A Different Slant on Global Warming...
 

An Op-Ed piece in Wired.com: Stop Trying to Save the Planet, a view, in general, to which I subscribe. I'm much more impressed by evidence from the past than by wild projections for the future.

If the discussion (if any) gets vituperative (uttering or given to censure; containing or characterized by verbal abuse), I hope ArcticStones will can it.

While in general I agree with him too, I don't like the title. To me, saving the planet means keeping the environment from changing in a way that we can't survive, or that reduces our quality of life. That of course requires us to act as if the things that we have been doing threaten to destroy the planet, because they will destroy it as far as we're concerned.

This quote from the article bothers me too, because the answer is obvious:
If it makes you depressed, you're more likely to get off your butt and do something about it. Turn off a light, insulate your house, make fuel efficiency a priority when buying a car, etc. These are all things that when added up (and multiplied by 6 billion), might make the difference between long term survival and extinction, as well as the difference between high standards of living and poverty in the near term.

But it ended correctly, CWT:

True. It's the lack of urgency that bothers me. The truth is, we don't know that it isn't already too late for us. We can't afford to wait until the last minute, but that's what we tend to do. That's why I have no problem with hyping the emergency: it may well be worse than we imagine.

Depends on the level of depression. True depression can be pretty incapacitating.

Climate change, empowerment, and our efforts to save the planet
 

.
I fully agree. Depressed/depression is a word that we throw around far too much.

There have been many significant environmental victories in that last two decades. I wish some of them got more attention, if for no other reason than empowerment, to instill a clear sense of "Yes, we can!"

Re: Historical evidence and wild projections
A couple of months ago I had the opportunity to interview Helge Drange, Professor in Oceanography and Climate Modeling, and a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He showed me an animation, where temperature fluctuations recorded since the dawn of modern meteorology were displayed as shifting colours, as the years ticked by. Interestingly, it was first when we reached 1985 or so that a pattern became discernible -- and from 1990 to the present the clarity of change was alarming.

After that, I am totally convinced of the reality of Climate Change. (No, the animation I viewed did not contain any predictions.) If anything, current climate data and trends indicate that the IPCC has probably been too conservative in their past predictions.

I do, however, look forward to reading the Wired article with an open mind, at first opportunity. For now, however, I truly believe that drastic action is necessary if catastrophe is to be avoided. I have some clear ideas about what actions.

-- ArcticStones


PS. I second NovaScotian’s request: Let us abstain from vituperative utterings. And broken records: please stay away from the thread. ;)

.

"Helge Drange, Professor in Oceanography and Climate Modeling" Is there a link were this animation can be found?

Yes please. As Stones points out this is an important issue, but one that has been tainted by apocalyptic predictions that lead to a sky is falling response in the rest of us. Simultaneously, of course, the not to worry crowd has had their say. The truth, obviously, is somewhere in between -- there is a definite climate change trend in the works and most sensible folks think we should be paying attention. Having said that, "paying attention" doesn't mean freezing in the dark; the world needs and uses energy. What I was hoping for here is an answer to "What is a moderate response?". Let's not trash the economies of the world, but what sensible steps can be taken to prepare for whatever consequences arise if this trend continues? Are we spending enough research dollars to actually understand what's going on? Do we have in place the big picture folks who can see past the knee jerk responses? (Ethanol from corn, for example, is thought to produce more greenhouse gas in its total -- from seed to fuel -- production cycle than it saves in automotive fuels).

I think the first step is to ask business to be truly efficient. The problem is that business tends to interpret that as meaning that they find more and better ways to pass their expenses on to government. Truly efficient business would mean that they never create a super fund site because those raw materials would be used and reused, not dumped.
No, but that's a natural result of inefficient Big Business.
I don't know what knee jerk responses exist other than those of the deniers.

When it comes to public safety, the prudent thing to do is assume the worst until proven otherwise. We don't let drug manufacturers sell a new medicine until it's been proven reasonably safe, so why do we let other businesses operate as if their actions are safe when we have ample evidence that they're not?

I disagree with that. The prudent thing to do is to assess the risk in a reasonable way and balance it against the expected benefit. It is simply not possible to eliminate risk entirely and it's all to common to think it's possible to do so. Cars, for example, kill people.

But here you use the word "reasonable" -- not your opening position -- and there's another very important criterion: efficacy. Whatever risk there is must be mitigated by the expected benefit.

A sensible response must be a radical response
 

Well, actually I think very radical responses are called for. But that does not mean being possessed by anxiety, and blindly embraced ill-founded efforts that are costly without promising real results.

Coal is the worst culprit
What is the key source of climate gases? It ain’t cars, and it ain’t industry. And from the figures I’ve seen, even gas and oil account for a surprisingly small portion of greenhouses gases. One of the very worst culprits is coal-fired power plants!

So, an important key is:

1) Eliminate the need for more coal-fired power plants.
2) Replace existing coal-fired power plants with greener alternatives ASAP.

Viable solutions will provide economic stimulus
IMHO the response needs to be radical in terms of pace. Sensible programs will stimulate technological innovation, require massive manpower to implement, and will therefore stimulate economies -- not lay economies waste. Interestingly, the Obama Administration has made greater energy independence a key goal of its Stimulus Program. And it has had the good sense to take the first steps to tax and regulate climate gases. That is the only viable way to go.

Individuals and corporations have to be pushed financially, and well as morally, to act quickly in the common interest.

The West must assume moral responsibility
One more thing: The West is responsible for the lion’s share of the greenhouses gases out there. That is why the West must take the technological, political and moral leadership to solve the problem. Only if that responsibility is recognised and embraced, can China, India and other countries that have recently increased their emissions be expected to follow suit.

Anyways, that’s my $ 0.02.

-- ArcticStones

I do not believe it has been published yet.
When it is, I promise to post a link.

I'll try to be more precise. The biggest risk we're taking with the environment is the possible extinction of our species, followed closely by the significant risk of severe reductions in our standards of living as we run out of resources and throw the weather patterns into chaos. The benefit we're gaining by allowing companies to continue to pollute the environment is extremely wealthy CEOs, and presumably some benefit to the disappearing Middle Class, although I fail to see how a fat guy driving around in a 6,000 lb SUV is a benefit.

One of the interesting approaches to coal for power generation is in situ coal gasification. Reputed to be cheaper and safer than mining the coal and its principal output is methane, the primary constituent of natural gas.

well, of course, he's wrong. he's making the entirely classic error of assuming that humans are not themselves natural creatures (though I think he'd be offended if I told him he was making the same mistake that every major religion...). the fact of the matter is that any biological creature that is not kept in check by predation will expand in numbers to the point where it either exhausts the resources it needs to live or poisons its environment with its own waste. creatures consume what they can use and excrete what they can't use, and in the absence of some balancing process that will produce bad results. Humans are smarter than most, and we can extract and use a greater variety of resources with greater efficiency than other animals, but that doesn't change the fact that we exist in a closed, finite system.

It would be nice if in fact we used our heads to keep the system balanced in a way that we find comfortable, but if we don't the system will balance itself. Mother Nature always has the last word.

And, Mother Nature never sleeps!

The Earth has been around a very long time, and it has survived some major disasters. I don't think there is anything out there that we are doing that will destroy the earth. If anything we will destroy ourselves and the earth will just live on with out us. It did fine before us and it will do fine after us.

I think we should look at our consumptions and try to not produce so much waste but I don't buy into the whole global warming we are all going to die real soon and the ice caps will melt tomorrow stuff.

We should look at it like everything else that is bad for us, fatty foods, drugs, alcohol, etc. The things we do that are polluting the earth need to be done in more moderation and technology should eventually help us do it more efficient and cleaner.

Penn and Teller did a segment on recycling and they found it to be 100% pointless other than it makes you feel better.

Energy...
 

Let me point to an interesting read.
The author discusses different sources of sustainable energy. Quite an effort and commendable that is has been made accessable. I have not had the time to read all 3-400 pages or check the references, but it appears to deserve a more thorough reading.

I don’t know anyone who is suggesting anything of the sort. Certainly the IPCC is not.

What we are talking about, however, is that efforts be made to prevent certain thresholds from being crossed. One of those is containing global warming to within 2˚C (two degrees Centigrade) compared with pre-Industrial Age levels.

As I understand it, if that threshold is crossed, there is a strong fear that we may see some rather worrisome, self-amplifying processes.

One more point: Global Warming is only one aspect of Global Climate Change, which in my opinion is a more appropriate term for this topic as a whole.

But it is a computer model! :confused: why does it need to be publish? ..does it have to be coordinated to fit the observed climate data ..kind like the AR4 report who had to be fitted to the Summary for policy makers which was release three months earlier by the IPCC ? :)

By published I merely meant made available on the Internet.
I was shown ongoing work.

That seems to be a great source, tjj. Thanks for sharing! :)
Here is one quoted passage from Chapter 29, pg. 222:

This is odd! Since when is CO2 a pollutant? this is like saying 2 + 2 = 6.
Are we now to kill plants by starving them from CO2 ? :eek:

Why massive amounts of CO2 are a pollutant
 

.
That’s right. Massive amounts of CO2 and other climate gases are harmful.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 levels were roughly 280 ppm (parts per million). Today the level is 394 ppm, and rising at about 3 ppm per year.

There is strong consensus amongst climate experts that drastic feedback processes are extremely likely to occur should atmospheric CO2 concentrations approach 500 ppm. What is feared is that the ongoing climate change will become catastrophic and, from the perspective of our human timeline, irreversible.

For these good reasons CO2 is rightly viewed as a pollutant -- mind you, in massive amounts, and in concentrations that upset the natural balances of the ecosystems of the planet on which we live.
.

Global Warming is a Myth
 

John Coleman, founder of the weather channel is speaking out about how the media has overstated the so call consensus by the scientific community on the existence of Man Made Global warming.

This guy is a bit boring but everyone needs to see this.

Well, if a business man says it, it must be true. They never lie to us.
:rolleyes:

As I understand it, John Coleman doesn’t have any professional credentials whatsoever. He studied journalism -- neither meteorology nor related sciences.

"There is strong consensus amongst climate experts that drastic feedback processes are extremely likely to occur should atmospheric CO2 concentrations approach 500 ppm" is actually not known, it's a conjecture that is not universally accepted. Recall that Malthus predicted our doom from overpopulation -- hasn't happened -- and there were dire predictions that we would have by now exhausted the world's supply of petroleum -- hasn't happened. Both those predictions were entirely rational, but wrong nonetheless. Note that I am not advocating that we do nothing; I'm just suggesting that we (the human race) are not likely to expire soon.

How do you know that hasn't happened? Who's to say that we aren't simply walking dead, but unaware? Already, we're having trouble with our food supply. Fish stocks are dwindling, honey bees are in trouble, and with them almost all of our farmed goods. The quality of our food is not as good as it was just a couple of decades ago either, as we feed our farm animals cheaper and cheaper ingredients loaded with antibiotics. That sets us up for two big problems: drug resistant disease and famine.

When the final straw breaks, it will be too late to fix things. The question is, has the final straw already broken?

Look at the incredible technology that needs to be used to get it though! We're essentially using everything at our disposal to suck up the last few drops, and since we're able to get them we're convinced that it isn't going to end.

No matter what your opinion is of global warming, it is still a good thing to reduce waste, emissions, and pollution in any way possible. Why do people not give a crap about that?

Because it's all about the money, which is why we need to put a large price tag on carbon emissions.

Well said that man.

Reminds me of the joke about the man who fell off the skyscraper, and counted the floors on the way down: "50, so far so good -- 40, so far so good -- 30, so far so good".......

Absolutely, Jasen. Halifax is a model of recycling; less than half our solid waste goes into landfills. Compostables are collected from green carts, cardboard, paper, milk cartons and all containers are collected separately and recycled, etc. Halifax does not permit the use of chemical weed killers or insecticides on trees or lawns without a permit (for such things as cinch bug or mosquito infestations). At the same time, unfortunately, they burn coal in the local power plant because they sell their natural gas supply to Maine to keep power rates down -- can't win 'em all, or at least not all at once.

My position is simple. Be a good citizen of the environment when you can, minimize what you can't control, but don't fear for an early apocalypse.

I don't fear an apocalypse, early or late, although we could easily bring that about through war. I'm more concerned about something like the Great Depression compounded by disease and crop failures. Global warming might merely be the trigger for that. After all, our economies have demonstrated that they're not nearly as resilient as we had believed. What will happen when a real problem arises? Say a sudden world-wide 40% decline in wheat/rice production instead of a 40% drop in perceived wealth?

Several writers are warming up to the notion that the next big crisis is going to be fresh, drinkable water. That's the crisis that climate change might exacerbate.

I think what's scary is that there are so many ways things can go very wrong, and we don't seem to be honestly taking the steps to prevent or mitigate any of them.

Once again, it would appear that the issue of population control ought to be addressed. Once the problem with unlimited, sustainable and yet non-polluting access to energy is solved, Earth and other planets can accommodate the current growth rate.
Perhaps the seemingly uncontrolled growth rate of population is the drive that will push us in the right direction.

Yes, and there is a huge German company that I forget the name of, as well as some competitors buying up water companies wherever they can. They have been at it for some time.

Other groups of investors are seeing a golden opportunity during the financial crisis to by up large areas of farmland in third-world countries.

Certain things should be exempt from amoral speculation.

Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere and .018% is attributed to humans. CO2 is not a pollutant never was. The 500PPM is a Computer model data it is not reality.CO2 is a natural part of Earth's Atmosphere CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen from 0.028% to 0.038% (380ppm) over the past 100 years (IPCC)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not toxic until 5% (50,000ppm)concentration and ( only because the respiratory center of the brain become sensitive to CO2 instead of O2)
Any detrimental effects of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) including chronic exposure to 3% (30,000ppm) are reversible without any ill effects. If someone could check out the CO2 content in a room full of people one would see that a reading of 1000ppm to 1200ppm is very common depending how big is the crowd. OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% (5,000 ppm) Carbon Dioxide.The Vostok Ice cores show CO2 to fellow as temperature rise .. hence a result not a cause.

I don't think anyone's been worried about it becoming toxic. The worry is that it will affect the environment well before there's enough to present a direct threat to animal life.
That's quite a conclusion, given that the temperature is inferred by estimating the amount of CO2.

That estimation is from a Computer model and it was programed to show that an increase in CO2 increase the global temperature. No one should have been surprise when the model showed exactly what it was program to do.
Pollutants are "toxic" and if one is to add CO2 on that list then....? CO2 is misunderstood and was given a bad rap..Susan Solomon, NOAA senior scientist, ”I think you have to think about this stuff (CO2) as more like nuclear waste than acid rain: The more we add, the worse off we’ll be,” that statement is so absurd coming from someone who should know it is scary. How are plant to survive if we reducer CO2? at 380ppm plants are starving for food. Greenhouses operate between 800 to 1000ppm and is considered the best for plant grow.We must stop polluting by spending money at improving what we have now till a new form of energy is found.today's alternative energy is not efficient enough to be sustainable and is not environmentally friendly.

I think you're missing the point. Even oxygen is toxic in high levels. CO2 levels are higher now than they were 150 years ago, and we're adding to its level every hour of every day. If we were doing the same thing with oxygen, we'd need to reduce that too, but since it's not a greenhouse gas, we wouldn't have to worry until it approached toxic levels.

By the way, we know that CO2 is a green house gas because we can test it in controlled environments. That's what the computer models are modeled after! They didn't just pull numbers out of a hat.

I agree with Wilbert. What's always missing from these analyses is the balance between human, animal, decomposition, and industrial activity's CO2 (and C0) emissions and the biosphere as flora see it. Over the same time span in which industrial emissions have increased manyfold, forests have been decimated in some parts of the world, and droughts have decreased grasses. On the other side of the coin, the ocean absorbs CO2 (and becomes acidic), but not methane which is insoluble in water. If C02 levels were to decline a lot, the ocean would "breathe out" to maintain its equilibrium. It's an incredibly complex ecology we live in and I don't think we understand it by half.

Huh? :confused:
The oceans absorbing the CO2 that we produce is part of the problem! It's blamed for at least partly causing the deaths of coral, which threatens most (all?) of the fish we depend on. If we were to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, then the ocean's 'breathing' it out would be mean that the oceans were healing.

Blamed, yes; proven, no. For years now, climate change was blamed for the decline in the world's frog population, for example, and now it turns out that is a fungus infection of their skin that's decimating the frog and toad population. There's been a precipitous decline in the population of bats too, and that turns out to be an infection. Bees are dying off in droves and the cause of that infestation is still not known with certainty. Many of the effects we see and blame on climate change are naturally occurring shifts.

How do you know these infections aren't due to climate change? What else occurs on a global scale to cause them?

I find the idea that we don't know everything about the subject so we should wait to do something to be disingenuous for two reasons.

First, there are many examples where we don't know everything, but achieve great success. Humans to this day still don't know all there is to know about flying, but we've been doing it for over a hundred years!

Second, the conclusion is completely wrong, and far too late. We have never known how industrialization would affect our environment, so according to this logic, it shouldn't have been done at all. Even today, if you're not going to do something because you don't know its affects on the environment, the thing that you should not be doing is using anything that requires the mining or drilling for carbon based materials and spewing them into the atmosphere. This of course, isn't what the intended conclusion is. We're supposed to conclude that business as usual should be allowed until we have all the facts. That is illogical and irrational.

Well, given that I'm illogical and irrational, I guess, I'll withdraw from the discussion.

You are right. We should take care of the earth and our environment but the following is also ture.

Global warming is being used to launch a cap and trade market that will allow the bankers to steal more money from the industrialized world.

Let take care of the world because we want a nice place to live and lets not let rhetoric and politics lead us down a very dangerous path.

They've been stealing for a long time. What makes you think cap and trade has anything to do with it? Would not having cap and trade stop them from stealing? :confused:

Cap and Trade
 

You are right that the banks have been gouging us for a very long time in many markets. Just look at all of the bail out in the last year. All of that money will come from American tax payers.

The cap and trade rules will create the carbon equivalent to the stock market were companies and counties will be able to buy and sell carbon credits. If you emit more carbon than allowed you will have to buy additional credits. These credits will have a monetary value and industrial countries like ours will have to pay for the right to operate. As with any other market the banks will be involved as brokers and lenders which will expand the their control over our policies and our economy. Cap and Trade boils down to a tax on developed counties. There are other ways to promote green technologies and less pollution that will not put more power in to the hands of those that have proven themselves to be ineffective and damaging to the public good.

Don't get me wrong. I support the advancement of new and cleaner technology and I believe that keeping our environment clean is in our best interest regardless of the claim that Global warming is a threat. But, I think that much of what we are told exaggerated to sway public opinion to support new global economic mandates. This will be bad for our country and our livelihoods.

That's a huge leap of logic and I don't see where or how you make it.

I'm certain that large corporations, including banks, will find ways to screw us in any system we set up. How does that mean that cap and trade will be worse than any other? :confused:

Cap and trade is not needed. it is a politically motivated vote getter. AGW is base on Emotional science fear and the good old Guilt trip.
The father of the modern AGW theory is Dr Stephen Schneider
said in the 1970 a 800%, increase in CO2 would give very little warming. By the late 1980s, he promoted the UN view that a mere 100% increase in CO2 would be enough to raise temperature by +1.5 to +4 deg. and then he added.
"To capture the public imagination,
we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
make simplified dramatic statements
and little mention of any doubts one might have.
Each of us has to decide the right balance
between being effective,
and being honest."

Take a look..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/3...on-and-corals/

The Difference
 

The difference is that this is a completely new market. A new way for those controlling the money to get more of it. And wilbert thanks you for bringing up a good point. There has been an effort in many political circles to use the chance of climate change as tool of fear in order to get the public to support moves toward globalization.

The fact is that there is not a consensus among the scientist that study this and there is distinct and hard scientific evidence that show a direct correlation between solar activity and global temps.

Please, do some homework and don't take everything that the talking heads on CNN or Fox tell you. Every one that gets in front of a camera has an agenda or are being paid to be there. Look at the research!

this is another link that may be of interest. I found another study that details all of these points but I'll have to search again to find it. I'll post it when I do.

Geeez! :rolleyes: Are we supposed to believe that coral reefs haven't evolved at all in 500 million years?
Once again, you beg the question: How does this provide evidence that it's not real?

Not only that, but if you're concerned about 'the money', then why aren't you looking critically at the largest, most profitable corporations in the world: Big Oil/Coal?

It isn't the talking heads on any channel that have me convinced that Global Climate Change is real and man-made. It's the fact that Big Oil and Big Coal are against it, and that they're working so hard in the background to discredit it.

ok here we go...
 

1. Big oil and coal are against these regulations because it is bad for there business. This does not in any way prove or disprove the existence of man-made global warming. I did not know that every post had to explain my position on every aspect of every industry but see my views on these companies below.

2. I have never and will never state of take a position that these corporations are the "good guys" or that they are not participant in a lot of what is wrong with the economy. Also, there products are pollutant and as I have said many times in this thread...I support green technology which includes finding renewable and sustainable energy sources. The Oil industry along with GM are responsible for killing a model of an electric car that was tested in California over a decade ago. There have been many designs for fuel efficient cars that have been bought and shelved over the years because these companies do not want to loose business. They do, however, provide a product that this country is dependent on which is why we need to develop other ways to power our country. Are they bad/evil...sure! Does this mean that those that oppose them are by default right/good...NO! I am not a stuart any industry and I hold everyone responsible for their actions.

3. The evolutionary process of any species of animal is not in dispute here. Of course, they have evolve because evolution is a constant and process that responds to a changing environment. It is what allows life to survive despite many changes in environmental conditions. If you acknowledge that the coral have evolved to survive in current conditions than what is to say that they won't evolve to survive in future conditions. Either way, this is not the point of our conversation.

4. There is a natural ebb and flow to the Temperature of this planet, and others, that is directly related to solar activity. This is indisputable scientific fact. All that I am proposing is that we accept this and that we question those that are telling us that say we are the primary cause for what we have seen in the last 20 years.

5. In the 1970's it was widely reported that global cooling was threat and that we may be on the verge of a new ice age. This did not happen and that was the definitive scientific opinion. There is much that we can not predict and we must not relinquish even a small part of our country's ability to govern its self as a sovereign nation to any international organization because of this non-substantiated theory.

6. You claim that there is a consensus amongst the scientific community but that is not the case. There are thousands of scientists that do not support the theory of Man Made Global Warming. There are also many cases of researchers being fired for expressing their views.

7. One final point goes back to the money. Many scientist are paid through grants or by private companies and if their money depends on finding evidence that something does exist then they are bias and must be suspect. Let me acknowledge that there are some scientist that abide by the scientific method and do so without sacrificing the integrity of the work they do. Unfortunately, as in any industry you are paid for results and if you don't deliver you are gone.

All I ask again is that we all question the information that we are getting and that we don't blindly follow. This is not an attack...this is a plea...our world depends on free tought...and this goes for all issue not just this one. There is at least enough evidence, if you look for it, to prove the lack of a consensus...if nothing else.

A bit of moderation, please!
 

.
Uhm, I think we can safely conclude that this discussion has gotten vituperative. Please step back. I feel the need to remind you of NovaScotian’s original posts. Some of the more intense posts we’ve seen are better suited for Private Message exchanges. :rolleyes:

That was an excellent source! The author requests that response be well-founded in fact, and be sufficiently large in scale to make an impression. One of David J.C. MacKay’s key points is that most of the stuff being done, even in sum, is woefully inadequate.

Ok, let us return to the question: What is a reasonable response to the challenge of Global Climate Change? Specifically: What is your solution? What alternatives do you see that are big enough to make an impact?

And, please, lower the invective a few notches! :)

-- ArcticStones

.

No Problem
 

Of course. I did not intend to cross any lines and I hope that nothing I have posted is considered insulting, abusive, or highly critical. I only wanted to make a case against a cap and trade model. I have posted some interesting research an I welcome everyone to look at it.

I will leave this thread after this post and respond to the question posed by saying that we should use an incentives based approach. Give tax credits to companies that use green technologies. Also fund research whose goal is creating the viable alternatives to the existing methods of powering this country. All corporations are driven my the desire to be more profitable and by giving companies a financial upside to care about the environment we will achieve the overall goal.

Incentive rather than punitive.

If anyone cares to discuss the topic with me further I will respond to private messages.

.
Wheelerb, I believe your very last post is precisely the sort of constructive, solution-oriented proposal that I think also NovaScotian was hoping to see put on the table.

Please note that my comment was a general request to cool the temperature of the thread, and not aimed at you specifically. I think the thread would benefit from your continued participation. :)

Anyone else have some good concrete suggestions?

-- ArcticStones


PS. Duels can be handled through PM or at twenty paces. :cool:
.

I'm generally of the tree-hugger persuasion, but I did not like the way the EU did its first carbon permits. It made too many, and handed them out for free. That gave an immediate financial windfall for companies who emitted under their limit; which rewarded not only virtue in scrubbing but also not being in a particularly carbonaceous industry to begin with. If we are to go the cap and trade route, these things have to be better designed.

1 & 7. I did not intend to imply that you need to explain every aspect of your position, but it seems odd to talk about the money as an incentive for poorly paid scientists while ignoring the wealthiest corporations with the wealthiest executives. I'd find Big Oil's position to be much more credible if they'd just come out and say:

A) These scientists are wrong.
B) Here's why we think so.

Instead, they quietly fund opposition groups and scientists to sew seeds of doubt. It's all too much like what Big Tobacco did for 50+ years.

2. Agreed.

3. 500 million years is plenty of time for coral to evolve. We're talking about 100 to 150 years. This is relevant because the CO2 levels of 500 million years ago would likely be extremely harmful to today's coral reefs.

4. There certainly is, but why make it worse? If your car slipped out of gear and were rolling down a slight incline towards a cliff with your children inside, would you push it towards the cliff, or try to stop it?

I don't think that you're implying that we shouldn't do something about human causes of warming, but you should be aware that many who make this argument are doing just that.

5. I see no conflict here with Global Warming, because the name is incorrect. It should be something like Global Extremes. It is possible that rapid warming may cause an Ice Age.

6. Thousands of scientists represent a small percentage of the total, and this is especially true considering the money that Big Oil has to influence people.

I don't know what the effect of human actions will be, but I think it's certain that we do have an effect. Most disturbingly, it's highly likely that our effect on the environment is not and will not be good for humans. This is all the more worrisome because we know what we need to do to fix things, but we're just beginning to take baby steps towards doing them.

I don't expect that I'd ever see a system I liked. Big Business makes the rules, so they're going to make them in their favor. All we can do is hope to get something that has some impact in place, and slowly put more teeth in it.

Humans have always dreamed about controlling the climate. We use to have and in some places still have, shamans dancing for rain or reading chicken entrails and other few assortment of incantations to predict or control our inclement weather. Farmers will use difference moon phases to plant crops fisherman will try to read the sun and the tides but good old nature does what nature does best. we can not control nature. Cap and trade is just another one of those futile dances. In 1900 New York city was worried about the mountains of Horse manure they would be leaving behind for the next generation..then came the Car and the Poop problem was taken cared off. The Themes in the 1700 was so polluted the English government buildings could not have it' s windows open. Then a new way of disposal was introduced and today the river is clean again. .. wow two poop stories! :eek:
It is hard to come with a concrete suggestion to a non existing problem. If we take away the Emotional science what is left?

I know I really shouldn't.... but since we've been on the subject of cap and trade, I can't resist posting something I wrote a couple of years ago.

The high rates of American teen pregnancy should be combatted by Cap and Trade. To begin with, all schoolchildren should be issued intercourse licences, and those who wish to keep their virginity can trade their licences to those who wish to have sex. There will thus be a financial incentive to abstinence, which will be more effective than top-down moralising and the unstable piety of adolescents. Chastity-related efficiencies will be rewarded. Of course, there will be an enforcement problem; a mechanism will be required to sanction those who sell their permits and have sex anyway, but this can be modelled on the apparatus that checks to see whether factories are actually releasing more CO2 more than their permits allow. If there is such a control, that is; we never seem to hear about this part. The EU has been criticised for issuing too many permits for free, which gave irrational windfall profits to producers in inherently clean industries; so we must beware of issuing free permits to nerds. Everyone is now agreed that the future lies with auctions of a decreasing number of licences. The system does not even need a new name; if the permits are issued to the boys, ‘emissions-trading’ will continue to serve.

how many changes do we need?
 

Today, aides in Obama’s Council on Environmental Quality will meet with a research and marketing group that is promoting an alternative to the phrase “global warming,” which some pollsters say fails to capture the idea of greenhouse gases threatening the environment.

“There is value in trying to get the messaging right,” said a senior White House environmental aide, who was not authorized to speak on the record. “Because at the end of the day this is tricky policy. . . . We want to make sure we’re talking in a way that the public understand...:)
Here we go again! First we had Cooling then it got warm so they changed it to global warming then nature decided to cool? now we have Climate change and since climate does not stay the same it should be a shoe in right? wrong!the public is not as gullible as first though..after all , unless one live in La la land one knows ice does not melt at -60C. Move the goal posts till you win the game. There is no such thing as a green job or green energy.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6330691.story

young people should be educated, not propagandized
 

Letter To the British Columbia School Boards


I admit that I am not a climatologist on the issue of global warming. However; I support the principle that young people should be educated, not propagandized -- and I know something about what that means.

One of the most important differences between education and propaganda is how they deal with great controversies.

In education, students are taught about the controversies. In propaganda, they are shielded from them.

In education, students are taught both sides of the important debates. In propaganda, they are taught only one.

In education, students are taught both the strengths and the weaknesses of the officially favored theory. In propaganda, they are taught only its strengths.

In short, education is the training of minds, while propaganda is the training of prejudices. In a democracy, the public schools should not propagandize, but educate.

As we find in the science section of these guidelines, students must learn to "analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.

The issue is that although students should be taught about both sides of a scientific theoretical controversy, your assignment, based on the description in your permission request, appears to only present one side and are shielded from the weaknesses. contained in. BC Science 10.

How can a student write a critique about assertions made on global warming without having anything to compare and contrast the assertions to? Your permission/assignment sheet gave no indication as to how, if any, the views to counter Anthropogenic Global Warming would be taught.

In addition, it is not clear what alternate assignment is available to the student/teachers should they choose to Learn from a climatologist instead from a television show hosted by a journalist with no science degrees.

If the "theory" of global warming is to be taught in your classroom, I urge that the topic should be taught like the other sciences and like other controversial theories -- with honesty about both . When classroom activities and/or textbooks are biased, you(the school board)) are the check and balance.
Statements are made in Science 10 that are assertions that mix cause and effect: "climate change is affecting our planet right now. Ice is disappearing earlier in the spring, trees are budding earlier, and extreme weather events are causing more outbreaks of disease than 20 years ago." They are not only inaccurate but also dishonest.

I urge The school board to require that the scientific data to both sides of this controversy be taught and that not one side be suppressed.

To do so would be not only be good training in science, but good education in citizenship.

As a parent I could not sit back and be quiet once I read what they were teaching in school today. A child need to have goals and hope in life so them goals can be reach. Teaching that we destroy the planet is not education! I had enough and had to make a stand.
Am I right?
http://www.bcscience.com/bc10/pgs/links_u1.html

Ugh. you know, what bugs me most about this whole 'climate change' debate is that it involves a debate style I don't expect from adults. On one side you have people pointing out all the various things that can go wrong if we continue to dump endless loads of waste into the environment (the way parents try to explain the bad points of leaving toys strewn across the floor), while on the other side the response is "it's not really a problem, and it's too much trouble to deal with, and I don't really care" (classic pre-teen 'butIdonwanna' stuff). so, maybe greenhouse gasses will increase global temperatures, melting the ice-caps, driving more frequent and more powerful storms, causing flooding, crop loss, massive displacement and starvation of populations around the world. or maybe the melting ice caps will pour fresh water into the ocean, disrupting the currents and heat exchange systems to spawn a new ice age, causing glaciation, crop loss, massive displacement and starvation of populations around the world. or maybe some equally ugly third thing will happen, or (heaven willing) nothing much will happen at all. Most of us are smart enough to take basic precautions against our house getting burned down or flooded out, and are willing to shell out hundreds or thousands a year for insurance against the remote possibility it might happen anyway, and yet when it comes to the world outside of our houses we turn into scrooges? we're all very good about the Not In My Backyard, thing, but don't seem to give a flying fruitcake about other people's backyards.

Newsflash, kiddos: globalization and industrialization means there's only one backyard. get used to it.

this is win-win for me, really. I'm old enough so I probably won't see the worst effects (assuming anything bad happens) in my lifetime, and I've got no kids so I don't have to worry about them. If nothing bad happens I'll be happy, and if it does, well... at least I'll know it's not my fault, and I'll get to have the last laugh. :o

wilbert:
I merged your new thread about bcscience and education into this one since it is the same general topic of discussion and I'd prefer to keep this all in the one place.

The basic idea behind climate change being unrelated to human activity is that in comparison to our vast climate, we're just too small to make a difference. This is as anti-science as Creationism, and neither belongs in a Science class. We know that humans have an effect on the Earth's climate and we know what we need to to to reverse that effect, whatever it may eventually turn out to be. We also know that change when it comes to the environment, will not be good for humans.

The fact that we don't know all of the bad things that will happen, or when they will occur, is not an indication that any given opposing viewpoint is valid. To be valid, it must first be scientific, and it takes more than a few scientific studies funded by people opposed to the policies that naturally rise from the acceptance of Global Climate Change to make it so. This is not to say that scientists have Climate Change exactly right. Only that the movement — largely funded by industries whose incomes derive from fossil fuels — is not the correct group to challenge them. On the contrary, from a political perspective, their opposition should give us all reason to believe what the vast majority of scientists are saying: Man made Global Climate Change is real.

TW that's only speculations.. could be might be etc.. The "more storms" is one example . Before 2002 storms were named at 74 mph. The AMS needed more storms to prove GW was causing more storms as predicted by the Models. So they moved the bar down and storms were named at 35mph and overnight we had more storms as predicted.The AMS spokesperson is Antonio Socci and the president is Tom Karl both have no science degrees or any climate science experience. Nominated to those post by AL Gore when he was VP.
Another point.. Ocean currents are controlled by the earth rotation and wind pouring water in the ocean does not change the currents.

If I use your logic then what does that says about the David Suzuki foundation who also received money from the Fossil fuel industries and nuclear? :eek: How about Standford University and the over 500 million donated by the fossil fuel energy ( Exxon) to study alternative energy and improving emission standard in internal combustion engines. The list goes on... are these wrong studies? are the scientists getting paid to do these studies to be vilified or called shills? ;)

Thank you!

What it says is that you should question any study or anyone that purports to debunk a scientific theory without providing a valid competing theory. You cannot argue against Man Made Global Climate Change without arguing that humans do not cause climate change, and no one has offered any scientific theory to back up that argument. All they've done is try to muddy the waters enough to stop changes in public policy.

Please check your facts before posting. Your assertions above are completely wrong - both of those men have advanced science degrees in relevant fields and extensive climatological experience.
See, for example:
http://www.ametsoc.org/amsnews/bios/karl.html
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/5/7a8/232

science is speculation backed by evidence. that's what science is, and it was designed that way to overcome the normal human tendency to believe that what we want to be true has to be true. without speculation we'd still be at the level of chimpanzees; without evidence we'd still believe that the sky is a big bowl hung with lanterns. Scientists looking at global warming are making speculations and examining them according to the available material evidence. People arguing against global warming are merely making speculations, because they want it not to be true. If you want to believe them, that's fine - there's no law saying you have to understand or follow the rules of science - but your position is purely rhetorical, and lacks credibility.

remember, even the Catholic Church at the height of its power couldn't effectively silence scientific evidence. modern corporations won't succeed either; it's just a matter of time, and of how much damage occurs before they give it up.

to your other point - this is not really a matter of contention. ocean currents may be driven by the rotation of the earth, but their paths are influenced heavily by salinity and water temperature. colder water sinks, fresher water floats, and the path of least resistance is followed. a large infusion of cold fresh water into the seas around Greenland might easily redirect the warm saline North Atlantic current westward, which would cause a precipitous decline in European north-east American temperatures, and an increase in warm, wet weather in the Caribbean and central Americas. This isn't a bathtub we're talking about.

I think this is the animation you are referring to:
http://www.bjerknes.uib.no/pages.asp...&kat=97&lang=2

Thank you, Hayne! :)

That is indeed the animation.
I for one find this rather startling.

.

You're not alone!

I can't see how increased Solar activity could account for greater warming in the north than in far sunnier places.

The sun is unusually inactive
 

Pretty hard to ascribe this to solar activity.
Especially as the sun is at its most inactive in almost a century!

.

in a word, water. water is a great heat-sink - it absorbs and releases heat slowly and evenly. land is much more volatile and varies according to terrain. since what's being measured is ambient air temperature, you're going to see much more pronounced variations in temperature over land masses than over oceans. the gradual shift from blue to orange over the equatorial regions is actually more indicative of warming than the dark red regions over the Polar regions.

I actually don't like this presentation; it's overly dramatic, and that can be misleading. the seasonal temperature variations in equatorial oceanic regions, for instance, probably don't extend past a handful of degrees, but the color-shift is huge, perceptually. it's like saying "Ants can lift 50 times their own weight!!!" without noting that 50 times an ant's weight is somewhere around an ounce. hyperbolic...

When the data is "overly dramatic"...
 

Yeah, it’s pretty dramatic, all right.

They should have "muted it down", rather than based it on the best available meteorological data for the last 125 years. That way it would have been less "misleading". ;)

.

I'm a scientist, and I happen to think that a representation of data should be a representation of data aimed at accuracy, not one aimed at effect. I understand the need to play things up for political purposes, of course, but I'm kind of a purist. it would be dramatic enough if you displayed it without it looking like it was bleeding all over the map. :rolleyes:

I don't care which direction the political spin goes, incidentally. pushing it towards the liberal side (as this graphic does) is just as bad as pushing towards the conservative side (the way abortion protesters do when they choose unrealistically human-looking fetuses for their placards). Not that you can tell from American politics, but you actually can have a political debate which presents scientific evidence in its proper, detached, non-emotive form.

Yes, I'm a scientific moralist. sue me. :D

My main complaint about all of these threads started by you concerning climate change is that none of them start from a scientific reference. They all stem from some opinion piece you've read. The author always has a particular audience in mind. They therefore twist the science they reference to reinforce the viewpoint of their audience.

Take this guy. He says
The Holocene greenhouse-gas anomaly (or pre-industrial rise in CO2) amounts to 40 ppm. Originally, Ruddiman claimed all of it was due to human intervention. Since then he has conceded that only 25% (i.e. 10 ppm) is due to direct human intervention. OK, he did suggest a mechanism by which humans could be responsible for the other 75% but even I can see the flaw in it.

Furthermore, IPCC's AR4 makes quite plain that CO2 and CH4 emissions from land use is a major area of uncertainty in their work. So how does Ruddiman have a better handle on land use emissions circa 5000 years ago? In short, can he even sustain his 10 ppm figure?

Does his 'evidence' still impress?

Let's stick with 10 ppm for now.

The post-industrialisation increase in CO2-eq is 115 ppm (source AR4) i.e 1150% more than Ruddiman claims or almost 300% (assuming the 40 ppm figure.)

This guy's argument is little bit like saying that energy-momentum effects in water are harmless because water-hammer in pipe networks never hurt anybody. Tell that to somebody about to be flattened by a tsunami.

The difference in scale between the pre- and post-industrialisation emissions is so large that he is incapable of reaching the conclusions he has. So as to reach his pre-formed conclusions, he stripped out the numbers and put in the very weak argument "its the best we've got so it must be valid" at the end of my quote above.

Like him, I do expect humans will survive, but I doubt it'll be a picnic. Something that he should have concluded, perhaps after a reading of Malthus's work - something you do not appear to be familiar enough with. There will almost certainly be serious social, political, economic and environmental issues to be dealt with in the years to come.

Ok, I see what you're saying, but (and this is a question, not a statement) wouldn't you expect to see more heating over the land masses than over the north pole?

@ bramley,

I think that there is a perception (a correct one, I believe) on the part of many who don't see Attila the Hun as a bleeding-heart left winger, that there is a movement by very large, powerful organizations to sow doubts the same way the cigarette makers did with tobacco. In this light, pushing things a little in the opposite direction doesn't seem like the wrong thing to do.

Re: Undocumented attack -- "need to play things up for political purposes"
 

.
Frankly, I find your post arrogant.

Your claim is that this presentation is "aiming at effect", because Professor Helge Drange has a "need to play things up for political purposes."

That’s quite a claim!

I am glad that you consider yourself a scientist -- "kind of a purist". Well, as far as I know, "purists" don’t make these sort of claims without supporting them.

Please support your attack on Prof. Helge Drange and the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, by documenting how this representation aims at anything other than accuracy.

Precisely what data are you claiming is misrepresented?

Professor Drange quotes his team’s sources. There is more on the data and methodology here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

The explanation there seems most reasonable to me.

If you can find fault, then I am sure NASA, GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Research) and the Bjerknes Centre would love to hear from you. As GISS noted in 1999, and still does: "We would welcome feedback from users on any specific data in this record."

-- ArcticStones

.

that becomes a bit trickier, for the following reasons:

• ice is a very poor conductor of heat. something for which life everywhere should be thankful, incidentally, otherwise rivers, lakes, and even some oceans would freeze solid in winter, rather than freezing on the surface and staying liquid below.
• ice reflects heat. land, by contrast, absorbs and releases it.
• polar regions have wild seasonal variations in daylight. even though equatorial regions are warmer, polar regions can get double the sunlight in mid-summer.

I have no idea how to calculate those factors in.

remember also that this chart is (perhaps not obviously) a delta chart, not a chart of absolute temps. it's displaying changes in temperature, not absolute temperatures, and so all it's really saying is that the polar regions are showing greater variation, not that they are getting particularly warm. I'm more interested in the northern/southern hemisphere differences - the fact that the NH is showing more variation is a tick in the 'man is responsible' box, since the primary difference between the hemispheres is that the North is far more heavily populated and far more industrialized.

not a thing I can say to that that you wouldn't consider equally arrogant, so I'll refrain.
no, my statement was that I didn't like this graphic representation because I thought it over-dramatized the data. I don't have a problem with their research, or their data, or their actions as scientists; this was purely a cosmetic critique. if you were to buy a matte-black Prius I would think you wanted a new car; if you were to buy a candy-red Porsche I would think you were having a mid-life crisis. both are cars, and both function perfectly well as cars, but appearances make statements.

Still has no degrees in climate science or Meteorology MD nor PHD ... letters honoraries and adulation's will not change the fact that he is a Political appointee not a scientist. Socci is neither an elected official of the AMS nor a contributor to climate science. I did check first.

First off, you had earlier claimed that these men "have no science degrees or any climate science experience" and the links I provided above show that your earlier statement is absolutely wrong.

Karl has a Master of Science degree in Meteorology and has had a career in climate science. Not sure what you are on about with him.
Socci has a PhD in Geology/Oceanography. He may not have contributed to climate science but I see no reason why that disqualifies him from working as a spokesman.
Both of these men qualify as scientists and are much more qualified than you (or I) to give opinions about climate change.

I don't know, it's pretty conventional isn't it? Blue = cold, red = warm?

maybe. data display is as much art as science, particularly with technological toys, and one ought to put some thought into the subjective side, particularly when the display has a wide and unsophisticated audience. most people looking at this chart aren't going to see the data the way you and I might (interpreting a graphical display correctly takes thought and experience); what they are going to see is a lot of calm blue slowly giving way to a lot of scary red. should they be scared? I think so, yes. does the graphic accurately display what they should be scared of? not as clearly as I might hope. Things I would change if I were to redo this graph:

• use absolute temperatures rather than local deltas (easier to interpret, if less dramatic)
• tie the color shift to a meaningful proportion (the perceptual shift from blue to red is huge, artistically/visually speaking - 120˚ on the color wheel - but the deltas in the data can reflect at most a handful of temperature degrees)
• add in some numerics (localized peaks, global averages, or etc) to contextualize the colors properly.

the whole display would be a lot more drab, but a bit more intuitively informative.

not a huge issue, really, but...

Yeah, I guess the whole graph represents +/- 3º. The yellow is still within +1º of the baseline (whatever that is) but has more impact than the light blue which is the equivalent decline.

That's why Arctic Norway can be surprisingly lush and astonishingly hot in the summer. There's a plant that in England is about waist-high but which up around Tromsø grows like a tree, confer the giantism of plants around Kilimanjaro. And I've known it get over 30 degrees Celsius. Even though the sun has more atmosphere to get through at 70 degrees North, when it is up and shining at you 24 hours a day, it compensates.

A few more here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJgh8...D94F9B&index=0

NC state officials " TR Karl took some post -baccalaureate courses here at NC he was not in a degree program" he begun styling himself "DR" to coincide with the Honorary degree. After Socci and Karl's appointment the membership of the AMS had to attend " Climate re-education" to think the "right way".Part of this re-education was the 1970s consensus on Global cooling.

Whatever he did at NC is neither here nor there since he has a Masters of Science degree from University of Wisconsin—Madison.

How about you give it a rest with trying to attack these guys.
Argue the facts, not ad hominem.

what makes you think this debate has anything to do with 'facts'? if it were a factual question, it would still be playing out in the halls of academia, and few of us would have heard about it. the argument here is over the political idea that human agency is causing global warming, and thus humans are responsible for cleaning up the mess. when it comes to questions of responsibility, few people care about 'truth'; all they care about is whether their actions are 'justified' (using the kind of logic that lets even the worst used-car dealer sleep well at night).

believe me, if W was interested in ascertaining the facts of the matter, this conversation would have ended long ago. instead, he is trying (and will continue to try) to justify his viewpoint by whatever means.

It doesn't even go that far! No argument is made that humans aren't playing a significant part in climate change. Instead, the main thrust is to divert attention. It's all just a delaying tactic.

Perfect! So from now on Science is to take over and no more of " paid by the fossil industry " ad hominem ?

if it was paid for by oil industries, that's not an ad hominem. every proper scientist is more than willing to tell who is funding him, in part because it's a status thing ('look who funded my research...') and in part to offset any appearance of bias. No harm being funded by the oil industry if the funding comes without strings.