Educated Opinions on Climate change - a denouement or a hoax? 25

[josephv]

Greg, there is definitely an ethics issue regarding the emails that surfaced. No one is denying this.

However, there are several ethical problems when the skeptics continually choose to use the "it's right because we said so" argument again and again. And with no references except one blog.

 

[NomLaser]

Joseph...obviously you aren't paying attention to who is actually writing those blogs. These are climate scientists that WUWT gets to write these pieces. Until UEA and NASA and any other institute that holds temperature data can release raw (unaltered) data then how can anyone accept anything that they push out? Even the Japanese scientists haven't accepted GCC, and they are being referenced by all of the alarmists.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/

 

[GregLocock]

"No one is denying this."

Really? Even Moonbat agrees that the mainstream media/true believer response has been a disgrace.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

Cheers

Greg Locock

I rarely exceed 1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight

 

[apsix]

the "it's right because we said so" argument again and again.

That's the line used by the 'alarmists'. Most think that they don't even have to address any 'sceptics' concerns.

How often have we heard that "the science is settled, the debate is over"?

 

[cranky108]

For the debate to be over, whould we have had to know it had started?

They did not want a debate, that's why they are saying it is over.

In either case we "should" reduce our energy usage, for a number of reasons. Or look at other energy sources.
But if we are to be fausley couersed into an agenda, then we are victoms of a fraud. A crime in most places, and those who developed this should be held accountable.

So how do you proceed with those who proceeded to stiffle debate?

 

[NomLaser]

So how do you proceed with those who proceeded to stiffle debate?

You shout even louder and that's exactly what is happening now. The skeptics are finally getting a platform, mostly due to the revelations at UEA.

 

[GregLocock]

Yes, but it is worth trying to keep an even keel.

On the one hand, much of the AGW orthodoxy looks um, dodgy, for various reasons.

On the other hand, even though the games they indulged in reduce the credibility of the evidence, there still seems no open and shut case that they are wrong - that is although there is no compelling reason based on physics that they are right, there is at least the infamous/hilarious/vitally important (take your pick) hockey stick graph* to consider, which at the least needs a lot more data pumped into it. If they are on the right track, and it is possible to limit global warming by burning less fossil fuel, and that is a cost effective (however you wish to define cost effective) approach, then it is worth considering. Many of the first steps along the path of energy efficiency are worth taking anyway, it is shear lethargy that stops us from doing them.

In reality of course Copenhagen will be almost a complete failure, and since it will take three years for the Met Office to sort out the mess the CRU has made of the basic data, effectively the science and the politics is in a holding pattern for 3 years. I guess the good news is we'll have three years more data of CO2 vs temperature. The bad news is we'll have 3 more years of silly hysteria from the journalists and the politicians and the sheep. And of course, if things are urgent now (big if) then they'll be even urgenter in 3 years time. So, what is really needed, from either side (if you want to take sides) is for CRU to supply the Met Office with the raw data and its provenance ASAP, and let them produce a reliable dataset to base the hockeystick on.

*I should explain, the IPCC 2001 report included the hockeystick graph (several times) of global temperature that was based on a series of corrected temperature measurements, for the last 150 years, and surrogates such as tree ring data, for the last 1200 years or so. This showed a very rapid change in temperature for the last 150 years, culminating in a peak higher than that seen for 1000 years. This data was fed into a faulty statistical algorithm that tended to create hockey stick shaped graphs even if the raw data had no trend. However, it turns out that although this was bad mathematics, the net effect of this bad analysis was actually quite small, and the hockey stick shape still exists if you do the stats properly, with the same datasets. However there is an ongoing saga with the validity of the datasets that were used. Which is why it is so important that the data that goes in needs sorting out.

Cheers

Greg Locock

I rarely exceed 1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight

 

[rb1957]

"effectively the science and the politics is in a holding pattern for 3 years."

i think you're being optimistic greg. the believers believe and this thing's going to "keep on keeping on". personally i await more hot air.

 

[GregLocock]

Yup.

Since I'm writing essays tonight-

There is a "so damn reasonable" argument that says, OK, maybe the science isn't 100%. But suppose it is only 10% probable that they are right? Shouldn't we do what we are told because even a 10% chance of the end of the world is worth avoiding?

This, of course, is the old Simpson's argument - won't anybody think of the children?

The answer lies in the dismal science (economics, and it isn't a science) - no, it is not worth taking extraordinary measures to avoid unlikely outcomes. IF the global temperature rises, and IF that is a bad thing, then we will have to take extraordinary action to recover. High altitude sulphur crystal sprays. Nukes, everywhere. Solar powered domestic hot water systems in Australia (high tech eh?).

I'm quite serious about the ideal temperature thing. Who decides what the best temperature should be? As cold as the Little Ice Age? No thanks. As hot as AD 0 or thereabouts? maybe.




Cheers

Greg Locock

I rarely exceed 1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight

 

[owg]

I see the mayors of the world's big cities are heading to Copenhagen this week. Too bad they are not doing it be video conference. That would have been a useful statement. At least they will publicize that 70% of the CO2 comes from the cities. That should take a bit of heat off the oil sands. I predict that industry will be moving to small cities.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[moltenmetal]

Greg,

You’ve over-simplified the precautionary principle argument to the point of absurdity. I could do the same to the skeptics’ arguments, which seem to be basically underpinned by fear of change.

The precautionary principle is used in virtually every aspect of engineering design we do where public health and safety are at stake, and I see this issue as absolutely no different.

Simply stated, the precautionary argument is as follows:

1) Fossil fuel supplies are finite, and exploration, recovery, refining and combustion of these fuels all produce known harmful effects on people and on ecosystems. The mere procurement of these fuels results in vast flows of wealth from productive parts of the world to unproductive ones.
2) Combustion of fossil fuels has caused a near-doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times. That’s not conjecture based on models- most of the increase has been determined based on direct measurements of the atmosphere.
3) Increased atmospheric CO2 will take a long time to reverse, if reversal is even possible.
4) Increased atmospheric CO2 is having and will have effects which we cannot completely predict. Some, like the acidification of surface ocean water, are easy to demonstrate and very negative to aquatic life.
5) There is a PROBABILITY that increased CO2 will lead to increased infrared capture from the sun, leading to alterations in the climate.
6) Fossil fuels are useful for other things essential to modern existence, and these uses are far more difficult to substitute for than their use as energy sources.

Because of ALL of these factors, it makes sense for governments to undertake regulation and taxation to help wean our societies off their fossil fuels addiction- something the mere finite nature of the fossil fuels themselves will ultimately do to us regardless.

If we discover later and conclusively that we were wrong about point 5) and we don’t care about points 2,3 and 4, we can always start burning fossil fuels again with gusto- while they last, that is.

 

[KENAT]

I'm sorry, all this 'whats up with that' talk is reminding of the SNL sketch 'wat up wid dat' or whatever it's called. I keep singing the song in my head and may start dancing if I don't skip this thread soon.

Back to your scheduled programming...

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[BobM3]

Has there even been a face to face debate between the believers and the non-believers? Why can't we have a televised, moderated debate amongst the scientists (no politicians)?

 

[btrueblood]

"Why can't we have a televised, moderated debate amongst the scientists"

Which would you watch, the debate (two scientists haggling for hours about the proper correction to be applied to the East Bumfarg Station temperature data), or Jessica Simpson's latest wardrobe malfunction...

 

[GregLocock]

Moltenmetal,

1) Agree 100%
2) Um, 280 ppm (pre industrial) to 370 ppm (year 2000) is nowhere near a doubling
3) Unproven, but possible. The recent work on the rate of absorption of CO2 back out of the atmosphere by natural processes indicates that they are still work extracting about the same proportion as before, as you would expect from chemistry. So you'd expect an exponential dcay back to the steady state level.
4) Don't know enough about this one, sounds right, but there are positive effects as well, such as increased plant growth
5) But the absence of changes in the atmospheric temperature profile do not appear to provide a phsyically believable mechanism for this.
6) Agree 100%

The problem is that an ETS is a lousy way of reducing fossil fuel usage. So if you introduce an ETS to solve AGW, in fact you'll end up using more fossil fuel than if you targeted them directly.

Cheers

Greg Locock

I rarely exceed 1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight

 

[owg]

Moltenmetal states:
"Fossil fuel supplies are finite, and exploration, recovery, refining and combustion of these fuels all produce known harmful effects on people and on ecosystems."

And of course large scale use of fossil fuels have produced beneficial effects on people for a couple of hundred years. According to Isaac Asimov - Many of the benefits of our high standard of living including, light, heat, food, travel, and community, are based on our ability to produce and use fossil fuels.

Surely a probablistic cost/benefit approach is needed, rather than just listing all the costs.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[moltenmetal]

owg: I’m not ignoring the benefits of fossil fuels, which are obvious. I’m merely pointing out AGAIN that fossil fuels are artificially cheap because the people who consume them do not pay anything approximating the FULL cost of their consumption. People who are not afforded the benefit of using these fossil fuels to enhance their own quality of life are having to bear some of the consequences of their exploitation by people who squander them needlessly. These “negative externalities” and the cheapness of the resource which results leads inevitably to over-exploitation and waste. Excess and waste shortens the time over which we’ll be able to exploit these fuels for true human benefit.

Any honest cost/benefit analysis will never justify waste. And face it- North American energy use is a story of unbridled excess and waste.

On top of all of this, there are the various threats posed by the massive historical increase and unbelievably rapid and unchecked growth rate of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Greg’s right- we haven’t doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations yet, but we’re well on our way. We’re currently adding nearly 2 ppm per year.

As a chemical engineer you also should be fully aware that there are far higher uses for these fossil resources, which are also essential to our modern lifestyle. As unimaginable as it seems to be to some engineers here, it is far easier and cheaper to substitute other sources of energy for the energetic uses of fossil fuels than it is to replace them as chemical feedstocks.

AGW or no, we’d better get on with this transition NOW rather than waiting. The more we delay, the rougher it’ll be on all of us.

 

[NomLaser]

Molten

While I agree that we should do something sooner than later, the approach that is being taken is not the most economical path to take to get us there. Yes we need to do it quick but not at the expense of high energy taxes and exporting currency to developing nations that already compete for our industrial work.

Do those in Europe realize how big (land mass wise) the US really is? North America is nearly 2.4x's larger than Europe. Our average density is 21 people per km^2 vs 69.7 in Europe. So Europe has >3x's as many people living in 40% of the area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent

It's no wonder why we, in the US, use so much fuel. Our cities are spread out further and there is little to no mass transportation between small and large cities. Most of the people that I know, have to travel 40-60 miles each way to work, everyday. And that's not by choice because most small cities usually only have 1-2 fairly large manufacturers that house industrial/manufacturing work.

This is going to sound egotistical but what I'm getting at is that I hate it when people start pointing fingers at the US and say 'see you're the biggest consumer so you have to pay us money for living a decent life.' Why should I have to give up my lifestyle because some bloke in the China or India wants it too? The world isn't a socialist government, at least not yet. We have paid our dues in education and hard work to get where we are. Why should we have to be the ones that spread our wealth? If China adobted some labor laws and enforced safety among their workforce then they would be far better off. I don't agree that US companies should be exploiting third-world workforce but their governments are allowing it to happen. So don't blame the US for the issues in third-world countries.

 

[KENAT]

"Do those in Europe realize how big (land mass wise) the US really is? "

Well, on average, I wouldn't be surprised if they have a much better idea about it than most folks in the US have about similar info for Europe, or even other than their own state. My guess is most of them even know which coasts the Pacific & Atlantic are on too;-).

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[NomLaser]

Kenat, you're probably right. We do tend to be self-centered and think somewhat isolated. Some of that is laziness on our part for not paying attention to anything beyond our shores. The other part is that we aren't centrally located to the rest of the world, therefore aren't exposed as much to what goes on. I would put the blame for our world knowledge upon ourselves.

I was really trying to get to the point that we are more spread out than what much of Europe is and that commuting is a necessity. We don't have a vast mass transportation. I'm lucky enough to live in an area where I can find work in neighboring cities within a 50 mile (80km) radius so that is commutable.