another kick at the climate change cat ... 34

[rb1957]

i think the problems with burning fossil fuels are that we're returning carbon to the atmosphere at an unnatural rate, and that there was a very long interval between when the carbon was deposited from the atmosphere and when it's getting returned to it.

the second problem is meant to say that bio-fuels, which take from and return to the atmosphere over a short timescale, probably won't have the same effect on the global climate as compared to fossil fuels. Though, of course, once we start doing this on a global scale and derive meaningfull amounts of energy this way then there'll be unforeseen side effects.

i think it's reasonable to say that the global climate is changing; and that this would be happening even without mankind's contributions.

i think it's reasonable to say that atmospheric CO2 levels change with climate. i think the record shows that previously (say before the 20th century) that CO2 increased sometime after the global temperature increased.

i think it's reasonable to say that the amount of carbon we putting into the atmosphere has the potential to affect global climate. this is i think too wishy-washy "for the masses" so we're being told carbon is changing the climate ... maybe a simple message but one that has divided those wanting more explanation.

once you say that then i think it's reasonable to ask is this a bad thing, ie do we want to change ? We have to acknowledge that energy is the means to developing our economies. adding hydro, geo-thermal, wind and solar power aren't bad things ... there's a cost and a benefit associated. clearly there are some places that can really benefit for these (because of sustained sunlight or wind or water resources or etc). becoming more efficient in our energy consumption is clearly a good thing, though i suspect that won't gain us significant relief. i worry that developing economies are progressing along the same energy path that the developed countries have used, and that maybe there are "better" choices today.

we can't (won't) stop burning fossil fuels, we need the cheap energy. we can be a little smarter and make power stations more efficient but essentially we're dependent on fossil fuels. we're reluctant to persue the nuclear option, though i wish more research money was being directed at fusion power which i see as the only truly long term option.

it is IMHO nonsense to talk about reducing CO2 production to 1990 (or 2000 or whatever) levels principally because developing economies (China in particular, and probably India as well) are going to be burning more and more fossil fuels. carbon sequestration is also IMHO a nonsense technology unless you're talking about growing trees (and biomass). it is also IMHO nonsense to talk about sustainability ... truly sustainable energy would mean using energy resources at the same rate as they're being created (ie no fossil fuels or nukes) or available (solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal). but then maybe that's one answer to the question, and we'll make truly huge investments in these "green" energies so that we'll increase the fraction of energy we derive from these sources, maybe enough to significantly reduce the carbon output.

if we're going to pay taxes on carbon (through whichever scheme you choose) ... where's the money going ? what's it doing to fix the "problem" ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[zdas04]

cranky108,
My induction hob certainly generates a lot of heat quickly. Magnetism works.

rb1957,
I look at graphs like your attachment and wonder, what the heck does a 540 million year old thermometer look like? I'm thinking that that data is the output of a computer model with the sketchy input of the fossil record. We really don't know what the temperature was anywhere prior to some fairly recent date. We have models. We have ice cores that don't go much beyond the last ice age. We have carbon dating that needs some carbon to remain (technique limited to about 45,000 years or so) to give us a range of greater than +/- a decade.

So much of this field of discussion is building one unproven hypotheses on the top of a hundred other unproven hypotheses. If it weren't for the politics, I'm pretty sure that I would be looking at this house of cards as an amazingly elegant piece of work that may lead to useful conclusions in a millennium or two. To use it for the State of the Union address tonight is simply irresponsible. To use it to effectively ban the use of coal is criminal.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[rb1957]

the temperature data comes from ice cores and ocean sendiments, i believe ... i haven't dug any deeper (yet).

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[GregLocock]

Talking of dodgy thermometers, I saw a brief comment by a tree person who was pointing out that the major component of tree ring width is not temperature but liquid water availability.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[zdas04]

rb1957,
Good luck running that down.

Five times in the last 67 million years the place I currently live (elevation 5,300 ft) has been a sea shore. Finding a place that has been ocean for 540 million years would be a challenge.

The very deepest ice cores only go back 800,000 years (and there are more than a few millennial gaps when you compare one location to another).

It is computer models and wild guesses about the fossil record.

Greg,
I've seen that too, a cold drought year looks much "warmer" than a warm moist year. The "historical record" (think Galaxy Quest) is mostly some amazingly inventive creative writing. Again, if it hadn't gotten political, I would be fascinated by the creativity that has gone into creating the historical temperatures.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[rb1957]

i think this has gotten past the "med wrestling with a pig". I doubt the argument is amenable to rational discussion. This is no longer a scientific issue, but a political one.

In our democracy the majority determine what happens, and the minority complain about it. i think the best we can hope for is that the government uses our tax money wisely (yeah, right!), that not too much is diverted into deadends (and other people's wallets); and that in the fullness of time the truth (whichever outcome ... catastrophic climate change, realised or "avoided", or pointless exercise in futility) will be revealled.

or possibly the masses will revolt over the results of this new taxation, paying too much for not enough, and policy will change.



Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[KENAT]

"In our democracy the majority determine what happens, and the minority complain about it"

Wow forever the optimist huh rb1957.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[rb1957]

yeah, I know ... it's a crappy job (being the optimist here) but someone's gotta do it !

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

I'll be the pessimest then. Your all wrong. The climate is changing, but not because of man, and no amount of taxes will fix it.

Now having said that, I feel much better.

If you trust the goverment, then give them your wallet. If you don't trust the goverment, then hide your wallet.

 

[zdas04]

The President proclaimed that "The science is settled" on AGW in the state of the union last night. Last time he said that phrase we got Subpart W to the Clean Air Act that cost the O&G industry upwards of $100 billion in 2013 trying to conform to the "mandatory greenhouse gas reporting requirements". Wonder what this year's pronouncement is going to cost? Probably $0.10/kW-hr on our electric bills. A poor person with air conditioning (isn't that a contradiction in terms?) will need welfare and/or minimum wage increases to keep up. I don't think I can afford very many state of the union pronouncements like that.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[rb1957]

personally i agree with you cranky, but that ain't getting us nowhere. (ok, someone point out the double negative and we can all move on)

the discussion/debate/whatever is moving away from the scientific frame of reference (i mean, the science is settled ... right?) to the political. Arguing/discussing scientifically is a waste of time, IMHO, 'cause every single piece of data is disputed and contray examples can be found (and accusations of "cherry-picking" abound) and this should be expected.

The majority opinion is clearly behind "man-produced CO2 is causing the climate change we're witnessing" ... if only because the politicans are on board and most clearly even politicans who weren't now are (IMHO they dare not to be seen not to be on board). and so policy (and taxes) will follow; QED.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[ornerynorsk]

"The President proclaimed that "The science is settled" on AGW in the state of the union last night."

Which leads to one of my favorite quotes, which I may have already used somewhere in this post, because memory does not serve correctly much of the time:
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled." The author of the quote escapes me at the moment.

Off topic, but I also find it unamusing that we (US) are shipping arms to "moderate" rebels in Syria that are not permitted to be owned by US citizens, with the backdrop of further restricting the 2nd amendment however possible. Apparently it is OK for the citizens of some other country that we arbitrarily deem to be the bad guys to attempt to overthrow their standing government. This double-standard, conniving, and meddling is growing very old. AGW will be nothing more than an additional piece to the macabre jigsaw puzzle being built by those in power.

Sorry for the tangent, everyone.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[hokie66]

ornery,
I think that may have been Michael Crichton. He said something like that.

 

[rconnor]

This is no longer a scientific issue, but a political one.

I both (reluctantly) agree and disagree.

Within scientific circles, I disagree. There is a lot of good science being done every day on this topic. The vast majority of which supports the theory, I might add. Although the scientific community, backed with results from their research, are informing politicians, they keep an arm’s length away from the policy. Here the sequence is: 1) The scientific community develops an understanding of the science based on data and research and then 2) Policy is formed based on the science. However, some non-experts go 1) I don’t like the policy and then 2) I should find flaws in the science. Again, it is ok to comb through the science but you need to address your bias when drawing conclusions. Otherwise, you end up with foolish false conclusions such as the “pause” invalidates the theory or the IPCC is engaging in “terror-mongering” (I laughed when I say that term). There are a few that can comb through the science, keeping their bias in check.

There are a few great examples of this at this forum. The attempt to develop scientifically defensible holes in the theory. This is important in science and can really help shape our understanding. Thus far, none stand up to scrutiny by experts in the field or from observable data.

Within the public realm, I reluctantly agree with you. People that don’t understand the science default to one side or the other based on ideological grounds. Furthermore, some would have people believe that even within scientific circles the issue has become political. This is untrue and is a common tactic used in the skeptic camp to spread doubt over the data/theory.

There are a few great examples of this at this forum. Post after post, they spews unsupported claims of corruption and rarely (if ever) actually engage in the science. Look back, their only “scientific” points are to make broad claims that the science is inaccurate, without developing a convincing and/or logical argument as to why. The goal is to shift the conversation away from the science (where they have little support) and into some nebulous politico-ideological realm where conjecture can reign supreme.

Speaking of which…

Your all wrong. The climate is changing, but not because of man, and no amount of taxes will fix it.

It’s settled folks! Ignore all the data and research!

Or zdas04’s post - imaginary future situation used to scare you into agreeing with him (…the similarities between this and his views on climate models just perfectly demonstrates his double standard)

Regarding taxes destroying the economy and ravaging the poor - look at the statistical evidence from BC’s carbon tax at the beginning of this thread.

rb1957 next post – yes every single piece of data is disputed…but that doesn’t mean any of those assertions carry any merit (I’ve shown they don’t). As I’ve said before, Young Earthers dispute every piece of data…do you give any credence to their assertions? (I hope not)

orenerynorsk, re: your quote – look at my posts, am I avoiding debating the science? Has anyone else, besides TGS4, attempted to debate the science with me? Saying “you’re wrong” isn’t debating the science. I mean just look at the number of times anyone, besides myself or TGS4, uses referenced quantitative values. That’s not debating the science – it’s talking out your you-know-what. (…I’ll bit my tongue as hard as I can on the off topic conspiracy theorists statements)

As I said rb1957, the only reasons why this debate devolves into a talk on politics and ideology is because one side of the debate refuses to engage in a scientific argument. But because they are the vocal majority here, they can drown out opposition.

It’s becoming more and more apparent people here don’t want to have a discussion on the science – they want a place they can make unsupported, broad sweeping claims and not be challenged on them. Many have attempted to discuss the science before me but become quiet over time (moltenmetal being one that comes to mind) – I now realize they do so because it’s not only exhausting to fight against self-supporting ignorance but also pointless.

rb1957, your genuine effort to understand the science is noble. Unfortunately, I don’t believe this is the forum to do so.

 

[zdas04]

If you think that about my views, then you don't understand my position at all and it really isn't worth either of our time to try. Why don't we just ignore each other on this topic.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[ornerynorsk]

Hokie66, you are correct. Thank-you.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[rb1957]

"but that doesn’t mean any of those assertions carry any merit" ... well, that's your opinion presumably because you consider that the science is settled.

Al Gore mentioned that global temp and CO2 went in lock-step based on ice cores.

Then some others (Tim Ball) say yes but the CO2 lagged the temperature by some 800 years.

Then there's some video (i haven't seen a paper) that "refutes" this; mind you 800 years is a pretty small number compared to the 100,000s years of the temperature scale.

Then there are questions about the temperature reconstructions from x00,000 years, something to look into ... ice cores go back only so far.

Some papers calculated the effect of solar influences (no, not just black spots) to be significant, some say it's insignificant.

and what of predictions in the 70s of a coming ice age ?

and still there are questions about causality ... ok, you can map out a process but how long does it take ? i find it hard to accept that yesterday's CO2 is causing gloabl temperature change today. yep, my uninformed opinion, worth nothing to nobody except me, and not being forced on anyone.

but for me the real kicker is the predictions that if CO2 output continues to increase then death and destruction will follow. well i guess we're going to get death and destruction 'cause CO2 output is continuing to increase, and some countries are allowed to increase their CO2 output and some are allowed to sell their unused CO2 to other CO2 producers ... what a farce ! if burning FF will cause death and destruction then we should cease and desist. any country that continues should be labelled criminal and an international embargo enforced (and possibly sterner measures to follow). developed countries are making minor steps to use more renewable energy sources (some, like iceland, are lucky to get most of the energy from these sources but these are the minority); most energy comes from nukes and FFs. But now Germany, one of the most green governments, is building coal fired power stations and the UK is planning to reduce wind turbine subsidies.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

Maybe I misunderstood your point, but it sounds like you are saying that only more taxes will fix global warming. Is that correct?
Way are more taxes the only answer? Why isen't some specific action a better solution?

And maybe part of the answer is that poor people should be without AC in the simmer. But I haven't heard anyone from Washington say that. And why not?

As far as I can see the science isen't settled. You don't have models that work, and scientests who disagree are not funded.

After all you haven't provided any data disproving what I sugessed above, just the same old hocky stick. You also haven't shown that any of the alternitives I have suggested will not work.

Just another drone to the goverment dance.

 

[zdas04]

A 2005 UN report said

A UN report by Norman Myers: “Environmental Refugees, an Emergent Security Issue,” presented at the 13th Economic Forum, in Prague, May 23-27, 2005, predicted: “The environmental refugees total could well double between 1995 and 2010,” and, “When global warming takes hold, there could be as many as 200 million people overtaken by disruptions of monsoon systems and other rainfall regimes, by droughts of unprecedented severity and duration, and by sea-level rise and coastal flooding.” His report was accompanied by a map, indicating areas to be impacted by sea-level rise.

The fastest growing areas on earth are exactly those areas on the map that showed flooding and evacuations. His report mentioned 50 million "environmental refugees" by 2010. Malibu will be underwater. The Florida Keys will be gone. Amsterdam will be evacuated. Venice will be a few upper stories of buildings way offshore. London will be untenable.

This hogwash got wide play in 2005, primarily because of the urgency and short fuse--5 years from utopia to global catastrophe. That period ended 4 years ago without a single one of the predictions coming close to true. Our politicians are making policy on this nonsense.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[berkshire]

I just thought I would throw another log on the global warming fire
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

 

[zdas04]

This is "just weather", I saw that on a warmist site. I hope the rhetoric following every tornado and every warm day in 2014 is toned down a lot from 2103 because every time a warmist says "this tornado is caused by global warming and it is the worst tornado ever to hit Oklahoma" (which many of them said after every single tornado or warm day in 2013) that they will remember that this horribly cold winter was "just weather" in all of their writings.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat