Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[quarky]

There is always the potential for an event, whether it be from the sun or from volcanoes, that we will be glad and lucky that we heated up the place.

That doesn't negate the effect of massive quantities of hydrocarbons being oxidized; like never before.

We're bringing to the surface, ages of stored solar energy; all in a hurry, at least compared to the time involved in their sequestration.

Why would be expecting anything else?

 

[batvette]

the problem is not industrialisation itself. its the energy sources we used to do so. we can have industrialisation with reduced fossil fuel usage, and maybe soon without fossil fuels.

Also China is for a large part emitting CO2 to produce the goods we in the developed world consume.

Oh my. All the typical points I've seen from those who are part of the problem.

You did point out that they are only doing what comes natural. I agree and thanks for pointing that out. The above stuff about without fossil fuels soon... gimme a break. There is no alternative on the horizon and China is producing electricity in very carbon intense methods, even their hydro.

Its up to us to lead the efforts, yeah what do you thing we've been doing. Meanwhile Kyoto encouraged capital and industry to flock to China where they are not leading the way at all, produce much more conventional pollution for the same manufacturing we did here before.

Change your thinking please. The facts are too painful to accept I know. Detachment from reality about fantasy energy sources and blind trust that shooting ourselves in the foot might help haven't worked.

 

[batvette]

So, you're the famous acquiescent opinionated or do you believe in suspensive conclusions?

As you are new to this kind of threads, I tell you: fora are not chat-rooms; nobody is interested -or should be- in you changing your opinions: like your personal hygiene, our only interest is avoiding that something nasty gets stick to the general public. If that renders you in a cleaner cut, that is just a side effect. People is entitled an opinion. People is not entitled at all to their opinions to be the truth.

Major concerns here: people with not enough education to know that there are convergent and divergent problems and you can't apply the tools for solving one group to the other; talkative people who is innumerate; manipulative people who have liked from Perry Mason to The Good Wife and think that the adversarial system is a way to discuss scientific topic and not a special system circumscribed to the legal courts and in an improper way to politics; and people with sloppy educations which include a lot of courses about science in high school and university and who think they do know what science is.

Finally, the moral concerns are always present here, as it should be. But it is more of the kind of concerns about your intellectual "hygiene". It's call good faith and bad faith.

If you have something relevant and constructive to offer, please, don't hold back. I didn't think this was the useless dreck thread, did I miss something?

You mean all that material I offered, and not a word in reply to it? I guess I was right then!

 

[DC]

Oh my. All the typical points I've seen from those who are part of the problem.

You did point out that they are only doing what comes natural. I agree and thanks for pointing that out. The above stuff about without fossil fuels soon... gimme a break. There is no alternative on the horizon and China is producing electricity in very carbon intense methods, even their hydro.

Its up to us to lead the efforts, yeah what do you thing we've been doing. Meanwhile Kyoto encouraged capital and industry to flock to China where they are not leading the way at all, produce much more conventional pollution for the same manufacturing we did here before.

Change your thinking please. The facts are too painful to accept I know. Detachment from reality about fantasy energy sources and blind trust that shooting ourselves in the foot might help haven't worked.

we do already use many alternatives and going to do even mroe in future. we have to, we do not have a joice in that. and so will china and india. and all others. because there is a huge problem with CO2. and most countries have realized that and are slowly changing already. if it worked or not will be seen by our grandchildren.

the facts are indeed painful to accept, but i did and do my best to change habits and CO2 production and i still use a huge amount more than the average Chinese or Indian person. so fingerpointing at those countries is sure the last thing i will do aslong we are still ahead of them and by out bying habbits we even invrease their CO2 emissions....

but what is your alternative to what we are doing now already? how can we solve the problem ?

 

[Barking Spyder]

something I forgotDeath and taxes are both certain only death doesn't get worse. I have a couple of big problems with the AGW discussion: First there is the use of terms like denialist which makes it seem like people not convinced are the same as those who deny the Holocaust, which seems a bit unfair. Secondly there is the notion espoused by many that those who deny AGW should be silenced. Worse still there seems to be a smear campaighn on against those with solid credentials in science to make it seems as if they not same or they are schills. I am not really qualified to judge the science on either side but I know we've heard these kinds of hysterics for decades on various doomsday claims and they never seem to come true. From Global cooling to killer bees it always seems to be a crisis and it never comes to pass.

Let's not forget that in the UK the Al Gore film is considered to be so full of errors that it has been banned from being shown in classrooms.

 

[CapelDodger]

Its up to us to lead the efforts, yeah what do you thing we've been doing. Meanwhile Kyoto encouraged capital and industry to flock to China where they are not leading the way at all, produce much more conventional pollution for the same manufacturing we did here before.

Since the US didn't sign up to Kyoto and manufacturing moved from there to China as much as from any economy which did sign up, it seems fanciful to make Kyoto the reason. The low wages in China, amplified by currency manipulation, was the primary motivation.

Change your thinking please. The facts are too painful to accept I know. Detachment from reality about fantasy energy sources and blind trust that shooting ourselves in the foot might help haven't worked.

You're not alone in realising we're going to have to ride this out. Global society is not capable of organising and implementing a solution to this kind of problem.

Alternative energy sources such as PV solar will take their place in the economy on their own merits, as they're already doing. They're not actually fantasies, I see more and more rooftop PV and wind turbines as each year passes.

 

[DC]

Death and taxes are both certain only death doesn't get worse. I have a couple of big problems with the AGW discussion: First there is the use of terms like denialist which makes it seem like people not convinced are the same as those who deny the Holocaust, which seems a bit unfair. Secondly there is the notion espoused by many that those who deny AGW should be silenced. Worse still there seems to be a smear campaighn on against those with solid credentials in science to make it seems as if they not same or they are schills. I am not really qualified to judge the science on either side but I know we've heard these kinds of hysterics for decades on various doomsday claims and they never seem to come true. From Global cooling to killer bees it always seems to be a crisis and it never comes to pass.

yeah when you get your science from the mass media you get that impression indeed. they sell sensation and so they do. sensation and entertainment. don't expect science realted news to adequatly reflect the science it made a story about.

 

[CapelDodger]

I hate to go on the defense here, being as I live in Kentucky...but in spite of the negative influences of climate change, the southern Appalachian climax forests have remained fairly stable and productive for eons.

Please forgive my levity; I've no doubt Kentucky is another of the many splendid places cursed with a population. Present company excepted, of course.

 

[CapelDodger]

one of the neatest bits of engineering and science I've seen in a while. Lot of implications for this

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-solar-cools-full-sunlight.html

I agree. Quite apart from the panel itself the implications for designer materials as and when "nanostructured photonic materials" can be produced industrially. I've long been of the opinion that materials science is the next coming thing after electronics.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Help!!!

Help!!!

I'm looking for information like the following one, but for U.S., Canada and Europe. I don't know the vocabulary to search it in English, but I'm sure such information is available (Global Warming concerned people couldn't ignore such information is important)

Periods of frost like these -drawn within the arch- (larger image by clicking)



Local information about periods and probability of frosts, like this brief (tables contain the data I am looking for).

Trend information about frosts, like the following:

Changes in the <insert the word that describes the lines, similar to isotac and isopectic, which denote equal average number of frosts per year>. How the line for 10 frost a year has being moving southwards from the decade 1941-1950 to the decade 1991-2000, as the climate became warmer:

The same, but for 50 frosts a year:

Trend for change in the number of frosts per year:

Decadal change in the average period of frosts and its trends (I couldn't find an Argentine example covering large areas)

Thank you for your help.

For those unfamiliar with the Southern Hemisphere, a map with matching locations all around the planet:

And the biggest determinant of Argentina's climate:

 

[CapelDodger]

Let the games begin.

Frankly, that's never a good introduction. Sounds cocky, and you know how that puts people's backs up, don't you?

... and more importantly assert that the science IS perverted inherently by the line of work involved. (will be elaborated on)

I can barely wait.

Accepting a good chance this is shown false someday and not really afraid to admit I was in error if I was ...

You will come back if it turns out so? Let us know how it's all worked out for you.

the more important argument to me is the double pronged issue:

so called "alarmists" in the public largely care less about saving the planet than using the issue for political capital or moral posturing, or promoting various ideologies, proven by:

Proof is good. Don't see nearly enough of it on a science forum.

... the fact that since the implementation of Kyoto Protocol, GLOBAL GGE have not only risen but seen the rate of their rise increase as well...

and when shown this virtually all alarmists ignore this, change the subject, or make cute remarks that it's okay that we allow China and India to pollute and industrialize because they will all industrialize with the green energy sources Americans cannot hope to afford now.

You have an odd idea of what constitutes proof, but lets forget about alarmists because, by definition, they are not dependable sources.

I'm intrigued that you apparently think that "we" (could you specify what you mean by that) are in a position to disallow China or India from doing what they damn' well want.

In other words a complete lack of concern about the doomsday issue and more focus on politics and finger pointing.

Since that's a qualifying attribute of alarmists (as you use the term) you can see why they're not worth wasting time on.

This finally reveals the most caustic position I will argue, related to the failure of Kyoto, and is motivated by my own ideology, which is curiously, saving the planet.

Most commendable.

Those promoting AGW ...

Promoting AGW? What on earth can that possibly mean?

... and blind acceptance of policies to supposedly mitigate it, have already put us on a path of doom because of the conflicting goals of their left leaning global socialism and environmentalism as religion ideologies.

making it easy to swallow the poison pill, you cannot mitigate a problem allegedly caused by human industrial activity, while you industrialize billions of humans

Who is the "you" that has been industrialising billions of humans? Surely they are the ones who have industrialised themselves.

Is this about disallowing them from doing so?

Some arguments were posted here already:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249353

Perhaps the answer to my last question is in there. I'll take a look, right after ...

Say what you like I bet you haven't seen these before.

Again with the cockyness, and I bet I have. Presented just as cockily.

The introduction is obviously, umm, cavalier. I think you're going to have fun with this if you like this sort of thing. Because I'm always right, and when I find I'm not I admit it so fast and graciously you might not notice it happened- but it does.

And you say that when you know you'll be held to it. Again, commendable.

 

[aleCcowaN]

First there is the use of terms like denialist which makes it seem like people not convinced are the same as those who deny the Holocaust, which seems a bit unfair.

Denialist is an specific term to describe those who use a lot of fallacious and distorted methods to disprove AGW (for instance, "cherry picking" -fallacy of incomplete evidence) and not only they can't learn and change their behaviour but they develop and attitude to keep their state of mind. They are yet another race of epistemological hedonists, like Holocaust deniers.

That hasn't to do with a person who ignores or a person who has a "feeling" about GW that comes from incomplete formation + information. That person is not a denialist, unless that person start to show consistently "active ignorance" or "militant ignorance", that is, a feisty attitude toward ignoring information and knowledge so they can keep their previous state.

GW is not playing what is your favourite colour. So, you can't be offended because someone says "it is not red as you like", nor you can impose the "red" as some state of true about colour-favoritism.

Secondly there is the notion espoused by many that those who deny AGW should be silenced.

The notion is that those who speak idiocy on this subject should stop speaking idiocy on this subject. They shouldn't stop speaking on this subject.

Worse still there seems to be a smear campaighn on against those with solid credentials in science to make it seems as if they not same or they are schills. I am not really qualified to judge the science on either side but I know we've heard these kinds of hysterics for decades on various doomsday claims and they never seem to come true. From Global cooling to killer bees it always seems to be a crisis and it never comes to pass.

Let's not forget that in the UK the Al Gore film is considered to be so full of errors that it has been banned from being shown in classrooms.

These last paragraphs of yours are a good example of selection of environmental evidence. They look just like a mild, unspecified grunt.

This thread is not a confessional box nor a place to speak your feelings about this subject. You have two things you can do in this thread: say why GW is happening or why GW is not happening, all with crystal logic and the necessary information. All the angry friction you dislike starts when you don't stick to that.

 

[aleCcowaN]

If you have something relevant and constructive to offer, please, don't hold back. I didn't think this was the useless dreck thread, did I miss something?

You mean all that material I offered, and not a word in reply to it? I guess I was right then!

You posted nothing! Why don't you post something first instead of starting a sermon? This way it looks sermons is the only thing you have to offer.

 

[CapelDodger]

While i see AGW as the biggest problem ever, i can totally understand China and INdia trying to get to the standard of living we have. only normal. They cannot afford more expensive energy sources, we on the other hand can. India for example has despite being a developing country, introduced a CO2 tax on coal.

A fossil-fuelled economy has long been the defining difference between developed and undeveloped societies, so it's hardly surprising that's the pattern developing countries are following. It worked very well for Western countries back in the day, and for Japan, which adopted it very early on. Nobody ever got fired for following the established pattern

Chine is heavy investing in alternative energy sources despite being a developing country.

They do actually have the chance to leapfrog the fossil-fuel stage to what will inevitably be the long-tern winner - renewables - without sinking all the capital into a fading pattern that the early entrants face. In those early entrants life for many is predicated on cheap oil and coal, and strains are already showing in places.

we the already developed countries created the majority of the problem. we created most of the anthropogenic CO2. its up to us to lead the efforts to solve the problem.

Personally I just try not to be part of the problem. I fail, of course, but I make the effort. I'm not having some kid pointing the finger at me for ruining his future.

 

[CapelDodger]

There is always the potential for an event, whether it be from the sun or from volcanoes, that we will be glad and lucky that we heated up the place.

That doesn't negate the effect of massive quantities of hydrocarbons being oxidized; like never before.

We're bringing to the surface, ages of stored solar energy; all in a hurry, at least compared to the time involved in their sequestration.

Why would be expecting anything else?

Well when you put it like that ...

It's been great, though, hasn't it? We got to the Moon! We have robots on Mars. Computers in all our homes (or at least available to us). Amazing medical capabilities. TV screens the size of a rug. And we had so much fun on the way. Two World Wars, for a start.

 

[CapelDodger]

Some arguments were posted here already:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249353

OK, that's on the Conspiracy Theory Forum, there are seven pages of it, and I'm just not going there. Could you maybe clarify the "allow" issue briefly here?

 

[CapelDodger]

You posted nothing! Why don't you post something first instead of starting a sermon? This way it looks sermons is the only thing you have to offer.

He didn't post the promised explanation of climate science being corrupt by its own nature. When I first met climate scientists - not that the term was really current in the 70-s - climate science was about explaining Ice Ages. I don't exactly see the corrupting influence there.

 

[Zeph]

Dipping in here after not following the thread for a long time, i see a lot of kerfuffle from rj's assertion that "the winters are getting colder".

Reading weeks of the thread in a shorter time, it appears that at core the heat was about vague terminology. His main assertion boils down to "for some locations, and some time periods, the regression trendline for winter temperature is negative". Actually, nobody really doubts that - with noisy data we would expect it.

BUT, by stating this in vague terms without the qualifiers and limitations, rj appears to be making a much broader statement, which IS strongly disputed by those with stronger mathematical skills. From rj's viewpoint, he is just "stating the facts" and anybody not seeing things that way appears to rj to be wearing blinders of some sort. After all, the website plainly calculates the trendlines (regression slopes) for anybody to see. And thus rj gets frustrated and a bit self-righteous.

From the other side, I see people who understand the topic in more depth and who do not consider a regression slope to be the same thing as a real world "trend" (eg: with some predictive value and/or reflecting some known or unknown physical process). I don't think rj is trying to play games, but that he genuinely does not understand the difference between a calculated trendline, and a real world "trend". And sometimes they get impatient with rj and suspect him of deliberate obtuseness.

Thus the heat. Words like "trend" are not being used the same. For rj a calculated regression slope IS on the face of it a factual trend which cannot be rationally disputed. For others, it's just a regression slope which need further examination for real world relevance.

Note that some here have not dismissed the possibility that there could be some real world negative trend in winter temperatures on some timescale and for some locations - only that rj's level of analysis has failed to distinguish signal from noise well enough to be significant evidence for it.

Short form for rj: Even random noise with no real trend or underlying physical process, will allow one to calculate a trendline by regression, and for inappropriately short periods that trend will rarely be zero. Just calculating a regression slope does not automatically indicate a real "trend" of the sort that's worth discussing. The key is in distinguishing statistical and physical significance. Just using the website to calculate a slope doesn't do that. People are not disputing the numbers (now that you know how to use the website correctly), but the meaning (real world signficance) of the calculated numbers.

And, I think that due to dealing with too many deniers, some denizens here are kind of quick on the trigger, suspecting for example that rj is trying to sneakily discredit all of AGW based on this small piece of the problem. It reminds me of cops who tend to assume the worst about human nature, based on the sample of people "not like themselves" which they deal with most. Even people I respect and who have far deeper knowledge than myself, seem to sometimes be a bit quick to impute denialism to every misguided soul who wanders in and says something that sounds similar to others in the past who have worn out the patience of the locals.

 

[batvette]

Since the US didn't sign up to Kyoto and manufacturing moved from there to China as much as from any economy which did sign up, it seems fanciful to make Kyoto the reason. The low wages in China, amplified by currency manipulation, was the primary motivation.

I think its folly to deny that if it was not a dominating factor it will be as its full mechanisms take hold. Bur we shouldn't put all the analysis on manufacturing transfer, Americans are still working, driving to work, the lights are on.

What happened with China is a standard of living jump for its people.

Note I generally try to avoid a more direct connection than saying Kyoto coincided with the rise in GGE, to be more direct would be intellectual dishonesty.

Alternative energy sources such as PV solar will take their place in the economy on their own merits, as they're already doing. They're not actually fantasies, I see more and more rooftop PV and wind turbines as each year passes.

AFAIK the current data shows for GGE, solar has not been able to be manufactured with a clean enough profile to offset its initial releases over their 25 year expected life span. A chemical used in their production is 17,000 times more damaging than C02 and has a half life of some 700 years in the atmosphere.

Like Hydro and its Methane when you flood, we now find it's as bad or worse than coal.

Further studies show the industry created to install the panels on rooftops would negate 5 years of their use. Yep, guys in trucks climbing on ladders, drilling holes, it has a cost.

 

[batvette]

we do already use many alternatives and going to do even mroe in future. we have to, we do not have a joice in that. and so will china and india. and all others. because there is a huge problem with CO2. and most countries have realized that and are slowly changing already. if it worked or not will be seen by our grandchildren.

the facts are indeed painful to accept, but i did and do my best to change habits and CO2 production and i still use a huge amount more than the average Chinese or Indian person. so fingerpointing at those countries is sure the last thing i will do aslong we are still ahead of them and by out bying habbits we even invrease their CO2 emissions....

but what is your alternative to what we are doing now already? how can we solve the problem ?

Well this is one of the problems, if you are willing to allow global GGE to soar on the justification that per capita the Chinese haven't caught up to us, then either someone's inflating the figures or hyping the doom or we really are screwed.
See you are allowing for this cushion of more and more GGE until the Chinese pollute as much as us by the man?
This seems like the dual agenda global socialism thingy rearing it's head, like its horrible, but not so horrible we need to be really drastic if it hurts our poor little buddy's hand up.
No if it IS that bad you freeze global GGE like yesterday, no special allowances for climate justice or carbon equity.
It seems the regime today is just that, things are just terrible we all need to feel guilt and make sacrifices-at least those of us who already messed up the world. Those poor huddled masses didn't do it so we'll clamp down on them in the future.

Then we're being lied to. It's not that dire, OR the real focus is less on fixing it and instead on making one big toilet we all share the wealth in.

It needs to- be said carbon trading legislation or Kyoto like voluntary cutbacks on our part and trusting the chinese is pie in the sky.

You know how they treat patents. You know their business model is steal better than the next guy.

Let me pour a glass of reality for you all:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arhtbgtseI0

They are not going to cut back on Jack. Ever.