Global warming discussion III

[CapelDodger]

Much of world's fossil fuel reserve must stay buried to prevent climate change, study says
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...stay-buried-prevent-climate-change-study-says

Vast amounts of oil in the Middle East, coal in the US, Australia and China and many other fossil fuel reserves will have to be left in the ground to prevent dangerous climate change, according to the first analysis to identify which existing reserves cannot be burned.

Once the idea of the carbon budget was taken up it always going to come to this.

The new work reveals the profound geopolitical and economic implications of tackling global warming for both countries and major companies that are reliant on fossil fuel wealth.

I rather doubt one work could reveal all that.

If governments actually do adopt policies to keep to 2C then that fossil fuel will not be used - there's no way to reconcile the two. That whole trade is going to be taken out of the global economic system, with nasty effects for some. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is just a godforsaken sandpit without the oil trade.

I think the major economies can handle it easily enough but there'll be difficult times for those on the margins dependent on fossil-fuel exports to pay their way.

 

[Trakar]

...If governments actually do adopt policies to keep to 2C then that fossil fuel will not be used - there's no way to reconcile the two. That whole trade is going to be taken out of the global economic system, with nasty effects for some. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is just a godforsaken sandpit without the oil trade.

I think the major economies can handle it easily enough but there'll be difficult times for those on the margins dependent on fossil-fuel exports to pay their way.

That's been the primary reason for obfuscation and delay by the fossil fuels industries over the last couple of decades.

 

[macdoc]

Notably the idjits in charge of policy for Australia and Canada....

Instead of developing manufacturing and using the mineral wealth wisely like Norway, they want to step and fetchit to their fossil fool masters.

 

[riptor]

Sigh.

Public school students in West Virginia are about to get a dose of climate denial mixed in with their science education, and all because one Board of Education member doesn’t believe in man-made climate change.

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/05/wes...ds/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

I am acquainted with the individual doing this, we are from the same town. He is a former IT guy and now owns a shop that works on and sells classic cars. The West Virginia Board of Education is going to take a second look at this next week, but frankly I am not optimistic that they will side with science. I was going to send a letter to the editor about this, and any tips would be great.

http://www.chron.com/news/science/article/W-Va-lessons-on-climate-change-to-get-2nd-look-6001084.php

 

[Trakar]

Sigh.



http://www.salon.com/2015/01/05/wes...ds/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

I am acquainted with the individual doing this, we are from the same town. He is a former IT guy and now owns a shop that works on and sells classic cars. The West Virginia Board of Education is going to take a second look at this next week, but frankly I am not optimistic that they will side with science. I was going to send a letter to the editor about this, and any tips would be great.

http://www.chron.com/news/science/article/W-Va-lessons-on-climate-change-to-get-2nd-look-6001084.php

What is the composition of the rest of the school board? (professional/educational background)

 

[CapelDodger]

Sigh.



http://www.salon.com/2015/01/05/wes...ds/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Indeed sigh-worthy.

The before-and-after examples there would make an excellent study in an English class and teach some critical thinking at the same time.

I was going to send a letter to the editor about this, and any tips would be great.

I've not a clue what plays well in West Virginia, and I think I'd like to keep it that way .

 

[CapelDodger]

That's been the primary reason for obfuscation and delay by the fossil fuels industries over the last couple of decades.

When the British abolished slavery in their Empire the British Government compensated the slave-owners for their lost assets. We may see something similar with stranded assets. And then of course there's always the "Too Big To Fail" argument for a bail-out.

AGW policy is going to be an interesting test of the hypothesis that the world has passed from the nation-state model to the supra-national mega-corporation model. That's if some unexpected model doesn't emerge to invalidate the experiment, of course. I'm not writing anything off these days, frankly.

 

[Trakar]

When the British abolished slavery in their Empire the British Government compensated the slave-owners for their lost assets. We may see something similar with stranded assets. And then of course there's always the "Too Big To Fail" argument for a bail-out.

AGW policy is going to be an interesting test of the hypothesis that the world has passed from the nation-state model to the supra-national mega-corporation model. That's if some unexpected model doesn't emerge to invalidate the experiment, of course. I'm not writing anything off these days, frankly.

Since, in many, if not most cases (at least in the U.S.) the nation owns the assets, they merely lease the right to recover them to private interests, why should the government compensate themselves for something they are no longer allowing private interests to recover? Most of the oil and coal on private lands has already been exploited. With regard to the private land resources, so long as they pay an appropriate carbon tax they should be allowed to recover them and try to sell them. If that is unprofitable, I'm not real big on corporate welfare/subsidies, but that may be an option in socialist countries.

 

[CapelDodger]

I wouldn't have been big on compensating slave-owners but they had the political clout and an argument in tune with the times - that the State should not be able to arbitrarily confiscate its citizens' assets (for such is Tyranny, and we're all agin that). Project that onto today's situation and it fits in many places.

When the US emanciated its slaves it avoided this issue by treating them as war booty. Something to keep in mind if, say, Canada insists on digging up all its tar-sands and to hell with everybody else.

 

[Trakar]

I wouldn't have been big on compensating slave-owners but they had the political clout and an argument in tune with the times - that the State should not be able to arbitrarily confiscate its citizens' assets (for such is Tyranny, and we're all agin that). Project that onto today's situation and it fits in many places.

I would love to hear Republican's line up to argue for raising taxes to pay subsidies to corporations because they are unable to earn a profit stealing public resources and selling them, that would truly be "priceless."

When the US emanciated its slaves it avoided this issue by treating them as war booty. Something to keep in mind if, say, Canada insists on digging up all its tar-sands and to hell with everybody else.

Hey we're going to need some compensatory mild climate territory for our climate damaged hinterlands, and it would set a precedent for any additional actions that may be needed in other places around the globe (plus, Canada is nearby and full of Canooks, we don't have to waste energy on long supply lines, probably a win-win for both sides.

 

[riptor]

What is the composition of the rest of the school board? (professional/educational background)

There are twelve members. Their backgrounds and education range from business to education to political science to technology and mathematics to chemistry. Here is a link with the information about the board members.

http://wvde.state.wv.us/boe/

Indeed sigh-worthy.

The before-and-after examples there would make an excellent study in an English class and teach some critical thinking at the same time.

I've not a clue what plays well in West Virginia, and I think I'd like to keep it that way .

Here is my rough draft of the letter I plan on sending. There are people going to make phone calls as well.

Science standards should be based on science

Recently the West Virginia Board of Education decided to alter the state's science standards to cast doubt on anthropogenic climate change because one of their members doesn't believe in it. Anthropogenic climate change is accepted by every scientific body in the world, along with 95% of published researchers in the field. If a layman is going to argue against this, they better have a good reason as to why they are more knowledgeable on the subject than the vast majority of experts in the field. Unless of course one wants to believe that all the scientists are lying, stupid, or incompetent, which is a view someone could get if they got all their information on the subject from blogs, popular media, and tabloid newspapers.

The consensus isn't one of opinion, but one of fact. There is a convergence of evidence from many different areas that show us that the globe is warming and that the burning of fossil fuels is chiefly to blame. The past 150 years show a steady increase in global temperatures. We have measurements taken from satellites, ocean buoys, and land based stations that all converge on this fact. Ice cores show us that carbon dioxide levels are the highest they have been in 600,000 years. We know that the increased carbon dioxide comes from fossil fuels, because the isotopes (number of neutrons in an atom) are what you would get from burning fossil fuels. Glaciers all over the world are in retreat, and so is the arctic ice cap. Natural factors alone cannot explain these facts.

So if we in West Virginia want the children of this state to be up to date in science, let's not do them a disservice and teach them bad science.

 

[CapelDodger]

I would love to hear Republican's line up to argue for raising taxes to pay subsidies to corporations because they are unable to earn a profit stealing public resources and selling them, that would truly be "priceless."

But not unimaginable.

In Australia, Abbott's policy is to pay corporations to pollute less - or not to pollute more, I'm a bit hazy on the details.

Hey we're going to need some compensatory mild climate territory for our climate damaged hinterlands, and it would set a precedent for any additional actions that may be needed in other places around the globe (plus, Canada is nearby and full of Canooks, we don't have to waste energy on long supply lines, probably a win-win for both sides.

You really should get into politics .

You should note, though, that previous invasions of Canada from the US have not all turned out well.

 

[CapelDodger]

If a layman is going to argue against this, they better have a good reason as to why they are more knowledgeable on the subject than the vast majority of experts in the field.

For "better have" I'd suggest "should present". A neutral tone is best, assertive without being confrontational.

Unless of course one wants to believe that all the scientists are lying, stupid, or incompetent, which is a view someone could get if they got all their information on the subject from blogs, popular media, and tabloid newspapers.

That I'd take out altogether.

Ice cores show us that carbon dioxide levels are the highest they have been in 600,000 years. We know that the increased carbon dioxide comes from fossil fuels, because the isotopes (number of neutrons in an atom) are what you would get from burning fossil fuels.

I'd cut that, it tends towards overload. Stick to the temperature.

Glaciers all over the world are in retreat, and so is the arctic ice cap.

That's good, visual and obviously temperature related.

Natural factors alone cannot explain these facts.

So if we in West Virginia want the children of this state to be up to date in science, let's not do them a disservice and teach them bad science.

Perhaps "by introducing false doubt"? And maybe something about teaching all the factors, natural and anthropogenic, so that pupils can reach their own conclusions.

Of course that's a thoroughly British take on it, and likely inappropriate. I doubt I'd survive a fortnight in West Virginia without being shot. (Yes, my school did look like Hogwarts.)

 

[Trakar]

But not unimaginable.

In Australia, Abbott's policy is to pay corporations to pollute less - or not to pollute more, I'm a bit hazy on the details.

and unfortunately, getting more hazy with each passing year!

You really should get into politics .

You should note, though, that previous invasions of Canada from the US have not all turned out well.

LOL, I will not seek nomination and if nominated I would not run for office, besides it is takes so much time and effort to be a god-king. Let the minions muddle on their own.

Well, we seemed to have learned our lesson from the last such attempt (aside from our illegals streaming across the border in increasing numbers) we haven't tried that in earnest since Canada was still a British colony I believe, and at the time so were we, so not so much of an invasion, more like a civil insurrection.

Too bad more wars aren't civil, they seem to degenerate to all manner of incivility so quickly anymore. a nice chess tournament in a neutral setting with refreshments and a bit of relaxing music would be such a nice change of pace.

Or were you referring to that nasty little 1812 skirmish? We were just trying to help liberate the poor Canadians from oppressive British rule, and get revenge upon the dastardly for the burning of our capital (or did that happen later? ), either way we knew they would eventually do some such dastardly deed so pre-emptive action was called for!

 

[Trakar]

There are twelve members. Their backgrounds and education range from business to education to political science to technology and mathematics to chemistry. Here is a link with the information about the board members.

http://wvde.state.wv.us/boe/

Let me review these a bit, but I realize time is important. Letter to the editor is a good quick move, but I would expand this and hit the editorials as many W.VA papers as you can. Likewise appropriate state University professors, High School papers and teachers etc.. Involve a few of the Climate blogs and news sites they can usually mobilize people to follow this same course and generate some pressure.

I'm going to make a few editing suggestions in bold italics directly into your draft, please forgive the irregularity of this process and feel free to ignore these suggestions.

Here is my rough draft of the letter I plan on sending. There are people going to make phone calls as well.

SchoolScience standards should be based on the compelling evidences and support of mainstreamscience understandings, as the well evidenced mainstream understandings this is the standard used as the basis of all other fields of study taught in our schools and the standards by which students will be tested and evaluated in all high education venues here in W.VA and elsewhere

Recently the West Virginia Board of Education decided to alter the state's science standards to cast doubt on anthropogenic climate change because one of their members doesn't believe in it. Anthropogenic climate change is accepted by every scientific body in the world, along with more than 95% of published researchers in the field. If a layman is going to argue against this, they better have a good reason as to why they are more knowledgeable on the subject than the vast majority of experts in the field. Unless of course one wants to believe that all the scientists are lying, stupid, or incompetent, which is a view someone could get if they got all their information on the subject from blogs, popular media, and tabloid newspapers.I agree with Capel this probably best left out, you don't need to attack the denier to invalidate his issues and it may antagonize silent sympathizers within the board, likewise you don't want to stir a debate about expert vs inexpert facts and opinions so I'd strike the next sentence as well

The consensus isn't one of opinion, but one of fact. There is a convergence of evidence from many different areas of scientific understanding that show us that the globe is warming and that the burning of fossil fuels is chiefly to blameprimary cause of this situation. The past 150 years show a steady increase in global temperatures. We have measurements taken from satellites, ocean buoys, and land based stations that all converge on this fact. Ice cores show us that carbon dioxide levels are the highest they have been in at least600,000 yearsand are increasing. We know that the increased carbon dioxide comes from fossil fuels, because the isotopes (number of neutrons in an atom) isotopic ratios are of atmospheric CO₂ are shifting and match what would be expected from the emissions of the amount of coal, oil and gas (independently verified by 200 years of business records from the coal, oil and gas industries) are what that you would expect to get from burning this recorded volume of fossil fuels. Glaciers all over the world are in retreat, and so is the arctic ice cap. Natural factors alone cannot explain these facts.

So if we in West Virginia want the children of this state to be up to date in science, let's not do them a disservice and teach them bad science.

Sorry to mangle your letter

The main thing (IMO) is to focus more on first paragraph material and the last sentence material and don't try to argue the science with people who aren't primarily educated in the sciences. Focus on their duties as education board members and how they can help the students of W.VA schools to excel as they mature into higher education and later careers in W.VA and elsewhere.

Good Luck, let me research the members a bit more and then I may have a few more suggestions, I will also spread the word among some of the internet and professional groups I am associated with.

 

[riptor]

Thanks for the tips, I just quickly typed up that draft and asked a few people to look at it. There is also a group at West Virginia University that I am in contact with, but so far I haven't heard back from them yet. The Sierra Club doesn't seem to be doing anything either, other than complain on Facebook.

 

[Trakar]

Don't you mean the Gore doctrine ? (...)

I'm glad you mentioned the esteemed philanthropist and ex-Vice president of the United States, his admirable and valuable work to help bring people's attention to the issue of Climate Change has made an important contribution to helping this nation start down the path toward addressing what is undoubtedly one of the greatest threats this planet faces over the coming centuries and beyond.

There was, of course, his short TED talk follow-on to the slide show presentation so famously portrayed in "An Inconvenient Truth." (2008)
it is about 28 minutes long - http://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_s_new_thinking_on_the_climate_crisis?language=en

More recently however, this Rolling Stone article about increasing the shift to a low carbon future. - http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-turning-point-new-hope-for-the-climate-20140618

Of course he is still an ex-politician and philanthropist, not a climate scientist, but he is a very effective and productive advocate helping to keep America focused on the problems of AGW.

His latest public statement is regarding the passing of Mario Cuomo on Jan. 1rst, which you can read here on Gore's blog - http://blog.algore.com/2015/01/statement_by_former_vice_presi_6.html

If you are more interested in his current Climate Change focus you can check out his Climate Reality project at: http://climaterealityproject.org/heat-denial

Thank-you again for this timely re-introduction of Mr. Gore and his contributions to this subject and our nation in general.

 

[CapelDodger]

This post is really bizarre as global warming is happening.

But it's cold in the Eastern US - in January! How bizarre is that?

 

[Haig]

This post is really bizarre as global warming is happening.

Well NO according to this expert

University Of Augsburg 44-Year Veteran Meteorologist Calls Climate Protection “Ridiculous”…”A Deception”! By P Gosselin on 12. January 2015

Interviewed was meteorologist Klaus Hager. He was active in meteorology for 44 years and now has been a lecturer at the University of Augsburg almost 10 years. He is considered an expert in weather instrumentation and measurement.

The Augsburger Zeitung writes that “hardly any of his colleagues are as familiar with the weather as the 73-year old is“.

“Fluctuations dominate climate, not trends”

This bit in particular should give you "pause" for thought

Warming an artifact of new instrumentation

One reason for the perceived warming, Hager says, is traced back to a change in measurement instrumentation. He says glass thermometers were was replaced by much more sensitive electronic instruments in 1995. Hager tells the SZ (my emphasis):

""For eight years I conducted parallel measurements at Lechfeld. The result was that compared to the glass thermometers, the electronic thermometers showed on average a temperature that was 0.9°C warmer. Thus we are comparing – even though we are measuring the temperature here – apples and oranges. No one is told that.”"

Hager confirms to the AZ that the higher temperatures are indeed an artifact of the new instruments.

So ... since the instrument change in 1995 from glass thermometers to electronic thermometers that actually give an average temperature that was 0.9°C warmer that is an artifact indeed

 

[Reality Check]

Well NO according to this expert

Actually B]NO[/B] according to the rather ignorant opinion of a so-called expert, Haig. The instrumental observations are that there has been a global warming trend over the last 150 years.
What we really have is an "expert in weather instrumentation and measurement" who seems to be ignorant about how measurements of weather are used in climate science.
Basically Klaus Hager
* thinks that local weather is global climate (he has been looking at temperatures at one location).
* seems to think that climate scientists are ignorant.
They know about the movement to electronic thermometers and take that in consideration when calculating global temperatures. They take in account the entire history of weather stations !
* is ignorant of the fact that global warming is confirmed by satellite measurements.
* is in denial of the global warming up to 1995 (before the change to electronic instrumentation)!
* is in denial of the strong evidence that CO2 has been the primary driver of climate change over the last few decades.

The big flaw is that this is a personal opinion with no cited evidence - just an anecdote.
ETA: A misunderstanding from you, Haig - the anecdote is about unpublished research at one location (Lechfeld) which is weather, not climate .