Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
sf_rhino

More on climate change

sf_rhino
10 years ago

I decided to not revive CP's climate change threat (it was getting too long for me to read -- link to it here --> previous thread), but I thought this was an interesting addition to the subject:

Jeff Masters's blog on Wunderground:
Earth's 4th Warmest September on Record; 32 Billion-Dollar Disasters so far in 2013

"September 2013 was the globe's 4th warmest September since records began in 1880, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). The year-to-date period of January - September has been the 6th warmest such period on record. September 2013 global land temperatures were the 6th warmest on record, and global ocean temperatures were the 4th warmest on record. September 2013 was the 343nd consecutive month with global temperatures warmer than the 20th century average. Global satellite-measured temperatures in September 2013 for the lowest 8 km of the atmosphere were 11th or 3rd warmest in the 35-year record, according to Remote Sensing Systems and the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), respectively. Wunderground's weather historian, Christopher C. Burt, has a comprehensive post on the notable weather events of September 2013 in his September 2013 Global Weather Extremes Summary."

That is 32 disasters each over $1B, not $32B worth of disasters. I'm not making the case that this is exacerbated by humans (although I think it is) and this is obviously looking at a short time frame, geologically speaking, but it is interesting to see how costly weather related extremes can be.

Link below...

Here is a link that might be useful: Wunderground

Comments (150)

  • mes111
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Sf
    Yours is exactly the type of response I was looking for because I did not know what to make of the limited arficle.
    Thanx
    Mike

  • mes111
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hman

    Never got that email about coming to see your orchard. I'll take you up on your offer next summer.

    Mike

  • mes111
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Shazaam

    You are right.
    I re-read my initial post and I did ask to vet the "author". My bad, I meant the author of the paper not of the article. Should have been clearer.

    Sorry
    Mike

  • mes111
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Deleted duplicated

    This post was edited by mes111 on Wed, Nov 6, 13 at 0:25

  • sf_rhino
    Original Author
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    If you haven't had the time to read the paper, what they did was analyze a whole bunch of sets of environmental data from ocean temps, to salinity, to sardine populations, to anomalies in the Earth's rotation (all of which have some sort of 50- to 80-year cycle). They basically found that they could order these data sets (much like leading and lagging indicators) to make a circular flow chart that shows the various data in relation to one another. This is meant to show a natural cycling of these phenomena.

    It is useful to point out that one of the data sets that they used is the "negative lenth-of-day index" which is basically the changes in the hours of sunlight due to Earth's rotational anomalies. They state "Examination of a 140-year record of observed and modeled temperature data revealed strong correlation between the two indices [length of day anomalies and global temp] until the 1930s, after which the surface temperature trend increased much more than that of the [negative length-of-day index]. DM removed the estimated [human] footprint from the surface average temperature to generate a 'corrected' temperature, one assumed to reflect only natural variability. Correlation between the [negative length-of-day index] and the 'corrected' temperature was strong." This is showing that at least for some of the data they are using, their is a human element that had to be removed in order to make the data fit.

    I also wanted to add that only once in the Curry paper's discussion did they even mention anthropogenic climate change.

    They basically made the point that most of the interpretations for the loss of arctic sea ice have focused on human factors with an allowance for natural variability, but that their model is not inconsistent with the data for the 20th century (although their model was built off of data for the 20th century).

  • Greg
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

    Not really much of a correlation and when looking at the extreme long term we should be heading up in temps anyways. Also for the more recent past carbon dioxide levels there is this

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
    and temps http://en.wikipedia.org

    /wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_%28NASA%29.svg

    Good correlation for a while then co2 levels shoot way up and no longer correlate with temps, is this an anomaly? I guess time will tell but the hype we have been told about impending disaster has been or is wrong.
    Last I am not convinced that there is much of a consensus with scientists. If you read the studies many of them are nothing more than a quick survey as to what the scientist opinions are on the matter. The majority of scientist usually 70-80% never even respond to the survey! Probably because they didn't have much of an opinion about it one way or the other, but I feel it is dishonest for the media to turn around and say that this constitutes a consensus, usually stated at 97%. That particular quoted number comes from just one study (not yet conclusive) and represents climate scientist (not all scientist) that took the time to respond. Add to that the fact that some of the surveys required that the scientist sign a statement saying that he/she didn't agree with the evidence of AGW. What kind a scientist would say they don't agree with evidence, they wouldn't be a scientist? Not to mention climate gate revealed that there was pressure and bullying going on.
    I have looked into this whole thing and I have tried to see both sides as fairly as I can and I am still not convinced that this is a problem we can do much about. I think getting off of fossil fuels would be a wonderful thing, but I also think that many politicians and would be profiteers have corrupted the debate.

  • alan haigh
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Greg, you should do a bit more research on the consensus issue and you should also read up a bit on the science of polling. Your arguments are typical of politicians on the wrong side of a poll.

    What makes you think that if the polls were mistaken big oil and big coal wouldn't finance their own polls, anyway? There are clear records of financing from these interests to debunk the climate scientists.

    What makes you think that the real incentive in this debate is for most people, businesses and countries to deny the legitimacy of climate research and interpretation? No one wants to invest in technology they don't need. We all would rather use the cheapest energy available.

    In what other country is this even a debate? Only Americans seem so susceptible to this kind of really obvious corporate propaganda.

    I just can't understand why Americans tend to have such an inflated idea of the exceptional power of their own "common sense" and such a deflated sense of the importance of study and training.

  • Andrew7a
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Bamboo - I have no children. I like to think I'm a bit young for those yet - especially given the recession, which has derailed a lot of the ambitions and plans people my age had when they graduated from college (in 2008).

    Harvestman, yes, sadly in public discourse, people seem to regard an argument based on feelings to be just as valid as one based on careful reasoning. I think you'll identify with this quote from Isaac Asimov: "“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

    Several people here cite the human population as the elephant in the room when it comes to climate change. For my part, I'm not so sure it's entirely clear cut, although I don't take a strong position on this issue because I haven't done a whole lot of research on it. I'll present the argument that human population isn't a big deal though - although I'm not endorsing it.

    The human impact on the environment with regard to climate change is an increasing function of affluence in our time because affluence equates to greater consumption of energy, and the bulk of the energy we consume comes from fossil fuels. The greatest contribution to climate change has been made by developed nations, with their small proportions of global population, not developing nations, where most of humanity live.

    I'm not so sure the above argument, which I think I've summarized reasonably accurately, is entirely correct. I will concede though that if we manage to produce the energy our population demands from non-fossil fuel sources, we will be able to support our population, or even one greater than we currently have, without running the risk of altering the climate with greenhouse gasses. We probably would continue to threaten life on earth in other ways though, principally through habitat destruction as we make room for agriculture to feed ourselves.

  • Andrew7a
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "Sea levels have risen at 1.7 mm last year same as they have every year for the past century."

    OK, not true. Sea levels rose at a pace of about 3.3 mm/yr from 1993 to 2009. The figure 1.7mm/yr is the 1950-2009 century average. This means that sea levels are rising, which we expect from global warming, and they're rising at an increasing rate, which we also expect from global warming.

    Also, it's not true that sea levels have been rising century after century. Sediment records show that sea level has been stable for the past 2500-3000 years. The consistent rise we're now seeing is a relatively recent phenomenon.

  • Greg
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Could you please site references on how the oil and coal companies have colluded the evidence.
    Personally I don't think the fossil fuel industry is scared about cap and trade. There are no energy alternatives that can compete with oil and coal and they know this. So when cap and trade goes into effect efficiency of cars, homes etc will increase. You would think that this is a good thing but the reality of it is you are still going to be dependent on fossil fuels that will be around even longer because society will move from gulping oil to sipping it.
    Also who is to say that big oil wont make money through carbon trading themselves? Basically at the bottom of the pile you are going to pay more for less. While people like Al Gore and organizations like the UN will make a killing off of those taxes. It just so happens they are also the biggest proponents of AGW. Go figure.

    Last you know nothing of my study or education level, and to say that as an American I have an "inflated idea of my own common sense" is nothing more than an Ad hominem attack. I was pointing out the fact that the climate record versus the carbon dioxide levels doesn't correlate in the long term and has recently stopped correlating. You have to decide on what way you are going to take this as the proponents of AGW are conveniently silent.
    True politicians may be on the wrong side of the poll but that doesn't mean that if the other guy gets elected that this represents an actual consensus of the population. It could be that most people simply didn't vote, and the wrong guy won.

    This post was edited by gregkdc1 on Thu, Nov 7, 13 at 16:23

  • alan haigh
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I don't question your level of education (you are obviously a highly articulate lawyer for a guilty client), just that if you want to understand what's happening with the climate ask climate scientists and if you don't like what they have to say don't blame it on some baseless conspiracy theory. Legitimate dissent will be ironed out by people who are actually qualified to understand the science. When in the history of science has this not been the case- where it required the efforts of the laiety to set those scientists straight? When has something at all similar ever happened where the entire global community of a major field after doing exhaustive research settled on a mistaken theory of this magnitude?

    Now you suggest that big energy might want a carbon tax for their own profit (that makes sense to you?) but before you make me go over the internet to prove to you the existence of corporate funding for the skeptic side please check the Wikipedia discussion of this controversy and it will lead you to known sources of funding. There is no controversy about this, so please at least check around for yourself.

    These talks go round on the internet but only here in the U.S is the science widely questioned. What is your conspiracy theory for why the rest of the industrialized world is so accepting of the expensive and inconvenient reality of human caused global warming? I was listening to the conservative prime minister of Australia talking about it the other day on radio.

    The powers that be don't need a goddam carbon tax to marshal the wealth of the world into their portfolios- they seem to be doing quite well without it- why on earth would they bother.

    This idea of a conspiracy to reap the rewards of a carbon tax just seems completely silly to me. Try to actually imagine a global plan like this where not a single whistle blower got hold of an e-mail of people pushing for something like this. Try to actually create a scenario in your mind where this would be possible. Give me some historic examples of similar global conspiracies that were later revealed.

  • alan haigh
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    A couple of clicks and I found this. You can check their sources, which they list.

    Here is a link that might be useful: funding

  • swampsnaggs
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    The following is quoted from a u.s. senate blog:

    James Spann, a meteorologist certified by the American Meteorological Society, suggests scientific objectively is being compromised by the massive money flow to proponents of man-made climate fears.

    "Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story," Spann wrote on January 18, 2007. "Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab," Spann added.

    Atmospheric physicist Dr. Fred Singer, co-author of the book "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years," also detailed the extensive financing machine the proponents of man-made global warming enjoy.

    "Tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly from the global warming scare" at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams," Singer explained on June 30, 2007

    Here is a link that might be useful: un climate summit

  • Greg
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Havestman well said, I am checking the link right now. I will get back to you in a bit. I'm no layer but my brother is maybe it runs in the family. :)

  • sf_rhino
    Original Author
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Greg, two things about the graphs you linked to. First, did you realize that the x-axes are reversed? I'd hardly say there is no correlation between the two. Both have minima at 25 and 300 MYA and maxima at around 100, 250, 400, and 500 MYA. That said, CO2 levels are not the only factor that drive changes in the climate (as people on both sides of the issue will tell you). Glaciation due to changes in the Earths orbit, increased/decreased volcanic activity, bombardment by meteorites, solar cycles, etc all influence the climate. Thus it is possible to have cold periods with high CO2 and warm periods with low CO2.

    "Last I am not convinced that there is much of a consensus with scientists. ... The majority of scientist usually 70-80% never even respond to the survey! Probably because they didn't have much of an opinion about it one way or the other.."

    I know that the following is just anecdotal evidence which I hate to use; but as a scientist that moves in life sciences, computer sciences, engineering, chemistry, and physics/astrophysics circles I would say the consensus is at least 95%. The scientists that I have met that do not agree with the consensus are usually just on the fence or are playing the devil's advocate, not in actual disagreement.

    It would be rare to find a scientist that "didn't have much of an opinion" on any scientific topic. We all have opinions and like to debate. Low survey response rates or simplicity of the questions is probably a function of the fact that it isn't really a contested issue for most of us. When everyone agrees, there isn't much fun in debating the subject.

  • Andrew7a
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Energy companies funding studies with the express purpose of trying to cast doubt on global warming is exactly like the pseudoscience tobacco companies funded for decades when they wanted the public to feel unsure about the link between smoking and lung cancer.

    One thing to remember: looking at where someone's funding comes from is just a proxy - whose reliability is unknown and can only be guessed at - for evaluating the quality of someone's work and the strength of their conclusions. The fact that someone's funding may have come from an oil company may or may not mean their work is biased or flawed. Only evaluating a study on its merits will provide a meaningful verdict. And in fact, science operates by providing meaningful verdicts in this manner all the time. Climate scientists are unconvinced by studies disputing the existence of MMGW because the studies are either flawed, or make a case that is too weak to overturn the huge body of evidence pointing to MMGW.

    (And of course, humans are flawed, and no human system is perfect. Never the less, science represents the best system we imperfect beings have of ascertaining the truth.)

  • swampsnaggs
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Skeptical quotes of University of London’s emeritus professor of biogeography Philip Stott:

    "What we see in this is an enormous danger for politicians in terms of their hypocrisy. I’m not going to say anything about Al Gore and his house. [LAUGHTER] But it is a very serious point."

    "In the early 20th century, 95% of scientists believe in eugenics. [LAUGHTER] Science does not progress by consensus, it progresses by falsification and by what we call paradigm shifts."

    "The first Earth Day in America claimed the following, that because of global cooling, the population of America would have collapsed to 22 million by the year 2000. And of the average calorie intake of the average American would be wait for this, 2,400 calories, would good it were. [LAUGHTER] It’s nonsense and very dangerous. And what we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes."

    "Angela Merkel the German chancellor, my own good prime minister (Tony Blair) for whom I voted -- let me emphasize, arguing in public two weeks ago as to who in Annie get the gun style could produce the best temperature. ‘I could do two degrees C said Angela.’ ‘No, I could only do three said Tony.’ [LAUGHTER] Stand back a minute, those are politicians, telling you that they can control climate to a degree Celsius.”

    “And can I remind everybody that IPCC that we keep talking about, very honestly admits that we know very little about 80% of the factors behind climate change. Well let’s use an engineer; I don’t think I’d want to cross Brooklyn Bridge if it were built by an engineer who only understood 80% of the forces on that bridge. [LAUGHTER]”

    Skeptical quotes of MIT’s Professor of Atmospheric Science Richard Lindzen:

    "Now, much of the current alarm, I would suggest, is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate."

    "The impact on temperature per unit carbon dioxide actually goes down, not up, with increasing CO2. The role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is not directly related to the emissions rate or even CO2 levels, which is what the legislation is hitting on, but rather to the impact of these gases on the greenhouse effect."

    "The real signature of greenhouse warming is not surface temperature but temperature in the middle of the troposphere, about five kilometers. And that is going up even slower than the temperature at the surface."

    Here is a link that might be useful: NYC debate

  • Greg
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Look at this it appears the the Koch brothers are playing both sides of AGW.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/05/22/how-big-oil-benefits-from-global-warming-alarmism/

    About the world wide effort to enforce a carbon tax it is not as much about the money as it is a means for the UN to directly tax corporations/people versus relying on donations from member states. I don't see it as a coincidence that the UN is one of if not the biggest pedlars of AGW. Do I have proof of this? Of course not this is just what my gut feeling is telling me and it seems to make sense for the reasons given in my previous post.
    As for scientist going along with it I think that most of them along with myself agree that the global population is a huge concern and limiting carbon emissions is a round about way of limiting the population. Less carbon means less people but nobody wants to be the bad guy by directly limiting population growth. Instead society will adapt more stringent carbon guidelines that will make it more expensive to have children. I think many if them are supporting the cause because of its side effects and might not really have an opinion as to how valid the science is.
    I will keep reading and studying AGW but so fare I honestly can't get off of the fence as I see too many contradictions. Most of them from parties on either side trying to make a buck. The irony of it all is that I agree with getting off of fossil fuels; however I don't think we will get that. Instead in our world of greed and corruption we will probably get the worst possible outcome. More fossil fuels with more taxes on them, and nothing being done to actually move humanity forward.

    P.S. Sorry to be such a downer, I need a beer now. Harvest you buying?

  • sf_rhino
    Original Author
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Swamps, I just checked out James Spann. You might want to not quote from people whose credentials you haven't evaluated.

    He is not a meteorologist, as in a scientist that studies meteorology. He is a broadcast meteorologist--hired by TV and radio stations to predict the weather. He was originally a sports anchor and eventually transitioned to become a weatherman. He completed a certificate program (not a degree program) in meteorology in order to get a seal of approval from the AMS. To get the certification you basically submit a video and then there is "a 100-question multiple choice open-book examination as part of the evaluation process. The questions on the exam cover many aspects of the science of meteorology, forecasting and related principles. Applicants must answer at least 75 of the questions correctly before being awarded the CBM Seal."

    Spann made the comments you quoted in response to a letter by Heidi Cullen saying that climate change opponents should not be granted the AMS seal (I disagree with her on this, btw). Heidi Cullen is a climate expert and former climates scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. She has a doctorate in climatology and atmospheric dynamics.

    Just looking at their credentials, I will tell you that given no other information about them I would be inclined to take Cullen's word over Spann's. I am not being an educational elitist, just respecting the fact that one person is scientifically trained in the discipline while the other is not.

  • Ernie
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "About the world wide effort to enforce a carbon tax it is not as much about the money as it is a means for the UN to directly tax corporations/people versus relying on donations from member states."

    Where does this come from, Greg? While I'm aware that the UN has urged nations to implement carbon taxes, I'm not aware of any means by which the UN can directly impose taxes itself.

  • swampsnaggs
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Scandals:

    Climategate

    Glaciergate

    Amazongate

    Africagate

    Etc, summarized in this article

    Here is a link that might be useful: global warming alarmism

  • Greg
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago
  • Andrew7a
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    In a 2009 paper, authors Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee identified five characteristics common to scientific denialism. They are: conspiracy theories, fake experts, cherry picking, impossible expectations of what research can deliver, and
    misrepresentation and logical fallacies. To their list I'd add outright fabrication. Even though they're closely related to conspiracy theories, since they seem to be an essential tool of denialists, I think I might also mention fake scandals.

    Here is a link that might be useful: Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond?

  • Ernie
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thanks, Greg. I read the linked story as well as the document that contains the carbon tax proposal (World Economic and Social Survey 2012: In Search of New Development Finance), and, while it's worth noting that the carbon tax wouldn't actually be collected by the UN (it would be "collected by national authorities, but earmarked for international cooperation"), the end result would be much the same -- more funding for the UN and its global initiatives.

  • Andrew7a
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Deleted duplicate message

    This post was edited by Andrew7a on Thu, Nov 7, 13 at 21:16

  • sf_rhino
    Original Author
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Greg,
    "I will keep reading and studying AGW but so fare I honestly can't get off of the fence as I see too many contradictions."

    I think that is a totally fine position. Much like Mike's stance (not saying no, just asking if it is really a bad thing/as bad as it is portrayed). You aren't putting your head in the sand; you are just being skeptical. I do want to reiterate HM's point from the Union of Concerned Scientists that there are fewer contradictions than you might think. Much of the confusion on the matter is intentionally caused by some groups on the anti side of the issue.

    Swamps, are you just googling 'quotes against climate change'? That blog post is by Marc Moreno in 2007. Moreno is the guy that started the whole 'swiftboating' falsifications about John Kerry. In 2012 Media Matters named him "Climate Change Misinformer of the Year."

    Philip Stott may sound like he has good credentials but he is not an expert in climatology or dynamics. Biogeography is the study of the distribution of animal and plant life around the planet. He has never produced a scholarly, peer-reviewed, or scientific article on climate sciences. While I'm sure he good at what he does, he should not be taken as an expert in that field.

    Lindzen is an interesting character. Your quotes by him are both out of date and out of context. Here is something from an NYT interview of him from last year:
    '"Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." However, he believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming. Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001, and offered more support in a 2009 paper, but today "most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited" according to the Times article. Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained "some stupid mistakes" in his handling of the satellite data. "It was just embarrassing," he said in the Times interview.'

  • alan haigh
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I do find this amusing, but in the end, SF, you can dispute and try to enlighten, but once an issue enters the emotional realm of politics it is like arguing religion. I don't think a single participant here has altered the views they had going into the discussion.

    Fence sitters remain on the fence and if we do end up with a catastrophe from inaction they will be likely to blame the out and out denialists (or skeptics) and feel they were perfectly reasonable on the matter. The skeptics will blame the catastrophe on natural events and say scientists who disagree are on the take, somehow.

    If, in my lifetime, it turns out the fears were exaggerated, I'll blame the scientists, I guess. I will be very glad they were wrong, of course

    I believe that unless there is a huge world economic upswing nothing meaningful will be done to reverse output of CO2, so perhaps I will live long enough to see this issue resolved for all except the absolute deniers of science based reasoning.

  • PRO
    Granite City Services
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    A note to all the fence sitters:

    The models which are used to predict and validate the global warming scenario are known to be inaccurate as evidenced by the substantially lower actual warming than what has actually occurrred. It will be decades or even centuries before mankind has models sophisticated enough to accurately predict the effect on climate of a single variable like CO2.

    The alarmists want to peg all the warming to CO2 when they have no sound basis for doing so. There is certainly a positive correlation between CO2 levels and global temps if one simply looks at historical climate data but one must also note that the earth has been MUCH warmer in the past before any CO2 from humanity.

    With all that said I still think it's a bad idea to dump ever increasing amount of gasses into the atmosphere we all need to live so efforts toward the reduction of burning fossil fuels are still worthwhile. However, we spent the last 200+ years building a world economy based on fossil fuels and it'll take many decades to move away from that.

    I also think putting governments in control of the effort is a certain prescription for failure.

  • sf_rhino
    Original Author
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I agree that none of us are necessarily changing each others views. But I'd like to think that on both sides we are exposing each other to why we take one stance or another.

    I find it pretty interesting/informing to read the links for the anti side of the argument, not because I'm being smug or trying to look down on that position, but because I really want to understand where people on the opposite side of the issue are coming from.

    Someone said it several posts back, but for the most part this issue will shake out in the next 10-15 years as we gather more data. I just want people to take it out of the emotional realm and evaluate the science based on merit, not on propaganda. I'm also pretty amazed by the general distrust of the scientific community. I googled "scientists are" and the auto-complete gives: liars, atheists, idiots, liberals, experimenting with a kind of gun (I don't get that last one).

    I also am very concerned w/overpopulation but I don't think carbon emissions are a proxy for population growth, more for consumption. CO2 production per capita doesn't really track to birth rates. China is #162 and the USA is #147 in birth rates; whereas we are #1 and #2 in terms of carbon emissions (per capita as of 2009 we are #55 & #12; however this includes many small countries).

    I am equally as bothered by the alarmists that treat the issue as a religion as I am for the flat out deniers. If you base your stance on facts and evidence (numbers, not the opinion statements of others) then you are legitimately furthering the discussion. If the current science has the wrong conclusions, then it should be changed as more data comes to light. If the current conclusions continue to be supported by future data, then I hope more people will accept it.

  • Andrew7a
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Here's the global temperature anomaly (land + sea surface) starting from 1880. The black line is the global mean for each year, the green line is the 30 year moving average, blue is the 10 year moving average, red is the 5 year moving average. When you don't cherry pick the data, the "pause" in surface warming doesn't look so impressive or meaningful. The 5 year moving average is just bumping against the 10 year moving average, and both moving averages are way (.17C) above the 30 year moving average.

    Here is a link that might be useful: Source

  • Andrew7a
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Here's how denialist websites like to cherry pick the above chart to show what they want people to believe.

    I just pick the data points that I like, pick a trend indicator that points the right way, use a more recent, warmer base period to make it seem like very little warming has actually occurred, and then, Behold! Global warming is over! The planet's actually getting cooler! (In fact, I might actually want to use monthly anomalies to make it less obvious how little data I'm actually working with.)

  • Andrew7a
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Ah, even better. I used the monthly anomalies. Lots more data points - it looks much more comprehensive. And it shows a slight cooling trend. Cherry picked to perfection, I think. (Sorry, I know it's hard to see - but I think you get the idea.)

  • swampsnaggs
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    From the included link URL:

    Hmmm, is there some giant, self-luminous ball of burning gas with a mass more than 300,000 times that of Earth and a core temperature of more than 20-million degrees Celsius, that for the past century or more has been unusually active and powerful? Is there something like that around which they all revolve that could be causing this multi-globe warming? Naw!

    Here is a link that might be useful: Solar warming

  • alan haigh
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    SF, I don't think you are thinking through the population issue. China is selling products to people all over the globe- not to polar bears. More people, more customers, more factories, more CO2.

    The U.S. is ahead of the rest of the world in consumption, of course, but we are the proselitizers of a life style much of the rest of the world is rushing to emulate. If they'd follow the lead of the citizens of Bangladesh the earth could safely absorb a much higher human population.

    Consider the global destruction of rainforest going on. Much of it can be directly tied to unlimited human encroachment due to our exploding population, obviously reducing the safe conversion of CO2.

    The connection between all human pollution is directly tied to population even if it is not distributed in an equal per capita ratio- you just have to follow the data a little further.

  • sf_rhino
    Original Author
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I take your point. I guess what I was thinking is that in my mind overpopulation is it's own animal. Even if we move to being totally carbon neutral, get a handle on climate change, and stop general pollution; overpopulation will still be a problem. Water, food, space, etc. are limiting (not to mention disease). We may get more efficient at using these things, and maybe unlimited clean energy will solve a lot of the problems with limited water/food/etc, but there is some critical number of people we'll be able to reasonably fit on the planet.

  • Andrew7a
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Swampsnaggs, wouldn't climate scientists, past and present, be almost criminally stupid if thousands upon thousands of them had devoted their lives to understanding Earth's climate, and not one of them had ever stopped to consider that something as obvious as the sun might have some role to play in climate change? The sun's energy drives almost every climatological process on earth, after all. I mean, that would be really, really stupid of them if they somehow managed to completely overlook the sun, wouldn't it?

    Turns out they're not stupid, and the sun was the first thing they thought of as a possible explanation for global warming. To investigate that possibility, they began scrutinizing the sun, carefully measuring its output for decades. All that measuring led to two important discoveries. First, the sun's output waxes and wanes on a cyclical basis. Second, the sun isn't responsible for global warming. Why? A major tipoff turned out to be the fact that while our climate has been warming rapidly these past 35 years, solar output has been gradually falling, exerting a cooling effect. So if our oceans and atmosphere are warming while the sun has been cooling, it ain't the sun what done it.

    There are other reasons climate scientists know the sun isn't responsible for driving global warming too. I'll link you to them below. But first...

    I find it really interesting that you believe that global warming is going on on other planets. On one hand, you don't think earthbound scientists are competent enough to understand our own planet's climate, and you also don't seem to trust them enough to tell you the truth about what they don't understand because you're convinced they're part of a conspiracy to take your money and freedom away. But you apparently do think it's plausible that they're able to understand the climates of planets tens to hundreds of millions of miles away, even though they have next to no data on them, and you're apparently happy to accept as truthful whatever claims they might make about the changes these alien climates are undergoing. You even think it's plausible that these conspiratorial scientists would actually tell you other planets are warming, even though in doing so they'd be undermining the big lie you say they're trying to put over on everyone in a glaringly obvious way.

    Don't you think you're trying to have it both ways, maybe just a little bit?

    Here is a link that might be useful: Sun & Climate

  • Andrew7a
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Harvestman and SF, as you know, when it comes to global warming, the size of the human population is problematic because as the many billions of people in the developing world strive to improve their quality of life, they're going to consume more and more energy, and currently that primarily means burning more and more fossil fuels. But it needn't necessarily mean that. As I've said before, we can generate nuclear power cleanly and safely using thorium, and we have enough thorium on this planet to provide abundant energy for everyone for at least the next 4,000 years. Almost everything you can think of that improves our lives that currently involves fossil fuels could be powered directly or indirectly from thorium-derived nuclear energy. This includes, among other things, the synthesis of fertilizers, the creation of liquid fuels using carbon taken straight out of the atmosphere, electricity to run our cars, and so much more.

    The prospect of a huge human population might proove detrimental to life on this planet for other reasons though. Destruction of wilderness and habitat fragmentation are two threats even a carbon-neutral humanity could easily continue to pose to the web of life that supports us.

    Have a look at the video in the link below. I really think this is one of the best hopes we have of avoiding the nastier global warming scenarios. People generally do want to protect our environment, but apparently not enough to make many meaningful sacrifices to their high-energy lifestyles. Abundant, clean, safe nuclear power would render it unnecessary for people to choose between preserving the climate and pursuing an ever-increasing standard of living.

    Here is a link that might be useful: Power from Thorium

  • alan haigh
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Nuclear power may have created a premature rejection by environmentalists because of the clear dangers of accidents which can create instant and almost irreversible environmental catastrophe. The technology has to be almost perfect to be acceptable.

    I've always been concerned about the issue of radioactive waste, which at this time, can only be stored, maintaining its dangerous form for centuries, as I understand it. These storage sites rely on the seismic stability of the sites themselves which is never absolutely secure, wherever they are constructed. People in the areas are likely to always object to having these sites in their backyards.

    I didn't read your link and have only a sketchy idea of what I'm talking about, but I believe it represents the most common concerns about switching to nuclear power.

    Again, I consider this a question for scientists to hash out and once a general consensus is reached the public can pressure politicians to follow the advice that seems most reasonable. That's how it would work in an ideal world where propaganda and hidden agendas didn't muddy the waters.

    It is frustrating to live in a time where technology could assure a very comfortable and interesting life for most every citizen if we were collectively organized to serve such a purpose. Human nature doesn't seem to render such an outcome possible even as that same nature leads us to this tantalizing potential.

  • drew51 SE MI Z5b/6a
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    My thoughts are that many of you are idealists, and I'm more a realist. What we have now is not going to change.
    I'll never believe the falsehoods presented are factual.
    My science training is too deep. It's about money not the environment. The cronyism going on today is worse than ever. I have never seen such favoritism, such corruption before. Obama is doing what Nixon always wanted to do, but never pulled it off.
    We have to rely on ourselves, our government is down right broke. How they can get away with borrowing money from themselves really floors me, some day that bubble will burst.
    To explain the federal reserve is borrowing money to the government as most countries will no longer buy our bonds. The federal reserve is independent, sort of, like the post office is independent, same thing. Better get your boots out, as it is thick around here, and soon will not work.
    Our grand kids will be paying this debt off, well unless we default, and it looks like we have to. I wish they would just do it now and get it over with. The federal reserve just prints more money out and that will not work forever.
    In 1960 1 oz of gold would buy about 12 barrels of oil. Today 1 oz of gold will buy about 12 barrels of oil. What's changed? How much the dollar is worth, as when they print more, the value decreases. So now you know who really raised the price of gas. The price of oil has not changed, the buying power of the dollar sure has though, and as long as we keep borrowing money from ourselves, this will continue. We are in the worst times ever in this country. It's just the start, the next 50 years are going to put all other past problems to shame. Our government has no way to pay it's bills. All services will have to shut down. Our credit will soon be no good. Yet now people expect the government to pay for healthcare. Ha! What a joke!

  • alan haigh
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Sorry Drew, but you need to study economics before you are entitled to preach it.

    We do keep printing more money and the rest of the world keeps acting as if the money is real. If the rest of the world falls for this scam we should count our blessings. Runaway Inflation hasn't happened as predicted because the dollar is still king. Who cares about bonds when we can still buy what we want from any country on the planet with our funny money?

    I only wish the money was being used to invest in our future instead of sustaining the bloated American lifestyle and the obscene wealth of plutocrats.

    On climate change, every scientific issue you raised was refuted and you simply ignored that and went on to another claim. You backed your position by outliers who admit to being financed by the Koch Bros. and Exon Mobile while you rail that your enemies are on the take.

    Everyone believes they are the realists in any political argument (and probably every mental asylum).

    "My science training is just too deep". What does that mean? You've been debating with at least one person with much more academic background in science as far as I can tell, although you haven't presented your specific credentials. That is such a silly statement in the context of so many top scientists disagreeing with your positions.

    Nixon attempted what Obama is succeeding at? That is a novel concept.

    I'm really sorry that you feel we are "in the worst times in this country". I certainly am a lot more comfortable than the knowable generations that preceded my parents. These are wonderful times, but, like you, I worry for the future. My life has been great (relatively speaking) but I fear my son and grandson may have a different and much more challenging reality in their futures.

  • Ernie
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "Nixon attempted what Obama is succeeding at?"

    My guess is that he's referring to the fact that "Nixon proposed, in essence, today’s Affordable Care Act" (as you're probably already aware, hm). Presumably, since Nixon was a crook...well...you know.

  • Ernie
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    If you're looking for a good example of a myth that's been manufactured and perpetuated by a select group of people for their own personal ends (which, of course, is the position that many skeptics take with respect to climate change), then you'd be hard pressed to find a better one than the myth that the US is in the midst of a debt crisis.

    This post was edited by shazaam on Sat, Nov 9, 13 at 19:18

  • Andrew7a
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Harvestman, you certainly do highlight the public's perception of the dangers of nuclear power. How accurate those perceptions are is an entirely separate matter.

    In the entire history of the nuclear power industry, there have been three major accidents: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. Of those three, only Chernobyl resulted in fatalaties and detectable public health problems. According to UN estimates, to date the Chernobyl accident has resulted in 59 deaths among plant staff and cleanup crew, and about 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer with a survival rate of 99%, for a total of 119. For the entire nuclear industry. Even the grimmest estimates, which don't appear to stand up to scrutiny, that claim that the true death toll is in the thousands, still pale in comparison to the estimates of the deaths caused directly and indirectly from coal fired power plants. This mode of power production, which the public perceives to be safe, produces 13,000 excess fatalities every year in the US alone. Similar estimates for the rest of the world (which I'll hunt down if you'd like) range into the millions.

    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/nuclear-facilities

    What irreversible environmental catastrophe has the worst nuclear accident in history produced? Google "Chernobyl wildlife" and see what you find. It would seem that the exclusion zone is a sanctuary for wildlife that are thriving by any measure.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120411084107.htm
    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/wildlife_in_chernobyl_debate_over_mutations_and_populations_of_plants_and.html

    All of this is sort of irrelevant when you're considering nuclear energy from liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTR), because this method of power generation is completely different from the nuclear technology we use today. LFTRs physically cannot melt down because in order to operate, the fuel already has to be molten. They are extremely efficient too. I'll chase down the source, but I saw a lecture on this topic, and the presenter showed three standard sized shipping containers and explained that all the thorium fuel we'd need to power the entire US for a year would fit in those shipping containers, and so would the by-products it would produce. Those by-products wouldn't entirely waste either - many of them have uses in a wide number of applications, including medicine.

    You might wonder why we don't already generate power this way. Working models of this reactor were built in the US in the 1960s and early 1970s. Funding for the program to develop the technology was canceled under the Nixon administration because nuclear power from Thorium is a terrible way to try to produce weapons-grade fissile material, and at the time, it was determined that commercial nuclear power generation needed to work synergistically with our nuclear weapons industry. The nuclear power industry we have today is a legacy of the cold war. In a sense, we don't have nuclear power from thorium because it's too safe.

    This is really exciting technology and I urge you to take a look a the link I included in a previous post. It is a link to a 5 minute video put together by a nuclear engineer talking about the virtues of this form of power generation.

    (By the way, I have absolutely no connection whatsoever to the nuclear industry.)

    Here is a link that might be useful: WHO: True Scale of Chernobyl Accident

  • swampsnaggs
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    some text cut from the following link:

    "The government’s chief scientific officer, Sir David King, later declared that climate change was “more serious even than the threat of terrorism” in terms of the number of lives that could be lost. Such language is never used about the cold, which kills at least 10 times as many people every winter. Before long, every political party had signed up to the green agenda.

    Since Sir David’s exhortations, some 250,000 Brits have died from the cold, and 10,000 from the heat. It is horribly clear that we have been focusing on the wrong enemy. Instead of making sure energy was affordable, ministers have been trying to make it more expensive, with carbon price floors and emissions trading schemes. Fuel prices have doubled over seven years, forcing millions to choose between heat and food ...."

    Here is a link that might be useful: Warming?

  • alan haigh
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Yes, Andrew, I was summarizing the objections that are in the public realm. This is not an issue I've done much reading about and I am not personally opposed to the consideration of the expansion of nuclear energy.

    You didn't mention the issue of spent fuel rods (I think it is), and I find your statistics about Chernobyl surprising. When I have time I'll check it out and see if you are quoting accepted fact that relates the full picture. I have read that it is a rather large tract of land that is no longer habitable including a lot of former farm land, but the details have long since fallen through the grey cracks.

  • Andrew7a
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Swampsnaggs, the point you're making is another red herring. Even if the planet were to warm by 5 degrees celsius (9 degrees fahrenheit), it will still be cold enough in places all over the earth for people to die of exposure.

    The reason global warming has the potential to be catastrophic has nothing to do with temperatures at which humans are physically comfortable. It has the potential to be catastrophic because of the way it will change weather patterns, destroy and/or shift habitats, cause agricultural upheaval, cause sea level rises that inundate coastal cities, and produce extinctions. Death by heat exhaustion ranks near the bottom of the list of dangers presented by global warming.

    Oh, and another thing. I can tell you, because it's true and because I've lived there, that the UK is a nation that doesn't experience hot weather. Their idea of a heat wave is temperatures in the low to mid 80s. Temperatures in the low 90s make sensational news. If you're not used to it, that kind of heat can be uncomfortable, but it isn't deadly except to the most frail members of the population. Hypothermia, which can kill, can occur at air temperatures as high as the 60s. Water temperatures of 50 degrees can induce hypothermia. The UK is colder than this most of the time - and it's damp too. In a nation like this, of course you're going to have far more cold-related fatalities than heat related fatalities. Making this argument would be like saying that global warming isn't a problem because no one dies from the heat in Greenland, but lots of people there die from the cold.

  • Andrew7a
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Harvestman, I didn't mention spent rods of nuclear fuel (which are almost entirely unburned fuel) because liquid fluoride thorium reactors don't use fuel rods. In terms of current nuclear power production, what to do with nuclear waste is really a political problem because of public fear, rather than a public health problem or an engineering problem. Fortunately, LFTRs could actually make this problem largely disappear because they can actually burn the nuclear waste the industry has generated thus far.

    You know who else found the statistics about Chernobyl surprising? Scientists. They had been predicting death tolls in the tens of thousands and the fallout region to be a nuclear wasteland.

    I saw an interesting BBC documentary about radiation I'll provide the link for. It's about an hour long. Worth watching if you've got the time. Apparently scientists have long assumed, for lack of evidence, that the relationship between risk of health problems and radiation dose was linear. It seems that's actually not the case. The curve seems to be J shaped, not / shaped.

    The video relates to the evidence about the safety of today's nuclear technology. I want to stress though that the nuclear technology I'm talking about is completely different - safer, cleaner, and for several reasons it will almost certainly be far cheaper too.

    Nuclear power, and radiation in general, is an issue environmentalists tend to get very emotional about. I actually find it hard to talk to most of them about this subject because, as with out global warming denying friends, they make their judgment based on their prejudices and their feelings, not the evidence or the science. I think though that eventually, environmentalists are going to come around to accepting that nuclear power is the best option currently on the table.

    Here is a link that might be useful: BBC Horizon - Fukushima: Is Nuclear Power Safe?

  • Andrew7a
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Harvestman, here is a link to the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation's assessment of the effects of the Chernobyl accident.

    Here is an article that gives the most comprehensive overview of the science going on in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone that I've read so far: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/ff_chernobyl/all/

    And a few more relevant links:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/opinion/fear-vs-radiation-the-mismatch.html
    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/radioactive-wolves/full-episode/7190/
    http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter5.html

    Another point worth mentioning is that, according to nuclear engineers, the design of the reactor at Chernobyl is antiquated. They say looking at it is sort of like looking at the Wright Brother's flyer. It works, but we have much better designs today.

    Again this is a side issue. LFTR technology is totally different and has virtually none of the potential problems associated with it that current nuclear technology does.

    Here is a link that might be useful: UNSCEAR Assessment of the Chernobyl Accident

    This post was edited by Andrew7a on Sun, Nov 10, 13 at 2:33

  • alan haigh
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thanks for the links, but is there a reason you haven't responded to the issue of storing nuclear waste? Maybe that's covered in one of the links.

    I was aware of the antiquity issue as it was all over the media after the Japanese accident. Of course, latest technology is only as flawed as its usage reveals.

    I live about 20 miles from an old style nuclear power plant that does seem excessively dangerous given its close proximity to NYC- just the fact if was built in the most densely populated area in the U.S.

    I believe I've read that it is not as dangerous as the Japanese model but it is telling that in a very liberal state where the majority as well as the governor himself would like to shut it down it continues to operate. That in itself is a strong reason for being very cautious about proceeding on the path of more nuclear power.

  • alan haigh
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Andrew, here is what I found after a very short search. Now I must assess who funds the Union of Concerned Scientists.

    There are billions on the line here so we must remain skeptical, right?

    Here is a link that might be useful: nuclear power and global warming