Global Cooling will kill us all!

Stuff that’s happening in the world that may pertain to our survival. Please keep political debates off the forum.

Moderators: phil_in_cs, ZS Global Moderators

Postby Sapient » Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:59 pm

ghostface wrote:
SSgtMobley wrote:Yeah, well...I have no idea what you mean in the first paragraph nor how you get it from the chart. I think I'll just have to play the dumb guy on this one and say "The red bar is bigger". But that requires faith in the source for me to accept "the red bar is bigger" is true. Cause I can't guage the chart to mean much to me.


Do you know what Earth’s “energy budget” means? That’s a good place to start and someone posted a graphic for it upthread.


Reading the Wiki article on radiative forcing might also help. I can't claim to have fully understood everything in it, but it did help to clarify the concepts involved.
User avatar
Sapient
* *
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:57 pm
Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon

Postby ghostface » Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:12 pm

gridley wrote:Well, thank you for answering my question. You're only interested in "debunking" my questioning of your methodology, which is obviously anti-scientific because I'm a stupid engineer who spends all his time dealing with the realities of physics and computer models. Its physics, not a model.


That’s not what I said. I said I am happy to discuss the science with anyone that wants to. You’re reading that to have been directed at you when it was not. It was in reference to previous posters.

The burden is on you because you choose to advocate a position. You're under no obligation to do so. I framed the statement very carefully: IF you wanted to continue the discussion, I insisted that you explain to me why what appears to me to be incredibly flawed methodology was valid.


What flaws? “statisitical deviation”? What relevance does that have to attribution?

Since you don't have any interest in doing so, neither one of us is going to get anything out of this.


I’m happy to discuss the subject with anyone. I am a little confused, because you don’t seem to have any evidence for your contention of other planets warming like Earth, and seem to be fixated on from my perspective something that doesn’t have any bearing on the science involved.

You're not going to learn anything from my talking-point laden anti-scientific posts;


That wasn’t directed towards you, it was directed at several previous posters.

Have a nice day,
Gridley


If you feel like having a calm discussion, I’ll be checking back.
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own...
User avatar
ghostface
* * * * *
 
Posts: 5771
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 8:14 am
Location: Washington, DC

Postby gridley » Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:26 pm

If you're not directing things at me, you might want to emphasize that when you're quoting me, and only me, in a post.

OK, let's start over. I'm insterested in discussing the methodology that convinced you that the current warming trend is man-induced.

Let's try an analogy. Pretend I'm blind. I ask you what color hair a poster on this forum has. You reply: "Its red, see? Look at this picture. Everyone knows his hair is red." This doesn't help me unless I:
1. trust your opinion. This would be aided by you establishing that you have met this person and being a hairdresser could tell that they don't use hair dye.
2. have someone else I trust who can independantly examine your presented evidence. This would be aided by your explaining that you took the picture yourself and thus know it wasn't photoshopped. Otherwise your evidence is useless to me, and also to any independent expert I could consult, because they don't know it wasn't photoshopped, even though they can see that the person's hair is, in fact, red.
3. trust the majority opinion (everyone knows...). I don't trust the majority opinion if the only support is that it is the majority opinion, and "scientific consensus" isn't much better, especially when there is so much variability within the man-induced global warming camp. If some people say we're going to get a 100 foot sea rise +/- 10 feet and others say 10 feet +/- 5 feet, all I know for sure is that one of them is wrong. How they came to be wrong becomes vitally important. If they both took the same raw data, their analysis should be checked. If they worked from different data but used the same method of analysis, the data needs to be checked.

Does this make sense? Are you willing to go into methodology?
That which doesn't kill me makes me stranger.
dogbane wrote:Former Soviet Republics: Betcha can't eat just one!

Chef wrote:Steal with a gun, go to jail. Steal with a pen, get a bailout.

Gridley - preparing for the Robot Alien Terrorist Zombies (RATZ) since 2007.
User avatar
gridley
* *
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:04 pm
Location: Everett, WA

Postby ghostface » Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:06 pm

gridley wrote:Are you willing to go into methodology?


I am, gladly, but can you please refrain making assumptions when you are unclear about how something came about?

It's not going to be very productive if you tell me that X methodology is flawed when it isn't the methodology actually used. Otherwise, yes, let's start over.
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own...
User avatar
ghostface
* * * * *
 
Posts: 5771
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 8:14 am
Location: Washington, DC

Postby paperclip » Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:04 pm

I wonder what to make of these?

“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

If a coming ice age was media driven in the 1970's, it appears that global warming now is politically driven and that is why this topic cannot really be discussed on this forum:

"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy. " - Timothy Wirth quoted in Science Under Siege by Michael Fumento, 1993
http://www.nationalcenter.org/dos7130.htm

MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen correctly summed up these types of efforts in March when he said, ‘Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life.'
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... &Issue_id=
DFWMTX wrote:
It's less about saving the enviroment and more about control. Who needs Big Brother when you've got Mother Gaia?
paperclip
* * *
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:53 am
Location: Rapid City, SD

Postby ghostface » Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:15 pm

paperclip wrote:I wonder what to make of these?

“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf


That climate sensitivity published in a “special” “guest” issue of AGU{1}, was shown to be flawed{2}, and is falsified by a study completely independent of modeling{3}.

If a coming ice age was media driven in the 1970's,


As I’ve previously shown, the majority of both the scientific and media publishing was concerned with global warming, not cooling during that time{4}.

it appears that global warming now is politically driven…
"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy. " - Timothy Wirth quoted in Science Under Siege by Michael Fumento, 1993
http://www.nationalcenter.org/dos7130.htm


Perhaps you can explain to me the relevancy of this to the science? You’re quoting a politician.

and that is why this topic cannot really be discussed on this forum


What do you call what we are doing?

MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen correctly summed up these types of efforts in March when he said, ‘Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life.'
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... &Issue_id=


Dick Lindzen has become a conspiracy theorist. He cannot get any of his extremist claims published in respectable, peer-reviewed scientific journals.

No citation there. That is based purely on my own correspondence with him.

Back to your original question:

paperclip wrote:I wonder what to make of these?


I’d say it's pretty obvious. Can you tell me, without looking it up, what a Walker cell is? What lapse rate means? What foraminifera have to do with paleoclimate reconstructions?

I make, of what you posted, once again things flung at the wall with no underlying understanding in hopes of something sticking.

Here’s a pretty basic question that I just can’t seem to get an answer to from a lot of people that reject the mainstream science-

Do you reject greenhouse gases’ ability to trap and reradiate longwave radiation?
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own...
User avatar
ghostface
* * * * *
 
Posts: 5771
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 8:14 am
Location: Washington, DC

Postby wanderingwaldo » Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:31 pm

paperclip wrote:“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research


http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
Above is written by Steven Schwartz and has shown to be flawed.

Commentary is nice, but hows about going to the horse's mouth.

"I'm very concerned about the world my grandchildren will live in," said Mr. Schwartz, who is currently studying climate change. "There could be an increase of four to eight degrees in the next century, and that's huge. The last time there was a five-degree Celsius decrease was the last ice age. An increase of eight degrees Fahrenheit would bring change unprecedented in the last half-million years."
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NorthShoreSun.html

paperclip wrote:"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy. " - Timothy Wirth quoted in Science Under Siege by Michael Fumento, 1993


I would tend to agree. As said above he is a politician.

paperclip wrote:MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen correctly summed up these types of efforts in March when he said, ‘Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life.'


Umm...who said environmental efforts are about controlling one of the most abundant elements in the universe? It's about preventing disaster. Nobody is going to to be limiting the graphite going into pencils.

"Firstly, it is clear that Lindzen only signs up to the first point of the basic 'consensus' as outlined here previously, that the planet has indeed warmed significantly over the 20th century. While he accepts that CO2 and other greenhouse gases have increased due to human activities, and that this should warm the planet, he does not accept that it is necessarily an important component in the 20th century rise. His preferred option (by process of elimination) appears to be intrinsic variability, but he provides no support for this contention." from below:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... testimony/
Mere placation of the ordinary prevents one from becoming extra-ordinary.

The world is an onion made of spiderwebs.

"I'll miss the sea, but a person needs new experiences. They jar something deep inside, allowing him to grow. Without change something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken."
-Duke Leto Atredies
wanderingwaldo
* * *
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:09 am
Location: City of Angels (and Demons)

Postby paperclip » Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:23 pm

http://www.amath.washington.edu/researc ... ar-jgr.pdf

I read the link above and it talked more about lack of repeatablility and rare natural global phenomena that have not yet been successfully explained? Maybe I don't understand it because I don't know what a Walker cell is...

I only quoted a politician to give weight to the argument others have made that there is a large political component in "Global Warming". Research funding, professional black balling and global taxation should not be separated from the argument if one wishes to be objective and learn something from a discussion of the topic.

BTW in another post you said this:
The global cooling scare was media driven because of the brief cooling period we experienced from the 40s-70s.

http://zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopi ... 7&start=24

Honestly, I haven't ever heard you say that anyone has made a good point if it differs from your point of view. It follows the same lines as moderating a topic you are debating in yourself. And the tone you are taking with me is a definate thread killer, dude.
DFWMTX wrote:
It's less about saving the enviroment and more about control. Who needs Big Brother when you've got Mother Gaia?
paperclip
* * *
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:53 am
Location: Rapid City, SD

Postby wanderingwaldo » Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:31 pm

paperclip wrote:I read the link above and it talked more about lack of repeatablility and rare natural global phenomena that have not yet been successfully explained? Maybe I don't understand it because I don't know what a Walker cell is...


Is that a question? I don't know where you are going with this.

paperclip wrote:BTW in another post you said this:
The global cooling scare was media driven because of the brief cooling period we experienced from the 40s-70s.

http://zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopi ... 7&start=24

Honestly, I haven't ever heard you say that anyone has made a good point if it differs from your point of view. It follows the same lines as moderating a topic you are debating in yourself. And the tone you are taking with me is a definate thread killer, dude.


Maybe he would if he felt that way. I do glean some frustration from ghostface, but I don't think it is particularly unfounded. He has a lot of people trying to poke holes in scientific consensus and his arguments in particular - many of whom don't understand what they are talking about or did not dig deep enough to be sure they had solid evidence for their own arguments. Once their last argument has been blown away they come up with more of the same.
Mere placation of the ordinary prevents one from becoming extra-ordinary.

The world is an onion made of spiderwebs.

"I'll miss the sea, but a person needs new experiences. They jar something deep inside, allowing him to grow. Without change something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken."
-Duke Leto Atredies
wanderingwaldo
* * *
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:09 am
Location: City of Angels (and Demons)

Postby paperclip » Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:57 pm

I was pointing out how some of those who disagree (with Ian Wilson), which Ghostface was referencing, were talking about a lack of repeatability in the models and unexplained phenomena. They didn't offer much in the way of evidence, IMO.
I don't really know why you are speaking for Ghostface either. Where are you going with that? :roll:
DFWMTX wrote:
It's less about saving the enviroment and more about control. Who needs Big Brother when you've got Mother Gaia?
paperclip
* * *
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:53 am
Location: Rapid City, SD

Postby dogbane » Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:52 am

Smackdown! Peak Oil v. Global Warming
http://www.openthefuture.com/2008/03/pe ... rming.html

Weakness: article assumes phase-out of coal. IMO, if oil declines, industrialized societies will likely turn to other carbon sources, regardless of their effects on the atmosphere.
Image: Foil Cookery
High Ground: House of Adair
"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are." - T.R.
"The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it." - Flannery O'Connor
User avatar
dogbane
ZS Member
ZS Member
 
Posts: 12857
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Carolina Piedmont

Postby ghostface » Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:57 am

paperclip wrote:http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf

I read the link above and it talked more about lack of repeatablility and rare natural global phenomena that have not yet been successfully explained? Maybe I don't understand it because I don't know what a Walker cell is...


As I stated, it derives, without using models, a climate sensitivity that is in line with the consensus, and invalidates Schwartz’s.

I only quoted a politician to give weight to the argument others have made that there is a large political component in "Global Warming". Research funding, professional black balling and global taxation should not be separated from the argument if one wishes to be objective and learn something from a discussion of the topic.


As a general forum rule, and specifically for this topic, we avoid discussing politics. Beyond that, implying scientific misconduct is a serious charge that requires serious supporting evidence.

BTW in another post you said this:
The global cooling scare was media driven because of the brief cooling period we experienced from the 40s-70s.

http://zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopi ... 7&start=24


And? The “scare” as far as it went was media driven, even though the majority of scientific and popular press writing of the time was concerned with warming.

Honestly, I haven't ever heard you say that anyone has made a good point if it differs from your point of view.


We aren’t discussing "points of view". We are discussing the scientific evidence and consensus behind a real world phenomenon. No one has yet managed to propose an alternative theory that can not only explain the current warming, but explain how it is mimicking increased greenhouse warming, and how it is offsetting the increased greenhouse warming that must necessarily happen due to the elevated concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. If I missed someone doing this, feel free to point it out.

It follows the same lines as moderating a topic you are debating in yourself.


My comments on the science are unrelated to my duties as a moderator.

And the tone you are taking with me is a definate thread killer, dude.


If my tone bothers you, I apologize. I would just like to see people develop even a rudimentary grasp of climate science before quoting things from James Inhofe’s{1}{2}{3} website as if it is a credible source for scientific information. He is a shining example of the denialist tactic of using internally contradictory reasoning to reject mainstream scientific opinion.

I'd appreciate it if you could answer the question that I posed to you-

Do you reject greenhouse gases' ability to absorb and reradiate longwave radiation?
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own...
User avatar
ghostface
* * * * *
 
Posts: 5771
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 8:14 am
Location: Washington, DC

Postby ghostface » Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:35 am

dogbane wrote:Smackdown! Peak Oil v. Global Warming
http://www.openthefuture.com/2008/03/pe ... rming.html

Weakness: article assumes phase-out of coal. IMO, if oil declines, industrialized societies will likely turn to other carbon sources, regardless of their effects on the atmosphere.


It also seems to assume that the hydrocarbons under the Arctic won't be exploited- which, IMO, is incredibly naive. I don't know if Hansen and Kharecha touched on that (haven't gotten around to reading that particular paper), but Canada, the US, China, Russia, Denmark, Norway, and more are all looking to exploit this upcoming store of fossil fuels{1}{2}{3}{4}.

Additionally, there are deep ocean reserves that are being sought{5}{6}.
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own...
User avatar
ghostface
* * * * *
 
Posts: 5771
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 8:14 am
Location: Washington, DC

Postby SSgtMobley » Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:25 am

ghostface wrote:
dogbane wrote:Smackdown! Peak Oil v. Global Warming
http://www.openthefuture.com/2008/03/pe ... rming.html

Weakness: article assumes phase-out of coal. IMO, if oil declines, industrialized societies will likely turn to other carbon sources, regardless of their effects on the atmosphere.


It also seems to assume that the hydrocarbons under the Arctic won't be exploited- which, IMO, is incredibly naive. I don't know if Hansen and Kharecha touched on that (haven't gotten around to reading that particular paper), but Canada, the US, China, Russia, Denmark, Norway, and more are all looking to exploit this upcoming store of fossil fuels{1}{2}{3}{4}.

Additionally, there are deep ocean reserves that are being sought{5}{6}.


Unless someone comes up with a significantly cost effective method of fueling that removes us from fossil fuels, fossil fuels will always be used (at least until they run out). I don't think the key is stopping the utilization of fossil fuels but for there to be a drive and push toward finding better ways to process it.

Likely there is no method of processing it without the generation of C02. But there likely is a method of preventing its escape into the atmosphere and some method of containment and disposal (or perhaps even use).
"Give me a long enough lever, a fulcrum and a place to stand and I will move the world." - Archimedes
SSgtMobley
* * * * *
 
Posts: 1401
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 2:02 pm
Location: Dallas, Tx

Postby dogbane » Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:43 am

ghostface wrote:
dogbane wrote:Smackdown! Peak Oil v. Global Warming
http://www.openthefuture.com/2008/03/pe ... rming.html

Weakness: article assumes phase-out of coal. IMO, if oil declines, industrialized societies will likely turn to other carbon sources, regardless of their effects on the atmosphere.


It also seems to assume that the hydrocarbons under the Arctic won't be exploited- which, IMO, is incredibly naive. I don't know if Hansen and Kharecha touched on that (haven't gotten around to reading that particular paper), but Canada, the US, China, Russia, Denmark, Norway, and more are all looking to exploit this upcoming store of fossil fuels{1}{2}{3}{4}.

Additionally, there are deep ocean reserves that are being sought{5}{6}.


PM sent.
Image: Foil Cookery
High Ground: House of Adair
"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are." - T.R.
"The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it." - Flannery O'Connor
User avatar
dogbane
ZS Member
ZS Member
 
Posts: 12857
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Carolina Piedmont

Postby ghostface » Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:08 am

Some of the expected consequences of unchecked emissions-driven warming for doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels+* (via the IPCC AR4):

Ecosystems
+ The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, overexploitation of resources).
+ Over the course of this century, net carbon uptake by terrestrial ecosystems is likely to peak before mid-century and then weaken or even reverse, thus amplifying climate change.
+ Approximately 20 to 30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C.
+ For increases in global average temperature exceeding 1.5 to 2.5°C and in concomitant atmospheric CO2 concentrations, there are projected to be major changes in ecosystem structure and function, species’ ecological interactions and shifts in species’ geographical ranges, with predominantly negative consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services, e.g. water and food supply.
Food
+ Crop productivity is projected to increase slightly at mid to high latitudes for local mean temperature increases of up to 1 to 3°C depending on the crop, and then decrease beyond that in some regions.
+ At lower latitudes, especially in seasonally dry and tropical regions, crop productivity is projected to decrease for even small local temperature increases (1 to 2°C), which would increase the risk of hunger.
+ Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase with increases in local average temperature over a range of 1 to 3°C, but above this it is projected to decrease.
Coasts
+ Coasts are projected to be exposed to increasing risks, including coastal erosion, due to climate change and sea level rise. The effect will be exacerbated by increasing human-induced pressures on coastal areas.
+ By the 2080s, many millions more people than today are projected to experience floods every year due to sea level rise. The numbers affected will be largest in the densely populated and low-lying megadeltas of Asia and Africa while small islands are especially vulnerable.
Industry, settlements and society
+ The most vulnerable industries, settlements and societies are generally those in coastal and river flood plains, those whose economies are closely linked with climate-sensitive resources and those in areas prone to extreme weather events, especially where rapid urbanization is occurring.
+ Poor communities can be especially vulnerable, in particular those concentrated in high-risk areas.
Health
+ The health status of millions of people is projected to be affected through, for example, increases in malnutrition; increased deaths, diseases and injury due to extreme weather events; increased burden of diarrhoeal diseases; increased frequency of cardio-respiratory diseases due to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone in urban areas related to climate change; and the altered spatial distribution of some infectious diseases.
+ Climate change is projected to bring some benefits in temperate areas, such as fewer deaths from cold exposure, and some mixed effects such as changes in range and transmission potential of malaria in Africa. Overall it is expected that benefits will be outweighed by the negative health effects of rising temperatures, especially in developing countries.
+ Critically important will be factors that directly shape the health of populations such as education, health care, public health initiatives, and infrastructure and economic development.
Water
+ Water impacts we’ll leave as a separate issue.

*We have the ability to mitigate emissions-driven change to the 2-3C level EDIT: but to date it looks unlikely that we will do so-that can of course change if the G8+5 set firm emissions targets. I want to emphasize that warming beyond 1.4-2ish C is not as of yet guaranteed. Additionally, most of the worrisome consequences lie beyond this range of warming.
Last edited by ghostface on Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own...
User avatar
ghostface
* * * * *
 
Posts: 5771
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 8:14 am
Location: Washington, DC

Postby 19kilo » Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:44 am

And if we had signed on to Kyoto back 97' ? How much would that have slowed the warming?


What is your thoughts now on solutions to help fix it other than the CFL's and hybrid cars and stuff the general public already know.
Image

The water gets hotter...the frog keeps swimming
User avatar
19kilo
* * *
 
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:59 pm
Location: Erie

Postby wanderingwaldo » Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:46 am

19kilo wrote:And if we had signed on to Kyoto back 97' ? How much would that have slowed the warming?


What is your thoughts now on solutions to help fix it other than the CFL's and hybrid cars and stuff the general public already know.


Catch up with Europe through policy to implement renewable energy installation. They are far ahead of us in implementation and their economy is going gangbusters compared with the US.

"By 1999, Germany had installed around 3500 MW of wind turbine capacity and Denmark 1560 MW, whereas France had installed only 19 MW and Ireland 73 MW - although the Altantic coastline endows France and Ireland with many more suitable sites.

The difference is not down to geography but to the favourable climate for wind turbine operators in Denmark and Germany provided by the 'electricity feed-in laws' that guarantee grid access and minimum prices. As a German MP, Scheer was the architect behind getting this legislation through; a doer as well as a visionary. The point here is that the difference in wind turbine capacity owes more to politics and culture.

He critically examines the evolution and impact of our current energy companies. "Like a spider, the fossil resource industry has been spinning its web over more and more sectors of the economy. Each strand of this web is a supply chain, with crosslinks composed of other directly connected industries." Out of the 50 largest European companies, 17 are in part or wholly conventional suppliers of energy and raw materials, or part of the chemicals industry.

Scheer develops his argument around the number of steps in the supply chains of various energy technologies, highlighting many hidden costs. 'An examination of the entire supply chain for fossil fuel energy demonstrates that its claim to be more economical is a myth. In theory, renewable energy sources have an economic advantage because of their much shorter supply chains. This can be exploited if the atomic and fossil fuel energy suppliers are divested of their numerous state privileges.'"

http://www.oilcrisis.com/scheer/SolarEconomyReviewRoberts.htm
Mere placation of the ordinary prevents one from becoming extra-ordinary.

The world is an onion made of spiderwebs.

"I'll miss the sea, but a person needs new experiences. They jar something deep inside, allowing him to grow. Without change something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken."
-Duke Leto Atredies
wanderingwaldo
* * *
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:09 am
Location: City of Angels (and Demons)

Postby 19kilo » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:10 pm

So what you are telling me is that the Kyoto protocol has lowered emmission levels in Europe?
Image

The water gets hotter...the frog keeps swimming
User avatar
19kilo
* * *
 
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:59 pm
Location: Erie

Postby ghostface » Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:33 pm

19kilo wrote:And if we had signed on to Kyoto back 97' ? How much would that have slowed the warming?


Kyoto wouldn't have necessarily slowed warming by much, nor was it intended to. What it would have done is better position us to make significant emissions cuts down the road and get programs set up to earn us credits by leapfrogging developing nations to low emission/high efficiency tech. This would allow us to ease into a lower emission economy with less of an impact on growth.

We did sign Kyoto, incidentally. We just didn't ratify it.

What is your thoughts now on solutions to help fix it other than the CFL's and hybrid cars and stuff the general public already know.


CFLs and hybrid cars are things that people can do to lessen their personal impact and raise consciousness, but the reality is that unless there is an international agreement with firm emissions targets, it won't matter. Domestically, there are steps we can take to reduce our national emissions that don't require an all or nothing stance- the stabilization wedge strategy is an example. We can begin taking meaningful action using the technology we have while allowing ourselves the flexibility to adopt new technologies as they emerge.

Realistically, I imagine that we will use a cap and trade program (as "tax" is a four letter word in America, although creating a pigovian carbon tax to reflect the negative externalities of climate change would actually be a completely capitalist, market based solution), where the emissions credits are 100% auctionable and reduced over time, allowing the market to dictate the cost.

Money from the credits would be divided between implementing the tech we already have, investing in development of new tech, and protecting tax payers from being unduly penalized by the shift to a lower carbon economy while rewarding them for reducing their own energy needs (e.g. better insulation for their houses).

Policy is by its nature a lot more tricky and I haven't really looked at the specifics as well as I probably could. As far as I know no matter who the next President is, a cap and trade policy is what will be implemented, as all remaining candidates are vocal supporters of that strategy, but have disagreements on the specifics.

So what you are telling me is that the Kyoto protocol has lowered emmission levels in Europe?


The EU-15 is on track to meet, and may even overachieve, its 2008–2012 Kyoto target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own...
User avatar
ghostface
* * * * *
 
Posts: 5771
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 8:14 am
Location: Washington, DC

Postby FOG3 » Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:44 pm

That report shows the EUs emissions staying the same at best, increasing at worst. That initial dip was heavily influenced by Germany shutting down inefficient Eastern Bloc factories it inherited, that will not happen again. In other words your claim is at best optimistic in the extreme.

That no doubt doesn't take into account business shifted to non-Kyoto protocol enforced countries that are infamous polluters like China. The EU has never met their Kyoto promises, and the enforcement of them was voted down when it was brought up by no small majority.

The only way Europe can even dream of meeting those targets is heavy use of a technological solution everyone with two brain cells to rub together has been asking since day 1. Why don't we just harvest the CO2 gas directly and use it to turbo-charge useful plant growth with a highly efficient strain of plant. Use it to make something profitable. Yet no one as far as I can tell has mentioned the GreenFuel and APS joint experiment that concluded not so long ago that was a resounding success.

It is almost as if they have eyes only for socialists and it is almost as if the issue is not the issue, but merely cover for other... goals is it not?

We did sign Kyoto, incidentally. We just didn't ratify it.
Clinton signed it knowing that it did not meet the requirements Congress had set forth in order for it to be ratified, ie not deep-six the economy. That was political maneuver on his part as he knew he could have his cake and eat it too in the process, nothing more. You seem to be taking very little concern with conveying accurate information, sir. Your words would not be interpreted as such.

wanderingwaldo wrote:Scheer develops his argument around the number of steps in the supply chains of various energy technologies, highlighting many hidden costs. 'An examination of the entire supply chain for fossil fuel energy demonstrates that its claim to be more economical is a myth. In theory, renewable energy sources have an economic advantage because of their much shorter supply chains. This can be exploited if the atomic and fossil fuel energy suppliers are divested of their numerous state privileges.'
Then why has no one, especially him, made a killing with his apparently quite open scheme if it is so economically viable? Why do renewables require tax payer dollars to be funneled into them through government subsidies instead of being able to stand on their own? For that matter why is someone so concerned about carbon levels against the only non-carbon producing reliable energy source, ie nuclear power?

What is this British Petroleum oh I'm sorry "Beyond Petroleum" (for profit margins screw fixing our piping while we keep pumping) looking for a higher free profit margin?
Image
A man has to know his limitations.
User avatar
FOG3
* *
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Greater Pheonix Metropolitan Area

Postby Sapient » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:24 pm

FOG3 wrote:
wanderingwaldo wrote:Scheer develops his argument around the number of steps in the supply chains of various energy technologies, highlighting many hidden costs. 'An examination of the entire supply chain for fossil fuel energy demonstrates that its claim to be more economical is a myth. In theory, renewable energy sources have an economic advantage because of their much shorter supply chains. This can be exploited if the atomic and fossil fuel energy suppliers are divested of their numerous state privileges.'
Then why has no one, especially him, made a killing with his apparently quite open scheme if it is so economically viable?


Because of the numerous state privileges still held by fossil fuel and atomic energy suppliers. This point is explained in the very passage you just quoted. Didn't you bother to read it?

FOG3 wrote:Why do renewables require tax payer dollars to be funneled into them through government subsidies instead of being able to stand on their own?


Why do fossil fuel and atomic energy systems require tax payer dollars to be funneled into them through government subsides instead of being able to stand on their own?

If you can answer that question, you'll be a long way toward answering your own question.
User avatar
Sapient
* *
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:57 pm
Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon

Postby dogbane » Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:42 am

For what it's worth:

'No Sun link' to climate change

Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.

The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.

The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity.

But Lancaster University scientists found there has been no significant link between them in the last 20 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm
Image: Foil Cookery
High Ground: House of Adair
"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are." - T.R.
"The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it." - Flannery O'Connor
User avatar
dogbane
ZS Member
ZS Member
 
Posts: 12857
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Carolina Piedmont

Postby Zdigger » Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:13 am

I've read the Kyoto Agreement, if you look at its full scope. It says we cant do this and that but...... if your a third world country (anyone but the US and the EU) you can do this and that and pollute since they are "growing". Well then again, two lawyers look at the same document and give their "veiws"/"interpertations" of it (aka the 2nd Admendment).

so I hearby blame everything connected with Global Warming on ManBearPig.
User avatar
Zdigger
* * * * *
 
Posts: 2983
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:17 pm
Location: Fort Hood (The Great Place), Texas (again)

PreviousNext

Return to Disasters in Current Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Blacksmith and 1 guest