'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2 40

[Unotec]

RB1957 would you run for office? I'll vote you. I agree, the sun is the main driver and so are the oceans, to a lesser extent. We only have very localized effects on the weather (which in the great scheme of earth's time are nothing but blips)

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[SomptingGuy]

Does anyone read the book by Booker and North (Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming)?

- Steve

 

[Unotec]

I'm currently on it

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[ewh]

whoa, what's going on here? Starting to seem a little reasonable...

Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[btrueblood]

You're right ewh.

I think bio-fuels are the answer.

 

[electricpete]

Ataloss - thanks for the very reasonable reply. No jumping to conclusions. A presentation of what information is linked at various places with discussion (not accusations) about the source of the information. It is an intelligent and reasonable approach for all information presented on this controversial subject imo.

As Ataloss says, no one has refuted Jaworowski's science - it's the typical ad hominem attacks people revert to when they have nothing substantial to go on.

Just goes to show that it's more a religion than a science for some.

Well, that's an interesting comment..

I'm not sure what are the ad hominem (personal) attacks LCruiser is referring to. In the event that he is referring to my own post 8 Jul 08 23:13, I will respond.

I think the claim from Dr. J that CO2 has not increased in recent times is far out of the mainstream (any disagreement?). Therefore I think it deserves careful scrutiny. I noted the very long time which has elapsed since his last peer reviewed paper on this subject and found that unusual considering more recent articles by him on the same subject in less reputable publications (by the way, I found out that 21st Century Technology is also a publication of Lyndon Larouche). I asked if there were any more current peer reviewed literature on this subject...to which I have seen no reply (hmmm).

The only thing resembling a reply comes from LCruiser who seems to think Dr. J is somehow above or beyond scrutiny. I'm not sure why he would react this way unless he thought Dr J's claims are so sound that anyone questioning them must be engaging in personal attacks.

There are in fact many people who do question Dr J's claims. Look here for some very detailed discussion or links regarding Dr. J ( although I will freely announce that I cannot vouch for the credibility of this particular site / blog) :

http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7

Let's go more directly to the CO2 increase question. Take a look here:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is an independent statistical agency, within the U.S. Department of Energy. whose purpose is to provide reliable and unbiased energy information....

Figure 1.Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Carbon Dioxide Concentrations (1751-2004) [shows CO2 concentration increasing from ~300 to 375ppm in the last 250 years]

I guess the US Department of Energy is part of the conspiracy to manipulate the facts too? They must be tied in with NASA, NOAA, and EPA etc. But wait a second! I was just thinking - if the CIA can team up with the Mafia and Fidel Castro to cover up the second gunman in that grassy knoll....... Hmmm. (A little humor – very little).

I would like to suggest that those who continually and predictably thump their chests about "religion" and personal attacks take a deep breath, count to 10, turn around, and look directly into the mirror.

It is IMO irrational, if not evangelical, to expect anyone to accept Dr J's claims as gospel truth without asking questions.

I can remember some accusations earlier in this thread about James Hansen (director of the NASA Goddard Space Center) of deliberately manipulating data. I followed the links and I never detected anything resembling proof. All I saw was links to sites containing description of relatively minor errors, with no indication of deliberate manipulation. If I have missed the proof (or anything close to it) to support the accusations that the data was deliberately manipulated, please let me know.


=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[cranky108]

And you trust the goverment? I'm not sure what I'm saying I work for a goverment.

It's not that I don't believe in warming or cooling, I just don't believe it's being caused by CO2, or CH4, or NOX. Just look up in the sky at mid day and see the big ball of fire.

 

[electricpete]

You work for the government ? no wonder you're cranky ;-) (I can say that because I used to work for Uncle Sam also).

Yes there is a sun. Yes, it can affect the climate. Many things can affect the climate.

If we did happen to agree that the earth were warming, that in itself wouldn't prove anything about AGW.

Our models attempt to include all those factors, and predict that the change in CO2 would likely be the biggest driver of climate change. In fact one of the biggest criticisms against the role of CO2 is that the temperature many people claim we have seen (the 0.6C) is not as large as would be predicted by our models. If you read between the lines, the inherent assumption of that criticism is that change in CO2 plays the biggest role in temperature change, according to these models. (and according to the models, it does).

And, as a quick reminder, the theory of CO2 as a greenhouse gas did not originate from correlation of CO2 and temperature, it originated from studying the absorption characteristics of CO2 at various wavelengths.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[LCruiser]

Just to set Electricpete straight - I know nothing about Jaworowski, and didn't claim I did. Whether or nto his arguments are in the mainstream or not, I noticed there was no argument against his position - only against him. Same with Larouche.

Here's the latest on Hansen:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1885

I will, once again, point out that the supporters of ice core temperature proxy reconstructions ignore the averaging effect of what amounts, in some cases, to thousands of years, and that this CO2 concentration blip will not even be seen in the long term ice core record of the future.

 

[electricpete]

OK, so now you don't give a hoot about Dr J. Fair enough. In that case, I'm not sure what there was in my post 8 Jul 08 23:13 to elicit your response 11 Jul 08 0:33. As far as I can tell, you thought it was inappropriate for me to discuss whether an article is presented in peer-reviewed venue or not?

I did think it was relevant to ask why this apparently significant finding had not been revisited in peer reviewed journals since 1994. (by the way, the Larouche publications are NOT peer review journals – I will take up that argument any time any place).

I do have one data point which might shed some light on the question why the subject was not revisited. At least one peer response to Dr. J published in the same peer-reviewed journal (EPSR) was distinctily unfavorable:

http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=12

I don't say that one response proves anything (people are bound to disagree on anything related to this subject). But it does suggest a possible motive for Dr. J's hasty and permanent retreat from the peer-reviewed venues. (what other possible motive?... can't think of any myself).

Now, you're link about Hansen. It is purely a discussion about the significance of the "Hansen error". There is nothing about the motivation for the error or anything suggesting intent to decieve. Certainly there is nothing to support the accusations that he cooked the books as suggested by others in this thread. (For example "just that the Hansens of this world are having a hard time proving it with doctored temperature data" - 30 Jun 08 6:27 ).

And while we are talking about significance, let's see what Steve McIntyre himself has to say about significance, from your link:

So while the Hansen error did not have a material impact on world temperatures, it did have a very substantial impact on U.S. station data and a “significant” impact on the U.S. average. Both of these surely “matter” and both deserved formal notice from Hansen and GISS

Notice the bold part. This is not from NASA, this is from Steve McIntyre! The guy who found the error and who is an unabashed critic of Hansen. He says it has no material impact on world temperatures. I had assumed with all the chatter that there must have been something significant at the bottom of all this. Guess not.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[electricpete]

Well, I find myself sinking to the tone that I find most offensive on the other side. I would suggest that if you don't want to hear the word "conspiracy" as a summary of the denier viewpoint, then don't use the word "religion" and similar characterizations for those concerned that what the scientists are saying might me true.

There is scientific method on both sides. There is propaganda on both sides. I think (hope) we are skeptical on both sides.

I had a chance to see "Inconvenient Truth" for the first time a few months ago. There was certainly some intent to mislead. I paid very close attention to the plot of CO2 and temperature. The plots were presented against a background which contained no vertical gridmarks. Only if you looked very closely could you see that temperature leads CO2 (a fact we all now know). The writers of this presentation obviously knew this relationship and chose to conceal it. And Al Gore's words sounded as if it was a very straightforward cause/effect relationship: the CO2 goes up, the temperature goes up... the CO2 goes down, the temeprature goes down. Propaganda at it's finest.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[electricpete]

and similar characterizations for those concerned that what the scientists are saying might be true.

Lol. I guess I should have used the word "alarmist". I was looking for another one/two words to describe that position but couldn't find one. Pro-AGW doesn't quite sit (just like no-one is pro-abortion). Guess I should apologize to Kenat since I can't come up with any other easily accessible word to describe that position.


=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[jmw]

Here is an interesting aticle on the EU's retreat on bio-fuels:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/07/12/eabio112.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[LCruiser]

Good article jmw. Here's another:

http://climatesci.org/2008/07/14/my-position-on-climate-change-by-hendrik-tennekes/

The summary at the bottom is comprehensive:

“Fortunately, the time rate of climate change is slow compared to the rapid evolution of our institutions and societies. There is sufficient time for adaptation. We should monitor the situation both globally and locally, but up to now global climate change does not cause severe problems requiring immediate emission reductions. Successive IPCC reports have presented no scientific basis for dire warnings concerning climate collapse. Local and regional problems with shorter time scales deserve priority. They can be managed professionally, just as the Dutch seem to do.”

 

[Unotec]

Thanks LCruiser. I agree with most of this article, specially where it mentions that climates can be effected locally more than globally. I have always sided in protecting the soil and preventing deforestation, not concerning so much about emissions in a global scale. I saw what emissions can do in a localized environment (Mexico City) and have seen micro-climates effected negatively and positively by human activity. But what I always noted is that the impact started, literally, at ground level and it got exacerbated by emissions.
My view is to have en environmental approach starting with the land, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, land you can buy and make money out of, air you cannot. Therefore, land is more suceptible to unsustainable development given the fact that parties in power can profit out of it (economically and politically).

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[moltenmetal]

unotec:

"..land you can buy and make money out of, air you cannot."

Ah, there's the rub!

Right now, there's no price on air, or on dumping sh*t into the air- yet we all need it to live. THERE'S your problem. Whether or not you consider CO2 of fossil origin to be sh*t or Shineola is a matter of some debate here, but the economics of energy are FUBAR until such time as we deal with this fundamental problem.

 

[cranky108]

Land in the US is protected because someone owns or controls it. In parts of the world there is vast amounts of land that is not owned or controlled where the land is used and abused, with no worries. That's why there is deforrestation.
In simple terms the people don't know how to care for the land, and don't want to learn because there is more they aquire.
The cycle needs to be broken by education and understanding of the outcome of the existing practicaces.
Again like Mexico no one is concerned about the particulates in the air. And the cost and corruption prevents goverment action. It's the same way in most of the third world. That's the concern over China and India.
A goverment solution can't be achieved because of the corruption. So an education solution needs to be put in place to acheve a better practiace solution.

More polution controls here won't work as well as a solution in the third world.

 

[Unotec]

Not only corruption causes this, but also monetary and political gain (legal) by control of the land, lease, sale or "development strategies" by the government. If the government happens to veto what is seen as development they will be unpopular. If they do not support the money influx, they are unpopular and so forth. Pretending to be environmentalists by adhering to the media inflated GHGE advocacy and leasing land for industry or subsidizing bio-fuels wins them votes.

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[electricpete]

http://climatesci.org/2007/01/

Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

http://climatesci.org/2008/07/07/guest-weblog-by-gerbrand-komen/

Please, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Gerbrand Komen. I retired as Director of Climate Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Will the real retired director of Research of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute please stand up?
(Where's Soupy Sales when you need him ;-) )

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[jmw]

They both "were", niether "are".

Directorships come and go.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com