Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Haig said:
Snow falling. In Australia. In summer. That is all :D
[qimg]http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2013/12/06/1226776/639641-61280220-5dee-11e3-8eb9-1c57f26bd260.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

June 12 2012 (6-12-2012) is the middle of winter in Australia not the middle of summer. I shouldn't think it was necessary to tell anyone over the age of 8 that seasons are the opposite in the North and South hemispheres.
 
Trakar said:
June 12 2012 (6-12-2012) is the middle of winter in Australia not the middle of summer. I shouldn't think it was necessary to tell anyone over the age of 8 that seasons are the opposite in the North and South hemispheres.
Click to expand...

No, 6 December. Even though 9/11 has become standard terminology for the event, calendars show it as 11/9.

But, as others have said, summer snowfalls are not uncommon in our Alps.
 
Trevor from Toronto said:
Now isn't this remarkable?

4 years later, minus much of the hype, minus much of the fear-based profiteering, and things have shifted even more towards a more balanced, realistic view of the situation.

This article for the NY Times has come to my attention today, and though it's a few months old, I'm rather puzzled by the duplicity of it. It's the one where they talk about how global warming has been flat for the past 15 years. Maybe this has been covered in the forums before?
Click to expand...

Any article from any media that talks about global warming being "flat" over any period of time in the last half century or so, is more fiction than fact, and certainly not in accord with the evidenced scientific data.

Trevor from Toronto said:
Anyways, here's a paragraph I don't get:

Now, here is a crucial piece of background: It turns out we had an earlier plateau in global warming, from roughly the 1950s to the 1970s, and scientists do not fully understand that one either. A lot of evidence suggests that sunlight-blocking pollution from dirty factories may have played a role, as did natural variability in ocean circulation. The pollution was ultimately reduced by stronger clean-air laws in the West.

So, they are saying that more pollution stabilized the world's temperature, but then when pollution was reduced, global warming increased over a 20 year period (mid 70's to late 90's) -- before becoming flat again for the past 15 years. That doesn't make any sense, does it? Unless you admit that AGW is a shaky concept (though certainly it isn't completely void, and does very likely exist, don't get me wrong!) Here's the link.
Click to expand...

In this case it looks more like sloppy writing, playing fast and loose with science terminology more than deliberate fraud, but that is the fertile ground from which much popular denial is fed.

There has been no plateau in processes which result in our modern episode of AGW forced climate change, there was however, a masking of the heating effect over much of the northern hemisphere for a decade or two as the huge amount of sulfur-rich emissions largely from the rapid expansion of coal power stations as the world recovered from and expanded post WWII. There was a similar slight masking noted when China began a massive re-investment in coal-dependent energy in the '90s and early '00. Clean air resolutions in most first world nations in the late '60s and early '70s cleaned up the air fairly rapidly removing the masking factor (and acid rain, and much of the rest of the problems associated with high levels of SO2 in our atmosphere). Dealing with China is more difficult, but the level of the problem is much less widespread despite the horrendous smog problems they often face internally upon occasion.

There has been no "plateau" nor serious "masking" in the last decade or so. What we have seen are numerous claims of such as people cherry pick starting and ending points of their analyses within the natural variability of an increasingly warmer climate.


Trevor from Toronto said:
I also notice that they're using the rebranding of global warming and calling it climate change instead -- and yet they're using it exclusively to talk about global warming. The rebranding thing has been around for a few years now.
Click to expand...

The only one attempting a rebranding are those who seek controversy where there is none. When was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change formed (IPCC)?


Trevor from Toronto said:
I'm all for cutting out real pollution. And any thinking person is. However, reading this nonsense might give cause to wonder if it is a good idea for China and India and Russia to cut their air pollution nightmare as the West did decades ago. After all, if the global warming carbon connection is to be believed, and if the actual history is anything to go by, won't this spell a rapid rise in global temperature? After all, that's what happened according to the NY Times article.
Click to expand...

You seem to have misunderstood the article, which isn't too surprising as it seems to have been a very poorly researched and written piece. The industrialized western world is responsible for most of the human generated CO2 in the atmosphere. China and India are currently putting more CO2 into the air than the US and Europe, but we had nearly a century's head start on them.
 
r-j said:
I hear it also gets quite warm in the desert there as well.
Click to expand...

Nothing obscures the fact that it was the hottest year on record in Australia, and well above (1.5C by memory) the historical average.

ETA, 1.2C above.
 
Last edited:
Arnold Martin said:
A bit more on Spain's Solar Issues

I believe Spain generates over 50% of electricity via solar panels renewables and now the government wants to tax it heavily.


(from the article)

On 1 August protesters, many of which were wearing solar panels, arrived outside a prison in Barcelona to “turn themselves in” for being supporters of solar energy that they claim the government’s hefty fines would effectively criminalise.

Spain’s draft laws that would make self-generated solar more expensive than regular grid electricity could expose the country’s banks to a €20 billion (US$26.6 billion) bubble, according to analysts NPD Solarbuzz.

Proposed new laws would fine those with solar panels making use of the old off-grid, self-consumption programme (known as “autoconsumo”) by as much as €30 million (US$39.9 million) if they did not connect to the grid.

http://www.pv-tech.org/news/npd_solarbuzz_spains_solar_u_turn_could_expose_20_billion_pv_bubble_5647
Click to expand...

Again, your distorted interpretation and misrepresentation of the article you cite and selectively quote is either disingenuous or simply due to very poor reading and comprehension skills,...possibly a combination of both. This article has nothing to do with the viability of solar technology or its application and ability to address energy needs in a cost effective manner.
 
Arnold Martin said:
Spain's solar police to kick in your door

The latest nail in the coffin for Spain’s solar energy producers is an Energy Law amendment which allows inspectors to enter private properties without a court order. It's a move lawyers believe could set a worrying precedent.

http://www.thelocal.es/20131112/spains-solar-police-to-kick-in-your-door
Click to expand...

Again, completely irrelevant to any topic in this thread. If you want to talk about corrupt and unconstitutional politics in conservative - austerity focused government policies in Europe, please take it to the world politics thread. Personally, I believe that all such tea-party silliness is detrimental to economies and tend to push bad situations into economic failure, but I don't feel that the Science and Technology section is the place to discuss such politics.
 
Last edited:
Arnold Martin said:
Arizona Mulls Solar 'Tax'

SustainableBusiness.com News

The future of solar net metering in Arizona is under attack, with the state's largest utility Arizona Public Service (APS) proposing changes that undermine cost benefits for residential solar installations.

Under a plan submitted in July with the state's public utility commission, APS proposes two options for future residential solar customers – both of which will reduce potential financial returns homeowners would receive on their investment.

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25103
Click to expand...

Once again, just because home-grown conservidiots in Arizona raise their hands to prove that they are just as counter-productive and ignorant of basic economics, is no reason to discuss their public displays of arrogant idiocy outside of the political boards.
 
Iamme said:
Per post #1674. Why were they studying greenhouse gases in 1820? ??? This was before the Industrial Revolution?
Did someone think some atmospheric trend already was occuring, or what?
Click to expand...
The Industrial Revolution was already well under way, and the use of steam led to all sorts of questions which ultimately led to thermodynamics (and very efficient steam engines). According to thermodynamics the Earth should be much colder than it is, leading to the question of why. Fourier came up with the hypothesis and later Tyndall identified the mechanism - today we know it as the greenhouse effect.
 
How soon he forgets...wiki image

No_gas_1974.gif


ALL technologies have hiccups...a broad range of diversified sources prevents domination by any one source and the problems that arise from that. Coal barons, oil barons....some people just don't get it.

Russian Natural-Gas Dispute With Ukraine Threatens New Cutoff to ...
www.bloomberg.com/.../russian-gas-dispute-with-ukraine-threatens-new-...‎
Sep 21, 2011 - If supplies to the EU were cut, “it would be very damaging” to European confidence in Russia's reliability as a gas supplier. Russia, whose once ...
Click to expand...

Spain is a combination of disruptive technology hitting inflexible government policies in the middle of an economic melt down fostered by idiotic housing prices.

NOTHING to do with solar as an electrical power source.

It has a long tail for reliable power but the business of solar power is difficult just as the business of computers is difficult especially when technology is rocketing forward. Business models break...that's why it's disruptive.

Forbes of course is putting it's usual spin on things renewable but I grabbed that article on purpose.

Forbes is representing the "status quo" and solar is threatening it...that is why it is disruptive.

This is a reasonable approach to sharing the disruption.....

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...s-energy-reform-to-cost-companies-2-7-billion

Solar needs to move to grid parity and fossil taxed to cover the true cost.

Maybe our right wingers could explain why I can tour Europe in a lovely SUV for less than a rice burner compact in the US?
 
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms said:
That is one of the great things about general scientific knowledge. Mankind has a base understanding of our planet, chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, biology etc...., that continues to grow. But rarely is that knowledge useful directly. What happens when a problem comes along that needs solving is what we call a synthesis. A person or group of people take that scientific knowledge from disparate scientific fields and synthesize it together in ways never originally conceived by the original researchers. Generally the next step is to hash together a hypothesis and then what is called a "proof of concept" trial or trials to confirm or deny the synthesis. Next step generally is peer review which can be quite a vigorous debate and quite nasty at times. Especially when the synthesis causes a fundamental change in the way society views the world. Then the engineers, inventors etc... come in and try and make something useful out of it all.

With AGW we are still in the peer review stage, but it is coming to a close, as the scientific consensus is overwhelming. Mostly the last bit of resistance to this new view of the world is becoming ever more marginalized. They are still vocal though, because the change was so fast it is less than one generation and completely changes the way we view the world and our impact on our environment. Society takes longer to adjust. We simply don't take every man woman and child back to school to relearn every time something changes like this. Some will seek the new knowledge, and hopefully be able to discern the difference between the consensus and the vocal but ever more marginalized minority opinion. But others will just ignore it all and leave it to the "experts" to hash out.

To further confound the issue, AGW mitigation synthesis, hypothesis, and "proof of concept" phases with their nasty peer review process is beginning. And that isn't even close to consensus yet. To sum it up simply. We now know what is happening, but we really don't know what to do about it yet. Some of us think we know, but that hasn't even come close to consensus. Society watching this struggle often sees the two, AGW and AGW mitigation, as the same thing. They aren't, but considering the poor quality of the reporting in the general press, it is understandable. So when people see a AGW mitigation proposal they don't agree with, they have a tendency to hope that AGW is wrong, so they won't have to deal with that mitigation proposal. It is the "Ostrich with its head in the sand" or "Deer caught in the headlights" effect.

It is my opinion that we should just get on with it. Mitigation doesn't have to be perfect or in consensus to work. Government should use their influence to promote many forms of mitigation to get them up and running, then let market forces decide which ultimately are cost effective.
Click to expand...

The general gist of what you say is accurate, the timing as well as the factors impacting that timing is somewhat confused and misstated, but for an overall summary, not too shabby!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom