you over-estimate the warming trend by even a small amount, then you assign a higher forcing value to CO2, which causes your models to run hot.
Well guess what, they ARE running hot.
How much?
Not much, but considering that the lower end of the AR4 models results in only 1.1 d rise over this century, if we are trending lower than the lowest models then that is VERY GOOD NEWS and should help shape policy.
Arthur
Brian Stone's 2007 position is that cities warm faster than the Earth as an average.
http://www.coa.gatech.edu/~stone/UrbanClimateChange.htm
The last paragraph of the related 2007 paper reads: "Typically adjusted or eliminated from periodic analysis of climate trends, urban meteorological observations serve as the most direct window onto how climate is changing in proximity to the human population..."
http://www.coa.gatech.edu/~stone/Publicati...rends_final.pdf
Likewise -- when we actually link to your article, we have more of the same:
http://www.enn.com/climate/article/40693
Nothing in that is disputing one whit of the IPCC, GISS or other papers. Brian Stone's narrow point is for some cities (not even all cities) global climate change goes hand-in-hand with local and regional climate change.
http://www.coa.gatech.edu/~stone/UrbanClimateChange.htm
The last paragraph of the related 2007 paper reads: "Typically adjusted or eliminated from periodic analysis of climate trends, urban meteorological observations serve as the most direct window onto how climate is changing in proximity to the human population..."
http://www.coa.gatech.edu/~stone/Publicati...rends_final.pdf
Likewise -- when we actually link to your article, we have more of the same:
http://www.enn.com/climate/article/40693
Nothing in that is disputing one whit of the IPCC, GISS or other papers. Brian Stone's narrow point is for some cities (not even all cities) global climate change goes hand-in-hand with local and regional climate change.
QUOTE (Trippy+)
QUOTE (adoucette @ Nov 12 2009+ 08:24 AM)
New automated systems actually record the High/Low, even though this is NOT the same as how it used to be done. Why? well because no one needed that kind of data, think of it, in 1890 do you think someone out in the boonies checked the thermometer EVERY HOUR of every day? not hardly.
Maybe not, but regardless, there were people in 1890 who were doing this (for their own reasons.
Yes, but generally speaking that level of record keeping isn't typical of the data that was used for these reports.
You can download the station data yourself, and its not hourly totals.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/access.html
You can also find the data sheets on line, and many older stations computed the daily average temperature by taking two readings at the same time each day and averaging them. So they weren't even on the high/low method.
To make the process work better (remember they are getting data from a global network), they only use the monthly value for the stations.
The Average monthly value is generally computed as the sum of the highs and lows divided by twice the number of days (round only once per month, not once per day).
Arthur
QUOTE (rpenner+Nov 11 2009, 05:15 PM)
Nothing in that is disputing one whit of the IPCC, GISS or other papers. Brian Stone's narrow point is for some cities (not even all cities) global climate change goes hand-in-hand with local and regional climate change.
And where have I disputed "one whit" of the IPCC report?
I tend to think their cooler models are pretty much correct.
(though most likely because of the current low solar activity we tend to be trending below even them)
It's ALARMISTS who focus on the output of the few HOT models running the highly unlikely A2 scenario that give AGW its bad name.
As to GISS, I have issues with their adjustment routines, which given time I'll get to, but I haven't said anything yet specifically about them except thier published temps are higher than NOAA, CRU, RSS or UAH.
As to Brian Stone's paper, I've yet to read it, I mentioned it because it was just announced and seemed to shed light on the issue that the impact of Land Use changes was understated.
When I have the chance to read it, then I'll comment on it.
Arthur
And where have I disputed "one whit" of the IPCC report?
I tend to think their cooler models are pretty much correct.
(though most likely because of the current low solar activity we tend to be trending below even them)
It's ALARMISTS who focus on the output of the few HOT models running the highly unlikely A2 scenario that give AGW its bad name.
As to GISS, I have issues with their adjustment routines, which given time I'll get to, but I haven't said anything yet specifically about them except thier published temps are higher than NOAA, CRU, RSS or UAH.
As to Brian Stone's paper, I've yet to read it, I mentioned it because it was just announced and seemed to shed light on the issue that the impact of Land Use changes was understated.
When I have the chance to read it, then I'll comment on it.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 12 2009, 11:17 AM)
Yes, but generally speaking that level of record keeping isn't typical of the data that was used for these reports.
Right, and nothing I said disputes that - I wasn't addressing typical behaviour, I was addressing atypical behaviour, and freely aknowledged that in my post (Or I thought I did).
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 12 2009, 11:17 AM)
You can download the station data yourself, and its not hourly totals.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/access.html
I might when I get home, and I might have a play with it in R, if I have time.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/access.html
I might when I get home, and I might have a play with it in R, if I have time.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 12 2009, 11:17 AM)
You can also find the data sheets on line, and many older stations computed the daily average temperature by taking two readings at the same time each day and averaging them. So they weren't even on the high/low method.
Still a valid method, if you think about it, the diurnal cycle is, roughly, sinusoidal. As long as the samples are evenly spaced, and appropriately spaced, then this method should work as a representation of the average.
I simplified because I was tired of typing ..
The satellites (there have been 6 IIRC) are of course in a Sun-sysnchronous orbit, but we don't have the ability to make that perfect, (there is a trade-off between being perfect and running out of propellent), so net/net they have to deal with drift along with quite a few other issues. Remember the initial satellites were NOT put in orbit to measure temperature, it was clever scientists on the ground who figured out how to use the diffenent microwave sounding units to derive temperature.
In any case, the net is two different groups use the satellite data and come up with slightly different numbers, all based on the various ways they adjust for variances in the orbital parameters.
RSS and UAH both have good sites if you are interested in the details.
Arthur
Still a valid method, if you think about it, the diurnal cycle is, roughly, sinusoidal. As long as the samples are evenly spaced, and appropriately spaced, then this method should work as a representation of the average.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 12 2009, 11:17 AM)
To make the process work better (remember they are getting data from a global network), they only use the monthly value for the stations.
The Average monthly value is generally computed as the sum of the highs and lows divided by twice the number of days (round only once per month, not once per day).
Arthur
That and using daily data for 120 years is simply cumbersome (two readings a day for 120 years is nearly 88,000 data points).
The Average monthly value is generally computed as the sum of the highs and lows divided by twice the number of days (round only once per month, not once per day).
Arthur
That and using daily data for 120 years is simply cumbersome (two readings a day for 120 years is nearly 88,000 data points).
Your UAH data is out-of-date and (separately) your graph comes from someone who cites WND as news.
As you posted it, it came from: http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2009/02...ling-continues/
But satellites are pretty indirect ways to sample surface temperature -- they get troposphere and stratosphere data mixed up in that measurement and you get different results depending on how you detangle them.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/u...l_upper_air.png
And as the global warming inherent in climate change refers to a multi-decade trend in global surface temperatures, even UAH data supports it from mid- and lower-troposphere data.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2/tmtglhmam_5.1
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
Cooling of the stratosphere is a prediction of the greenhouse gas theory, and UAH data supports that as well.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t4/tlsglhmam_5.1
http://www.wunderground.com/education/strato_cooling.asp
As you posted it, it came from: http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2009/02...ling-continues/
But satellites are pretty indirect ways to sample surface temperature -- they get troposphere and stratosphere data mixed up in that measurement and you get different results depending on how you detangle them.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/u...l_upper_air.png
And as the global warming inherent in climate change refers to a multi-decade trend in global surface temperatures, even UAH data supports it from mid- and lower-troposphere data.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2/tmtglhmam_5.1
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
Cooling of the stratosphere is a prediction of the greenhouse gas theory, and UAH data supports that as well.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t4/tlsglhmam_5.1
http://www.wunderground.com/education/strato_cooling.asp
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And it has its own measuring problems. To simplify the issue, due to orbital changes the satellites don't cross the same point on the globe at the same time every day and so this drift has to be compensated for, and there is no absolute way to do it, since the earth below it doesn't change temps on a linear basis. There's no need to simplify the matter for my benefit, and i'm also aware that there are a number of orbits available to ensure that the satelite passes over the same place at the same time each day (for example, a Sun-synchronous orbit). |
I simplified because I was tired of typing ..
The satellites (there have been 6 IIRC) are of course in a Sun-sysnchronous orbit, but we don't have the ability to make that perfect, (there is a trade-off between being perfect and running out of propellent), so net/net they have to deal with drift along with quite a few other issues. Remember the initial satellites were NOT put in orbit to measure temperature, it was clever scientists on the ground who figured out how to use the diffenent microwave sounding units to derive temperature.
In any case, the net is two different groups use the satellite data and come up with slightly different numbers, all based on the various ways they adjust for variances in the orbital parameters.
RSS and UAH both have good sites if you are interested in the details.
Arthur
QUOTE (rpenner+Nov 11 2009, 05:59 PM)
Your UAH data is out-of-date and (separately) your graph comes from someone who cites WND as news.
As you posted it, it came from: http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2009/02...ling-continues/
But satellites are pretty indirect ways to sample surface temperature -- they get troposphere and stratosphere data mixed up in that measurement and you get different results depending on how you detangle them.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/u...l_upper_air.png
And as the global warming inherent in climate change refers to a multi-decade trend in global surface temperatures, even UAH data supports it from mid- and lower-troposphere data.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2/tmtglhmam_5.1
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
Cooling of the stratosphere is a prediction of the greenhouse gas theory, and UAH data supports that as well.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t4/tlsglhmam_5.1
http://www.wunderground.com/education/strato_cooling.asp
rpenner,
Please show me WHERE I disagree with GHG theory?????
I've been talking about how we determine the global temp anomaly.
You keep making STRAWMAN arguments and then shooting them down.
Or making pot shots about what site a graph comes from.
Why not deal with the substance of what I actually post?
Arthur
As you posted it, it came from: http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2009/02...ling-continues/
But satellites are pretty indirect ways to sample surface temperature -- they get troposphere and stratosphere data mixed up in that measurement and you get different results depending on how you detangle them.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/u...l_upper_air.png
And as the global warming inherent in climate change refers to a multi-decade trend in global surface temperatures, even UAH data supports it from mid- and lower-troposphere data.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2/tmtglhmam_5.1
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
Cooling of the stratosphere is a prediction of the greenhouse gas theory, and UAH data supports that as well.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t4/tlsglhmam_5.1
http://www.wunderground.com/education/strato_cooling.asp
rpenner,
Please show me WHERE I disagree with GHG theory?????
I've been talking about how we determine the global temp anomaly.
You keep making STRAWMAN arguments and then shooting them down.
Or making pot shots about what site a graph comes from.
Why not deal with the substance of what I actually post?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 11 2009, 04:54 PM)
The issue is that changes over time in the urban nature of the stations can introduce a warming trend that increases the anomaly over time.
I find it funny that this is challenged since the need to ADJUST the station data is acknowledged by the people who do the measuring. GISS at least publishes the METHOD they use to correct for Urban bias, but CRU does not. (and GISS runs hotter than CRU)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...shcn/ushcn.html
USHCN Temp adjustments made to the Raw Temp data: (GHCN are also adjusted but not in the same manner or to this extent, different groups adjust the ROW differently)
Next, the temperature data are adjusted for the time-of-observation bias (Karl, et al. 1986) which occurs when observing times are changed from midnight to some time earlier in the day. The TOB is the first of several adjustments. The ending time of the 24 hour climatological day varies from station to station and/or over a period of years at a given station. The TOB introduces a non climatic bias into the monthly means. The TOB software is an empirical model used to estimate the time of observation biases associated with different observation schedules and the routine computes the TOB with respect to daily readings taken at midnight. Details on the procedure are given in, "A Model to Estimate the Time of Observation Bias Associated with Monthly Mean Maximum, Minimum, and Mean Temperatures." by Karl, Williams, et al.1986, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology 15: 145-160.
Temperature data at stations that have the Maximum/Minimum Temperature System (MMTS) are adjusted for the bias introduced when the liquid-in-glass thermometers were replaced with the MMTS (Quayle, et al. 1991). The TOB debiased data are input into the MMTS program and is the second adjustment. The MMTS program debiases the data obtained from stations with MMTS sensors. The NWS has replaced a majority of the liquid-in-glass thermometers in wooden Cotton-Region shelters with thermistor based maximum-minimum temperature systems (MMTS) housed in smaller plastic shelters. This adjustment removes the MMTS bias for stations so equipped with this type of sensor. The adjustment factors are most appropriate for use when time series of states or larger areas are required. Specific details on the procedures used are given in, "Effects of Recent Thermometer Changes in the Cooperative Network" by Quayle, Easterling, et al. 1991, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 72:1718-1724.
The homogeneity adjustment scheme described in Karl and Williams (1987) is performed using the station history metadata file to account for time series discontinuities due to random station moves and other station changes. The debiased data from the second adjustment are then entered into the Station History Adjustment Program or SHAP. The SHAP allows a climatological time series of temperature and precipitation adjustment for station inhomogeneities using station history information and is the third adjustment. The adjusted data retains its original scale and is not an anomaly series. The methodology uses the concepts of relative homogeneity and standard parametric (temperature) and non parametric (precipitation) statistics to adjust the data. In addition, this technique provides an estimate of the confidence interval associated with each adjustment. The SHAP program debiases the data with respect to changes other than the MMTS conversion to produced the "adjusted data". Specific details on the procedures used are given in, "An Approach to Adjusting Climatological Time Series for Discontinuous Inhomogeneities" by Karl, and Williams, Jr. 1987, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology 26:1744-1763.
Estimates for missing data are provided using a procedure similar to that used in the homogeneity adjustment scheme in step three. This fourth adjustment uses the debiased data from the third adjustment (SHAP) and fills in missing original data when needed (i.e. calculates estimated data) based on a "network" of the best correlated nearby stations. The FILNET program also completed the data adjustment process for stations that moved too often for the SHAP program to estimate the adjustments needed to debias the data.
Each of the above adjustments is done is a sequential manner. The areal edits are preformed first and then the data are passed through the following programs (TOBS, MMTS, SHAP and FILNET). At the end of each program, a dataset is produced and the graphs below show the annual temperature departures for each of the adjusted values.
The final adjustment is for an urban warming bias which uses the regression approach outlined in Karl, et al. (1988). The result of this adjustment is the "final" version of the data. Details on the urban warming adjustment are available in "Urbanization: Its Detection and Effect in the United States Climate Record" by Karl. T.R., et al., 1988, Journal of Climate 1:1099-1123.
Graph of adjustements
User posted image: User posted image
Currently all data adjustments in the USHCN are based on the use of metadata. However station histories are often incomplete or changes that can cause a time series discontinuity, such as replacing a broken thermometer with one that is calibrated differently, are not routinely entered into station history files. Because of this we are developing another step in the processing that will apply a time series discontinuity adjustment scheme described in Peterson and Easterling (1994) and Easterling and Peterson (1995). This methodology does not use station histories and identifies discontinuities in a station's time series using a homogeneous reference series developed from surrounding stations.
Arthur
I find it funny that this is challenged since the need to ADJUST the station data is acknowledged by the people who do the measuring. GISS at least publishes the METHOD they use to correct for Urban bias, but CRU does not. (and GISS runs hotter than CRU)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...shcn/ushcn.html
USHCN Temp adjustments made to the Raw Temp data: (GHCN are also adjusted but not in the same manner or to this extent, different groups adjust the ROW differently)
Next, the temperature data are adjusted for the time-of-observation bias (Karl, et al. 1986) which occurs when observing times are changed from midnight to some time earlier in the day. The TOB is the first of several adjustments. The ending time of the 24 hour climatological day varies from station to station and/or over a period of years at a given station. The TOB introduces a non climatic bias into the monthly means. The TOB software is an empirical model used to estimate the time of observation biases associated with different observation schedules and the routine computes the TOB with respect to daily readings taken at midnight. Details on the procedure are given in, "A Model to Estimate the Time of Observation Bias Associated with Monthly Mean Maximum, Minimum, and Mean Temperatures." by Karl, Williams, et al.1986, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology 15: 145-160.
Temperature data at stations that have the Maximum/Minimum Temperature System (MMTS) are adjusted for the bias introduced when the liquid-in-glass thermometers were replaced with the MMTS (Quayle, et al. 1991). The TOB debiased data are input into the MMTS program and is the second adjustment. The MMTS program debiases the data obtained from stations with MMTS sensors. The NWS has replaced a majority of the liquid-in-glass thermometers in wooden Cotton-Region shelters with thermistor based maximum-minimum temperature systems (MMTS) housed in smaller plastic shelters. This adjustment removes the MMTS bias for stations so equipped with this type of sensor. The adjustment factors are most appropriate for use when time series of states or larger areas are required. Specific details on the procedures used are given in, "Effects of Recent Thermometer Changes in the Cooperative Network" by Quayle, Easterling, et al. 1991, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 72:1718-1724.
The homogeneity adjustment scheme described in Karl and Williams (1987) is performed using the station history metadata file to account for time series discontinuities due to random station moves and other station changes. The debiased data from the second adjustment are then entered into the Station History Adjustment Program or SHAP. The SHAP allows a climatological time series of temperature and precipitation adjustment for station inhomogeneities using station history information and is the third adjustment. The adjusted data retains its original scale and is not an anomaly series. The methodology uses the concepts of relative homogeneity and standard parametric (temperature) and non parametric (precipitation) statistics to adjust the data. In addition, this technique provides an estimate of the confidence interval associated with each adjustment. The SHAP program debiases the data with respect to changes other than the MMTS conversion to produced the "adjusted data". Specific details on the procedures used are given in, "An Approach to Adjusting Climatological Time Series for Discontinuous Inhomogeneities" by Karl, and Williams, Jr. 1987, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology 26:1744-1763.
Estimates for missing data are provided using a procedure similar to that used in the homogeneity adjustment scheme in step three. This fourth adjustment uses the debiased data from the third adjustment (SHAP) and fills in missing original data when needed (i.e. calculates estimated data) based on a "network" of the best correlated nearby stations. The FILNET program also completed the data adjustment process for stations that moved too often for the SHAP program to estimate the adjustments needed to debias the data.
Each of the above adjustments is done is a sequential manner. The areal edits are preformed first and then the data are passed through the following programs (TOBS, MMTS, SHAP and FILNET). At the end of each program, a dataset is produced and the graphs below show the annual temperature departures for each of the adjusted values.
The final adjustment is for an urban warming bias which uses the regression approach outlined in Karl, et al. (1988). The result of this adjustment is the "final" version of the data. Details on the urban warming adjustment are available in "Urbanization: Its Detection and Effect in the United States Climate Record" by Karl. T.R., et al., 1988, Journal of Climate 1:1099-1123.
Graph of adjustements
User posted image: User posted image
Currently all data adjustments in the USHCN are based on the use of metadata. However station histories are often incomplete or changes that can cause a time series discontinuity, such as replacing a broken thermometer with one that is calibrated differently, are not routinely entered into station history files. Because of this we are developing another step in the processing that will apply a time series discontinuity adjustment scheme described in Peterson and Easterling (1994) and Easterling and Peterson (1995). This methodology does not use station histories and identifies discontinuities in a station's time series using a homogeneous reference series developed from surrounding stations.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 10 2009, 11:52 PM)
MjolnirPants,
I think you and I are in general agreement.
I think we're in agreement on several general points, but I'd hesitate to say we're generally on the same side.
I get the impression that while you're not denying the problems of global warming outright, you're more leaning towards that than accepting them as real problems. While I myself am also in the middle, I lean more towards the other camp.
On specific points, there's something important about your points about the temperature measurement that I'm not sure is being considered.
Establishing an accurate global average temperature is not as important as establishing a single, consistent temperature which depends upon the global average temperature.
This temp can be off by any level, it doesn't matter how accurate it is, only how closely it is related to the global average temperature.
I don't see any reason in your posts why such a reference temp cannot be established via the methods you are commenting on, so I don't see any problem with the idea of global average temperature increase. If the temp they established goes up, the global average temp goes up. So we may not know what the global average temp is, but we know it's increasing.
However, I'm in agreement that we need to work on alternate energy. If the developing world were to reach a post-industrial state, and just half of those people live a lifestyle comparable to Americans today (with respect to use of fossil fuels, as opposed to Europeans or the Japanese), then global warming will become a real, undeniable, unambiguous and immediate problem.
I think you and I are in general agreement.
I think we're in agreement on several general points, but I'd hesitate to say we're generally on the same side.
I get the impression that while you're not denying the problems of global warming outright, you're more leaning towards that than accepting them as real problems. While I myself am also in the middle, I lean more towards the other camp.
On specific points, there's something important about your points about the temperature measurement that I'm not sure is being considered.
Establishing an accurate global average temperature is not as important as establishing a single, consistent temperature which depends upon the global average temperature.
This temp can be off by any level, it doesn't matter how accurate it is, only how closely it is related to the global average temperature.
I don't see any reason in your posts why such a reference temp cannot be established via the methods you are commenting on, so I don't see any problem with the idea of global average temperature increase. If the temp they established goes up, the global average temp goes up. So we may not know what the global average temp is, but we know it's increasing.
QUOTE
We need to work on alternate energy simply because the cost of relying on fossil fuels will limit our economies if we don't find reasonable replacements reasonably soon.
The truth of this depends on two factors. The availability of naturally occurring fossil fuels and our ability (or lack thereof) to create new fossil fuels. Some technologies have been shown to produce minute quantities of crude oil from manufactured or harvested hydrocarbon-bearing materials, meaning that we might be able to one day produce our own gasoline, diesel and natural gas from our own waste. This would be a good thing in as many ways as a bad things.However, I'm in agreement that we need to work on alternate energy. If the developing world were to reach a post-industrial state, and just half of those people live a lifestyle comparable to Americans today (with respect to use of fossil fuels, as opposed to Europeans or the Japanese), then global warming will become a real, undeniable, unambiguous and immediate problem.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We need to work on alternate energy simply because the cost of relying on fossil fuels will limit our economies if we don't find reasonable replacements reasonably soon. |
The truth of this depends on two factors. The availability of naturally occurring fossil fuels and our ability (or lack thereof) to create new fossil fuels. Some technologies have been shown to produce minute quantities of crude oil from manufactured or harvested hydrocarbon-bearing materials, meaning that we might be able to one day produce our own gasoline, diesel and natural gas from our own waste. This would be a good thing in as many ways as a bad things.
However, I'm in agreement that we need to work on alternate energy. If the developing world were to reach a post-industrial state, and just half of those people live a lifestyle comparable to Americans today (with respect to use of fossil fuels, as opposed to Europeans or the Japanese), then global warming will become a real, undeniable, unambiguous and immediate problem.
The good news is it looks like they are nearing in on a relatively inexpensive means of burning coal and capturing 90% of the CO2 (Ammonia method)
However, I'm in agreement that we need to work on alternate energy. If the developing world were to reach a post-industrial state, and just half of those people live a lifestyle comparable to Americans today (with respect to use of fossil fuels, as opposed to Europeans or the Japanese), then global warming will become a real, undeniable, unambiguous and immediate problem.
The good news is it looks like they are nearing in on a relatively inexpensive means of burning coal and capturing 90% of the CO2 (Ammonia method)
This is only an advantage if that technology is as cheap as existing coal burning technology, in order that developing nations can afford to build them instead of coal burning generators using older technology.
QUOTE
The bad news is we haven't made much progress on the energy storage front, and the successful utilization of wind and PV would be greatly enhanced with cost effective energy storage devices.
Yes. Energy storage is far more important than energy generation, as oxymoronic as it seems. We can stockpile fuels, but not the energy itself, which has many bearings on wasted energy. (As an example, calculations used during my most recent job indicated that 75% of the electricity put into a power line from the generator is lost during transit through heat. If this heat could be collected and stored, it would make a huge impact on our energy needs.)
And addressing directly the "high-low" temperature record is:
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009..._temps_an_i.php
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/maxmin.jsp
Gerald A. Meehl, Claudia Tebaldi, Guy Walton, David Easterling, and Larry McDaniel "The relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S." Geophysical Research Letters (in press, accepted October 20, 2009).
http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2009GL040736-pip.pdf (pay-link)
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009..._temps_an_i.php
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/maxmin.jsp
Gerald A. Meehl, Claudia Tebaldi, Guy Walton, David Easterling, and Larry McDaniel "The relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S." Geophysical Research Letters (in press, accepted October 20, 2009).
http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2009GL040736-pip.pdf (pay-link)
What's funny though is these records are set by local weather stations.
All the adjustments I mentioned in the previous post aren't made till after they get to USHCN, and have NO IMPACT on the record.
As USHCN notes, by the end of the century they have to take about 1/2 a degree (on average) off the raw data to get their final data, which means that in general there are significant factors that make the local temps higher than they should be.
Take the same corrections off the raw data and the number of records would go down as well.
I've yet to see anyone do that data crunching.
Arthur
All the adjustments I mentioned in the previous post aren't made till after they get to USHCN, and have NO IMPACT on the record.
As USHCN notes, by the end of the century they have to take about 1/2 a degree (on average) off the raw data to get their final data, which means that in general there are significant factors that make the local temps higher than they should be.
Take the same corrections off the raw data and the number of records would go down as well.
I've yet to see anyone do that data crunching.
Arthur
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
QUOTE (arthur+)
The good news is it looks like they are nearing in on a relatively inexpensive means of burning coal and capturing 90% of the CO2 (Ammonia method)
This is only an advantage if that technology is as cheap as existing coal burning technology, in order that developing nations can afford to build them instead of coal burning generators using older technology.
Doesn't have to be as cheap.
Has to be reasonable.
For those countries with an adequate supply of Coal, it is generally our cheapest source of energy.
As far as its cost per kWh of electricity, in the US it's typically about 1.75 cents Per kilowatt an hour of electricity generated.
Most of these solutions include some additional capital cost but mainly, the cost is in the addititional fuel costs to run it.
Its expected that this can be done for 15% or less of an increase in fuel costs and thus an increase from 1.75 cents to 2 cents per kWh for coal is not that big of a deal since the final cost to consumer is already ~12 cents.
What drives the cost of electricity is not the cheap baseload coal costs but the high capital and fuel prices for PEAK loads.
i.e. Natural gas runs about 6-9 cents per kWh.
Arthur
In terms of not understanding what is going with the earth's climate,
I have recently read some interesting points,
which many global warming hysterics are unaware of:
1. When I was a kid scientists thought the heat in the earth’s core was left over
from the formation of the earth. Now they are pretty sure the heat comes from
radioactive fission reactions of uranium and other radioactive elements.
The amount of heat generated by these reactions is unknown, but is significant.
2. It is estimated that the temperature of the core of the earth is somewhere
between 5,300–7,300 degrees C. By comparison the temperature of the surface
of the sun, the photosphere, is around 5,510 degrees C.
So the earth’s land and oceans are sitting atop a radioactive pile which is hotter than the sun.
3. When plate tectonics drags chalk, limestone, and marble (all composed of CaCO3),
under the earth’s surface along subduction zones, they are exposed to intense heat
which breaks them down into CaO and CO2. The CO2 eventually comes back to the
surface in volcanoes. There incredible numbers of volcanoes along the mid-Atlantic
and mid-Pacific rift zones which are spewing CO2 into the deep oceans, at what rate we do not know.
4. The deep ocean contains much more dissolved OC2 than the surface waters.
This is because CO2 becomes more soluble at higher pressures and at lower temperatures,
and the deep oceans are under intense pressures and are very cold.
Scientists don’t know how much CO2 is dissolved it the world’s ocean
but it is estimated that they contain 50 to 70 times more CO2 than the atmosphere.
5. There are no sea shells at the bottom of the deep ocean.
This is because sea shells are composed of CaCO3 and they dissolve
when exposed to the high CO2 concentration at the bottom of the deep oceans.
6. The deep ocean do not mix very well with the surface layers of the oceans,
but they eventually do “turn over” and mix. Scientists don’t really know how long this takes,
but it probably takes over a 1,000 years.
Ice core data show the amount of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere follows
global temperature by something over a 1,000 years.
Atmosphere, Goddess of Earth's outer layer, wrote:
I weigh 11,025 quadrillion pounds (11,025,000,000,000,000,000 pounds).
78% of me is Nitrogen (N2), and 21% of me is Oxygen (02).
I have existed in various forms and compositions for 4,500,000,000 years.
The humans learned to fly in me only 106 years ago.
I have been affected by volcanoes, meteor impacts, and the Sun for billions of years;
but in the end, I always behave exactly as I damn well please.
I look down on the puny humans, and I rain on their audacity in believing they can control me.
I scoff at California with its ubiquitous anti-pollution laws, which are negated by its ubiquitous forest fires.
I will eventually decide to cool the Earth's surface; AND WHEN I DO...
I will puke hail balls if Algore claims that I did so because of him, rather than in spite of him.
Yours truly,
Atmosphere
This is only an advantage if that technology is as cheap as existing coal burning technology, in order that developing nations can afford to build them instead of coal burning generators using older technology.
Doesn't have to be as cheap.
Has to be reasonable.
For those countries with an adequate supply of Coal, it is generally our cheapest source of energy.
As far as its cost per kWh of electricity, in the US it's typically about 1.75 cents Per kilowatt an hour of electricity generated.
Most of these solutions include some additional capital cost but mainly, the cost is in the addititional fuel costs to run it.
Its expected that this can be done for 15% or less of an increase in fuel costs and thus an increase from 1.75 cents to 2 cents per kWh for coal is not that big of a deal since the final cost to consumer is already ~12 cents.
What drives the cost of electricity is not the cheap baseload coal costs but the high capital and fuel prices for PEAK loads.
i.e. Natural gas runs about 6-9 cents per kWh.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 12 2009, 01:58 PM)
Doesn't have to be as cheap.
Has to be reasonable.
Naturally. Some increase in cost would still be considered to be worth it by developing nations. But it does need to be in the same ballpark. a 75% increase in cost is not going to be worth the environmental benefits to a developing nation.
The good news is that new technologies grow cheap as long as there's continued demand for them, without exception. So this is just another reason to support CO2 limits in developing nations, where such generators are most likely to be built first. By encouraging their use, we can keep demand up, and thereby help to drive prices down.
Has to be reasonable.
Naturally. Some increase in cost would still be considered to be worth it by developing nations. But it does need to be in the same ballpark. a 75% increase in cost is not going to be worth the environmental benefits to a developing nation.
QUOTE
What drives the cost of electricity is not the cheap baseload coal costs but the high capital and fuel prices for PEAK loads.
That's why I mentioned it in the first place. The coal costs the same no matter what sort of generator it's used in, it's the overhead (the cost of building and maintaining the technology) which really sucks up the money. The good news is that new technologies grow cheap as long as there's continued demand for them, without exception. So this is just another reason to support CO2 limits in developing nations, where such generators are most likely to be built first. By encouraging their use, we can keep demand up, and thereby help to drive prices down.
In terms of not understanding what is going with the earth's climate,
I have recently read some interesting points,
which many global warming hysterics are unaware of:
1. When I was a kid scientists thought the heat in the earth’s core was left over
from the formation of the earth. Now they are pretty sure the heat comes from
radioactive fission reactions of uranium and other radioactive elements.
The amount of heat generated by these reactions is unknown, but is significant.
2. It is estimated that the temperature of the core of the earth is somewhere
between 5,300–7,300 degrees C. By comparison the temperature of the surface
of the sun, the photosphere, is around 5,510 degrees C.
So the earth’s land and oceans are sitting atop a radioactive pile which is hotter than the sun.
3. When plate tectonics drags chalk, limestone, and marble (all composed of CaCO3),
under the earth’s surface along subduction zones, they are exposed to intense heat
which breaks them down into CaO and CO2. The CO2 eventually comes back to the
surface in volcanoes. There incredible numbers of volcanoes along the mid-Atlantic
and mid-Pacific rift zones which are spewing CO2 into the deep oceans, at what rate we do not know.
4. The deep ocean contains much more dissolved OC2 than the surface waters.
This is because CO2 becomes more soluble at higher pressures and at lower temperatures,
and the deep oceans are under intense pressures and are very cold.
Scientists don’t know how much CO2 is dissolved it the world’s ocean
but it is estimated that they contain 50 to 70 times more CO2 than the atmosphere.
5. There are no sea shells at the bottom of the deep ocean.
This is because sea shells are composed of CaCO3 and they dissolve
when exposed to the high CO2 concentration at the bottom of the deep oceans.
6. The deep ocean do not mix very well with the surface layers of the oceans,
but they eventually do “turn over” and mix. Scientists don’t really know how long this takes,
but it probably takes over a 1,000 years.
Ice core data show the amount of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere follows
global temperature by something over a 1,000 years.
Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/...,662092,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/...,662092,00.html
Thank you for your many specious, irrelevant, unscientific, and baseless claims against global average surface temperature upward trends caused by mankind's changes to land, sea and especially air.
http://scienceblogs.com/worldsfair/2009/11...ot_real_bec.php
http://scienceblogs.com/worldsfair/2009/11...ot_real_bec.php
Atmosphere, Goddess of Earth's outer layer, wrote:
I weigh 11,025 quadrillion pounds (11,025,000,000,000,000,000 pounds).
78% of me is Nitrogen (N2), and 21% of me is Oxygen (02).
I have existed in various forms and compositions for 4,500,000,000 years.
The humans learned to fly in me only 106 years ago.
I have been affected by volcanoes, meteor impacts, and the Sun for billions of years;
but in the end, I always behave exactly as I damn well please.
I look down on the puny humans, and I rain on their audacity in believing they can control me.
I scoff at California with its ubiquitous anti-pollution laws, which are negated by its ubiquitous forest fires.
I will eventually decide to cool the Earth's surface; AND WHEN I DO...
I will puke hail balls if Algore claims that I did so because of him, rather than in spite of him.
Yours truly,
Atmosphere
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.