Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Steve001]

What evidence do you have that it is mostly not from burning fossil fuels? The last ten years has seen the melting of permafrost which does release methane, but the increase of CO2 started 150 years before then.

Too understand my question precisely, read my reply to Lenny.

 

[Dinwar]

Since you are 19? It's not so difficult to estimate an upper limit and an order of magnitude.



Probably is not an order of magnitude. Stupendous is not a figure.

Why don't you ask the moderators to move your posts to a new thread about "devilish windmills" instead of branching off from actual topic of manmade versus natural global warming? That way I'll be able to answer your questions and refute your arguments.

If you have an answer, post it. I will thank you for it. If you don't, that's fine; no environmentalist has been able to give me an answer.

As for "devilish windmills", you appear to want to add FAR more to my statements than I put there. You've even gone so far as to put words in my mouth in order to make my position more easily dismissed. I am merely pointing out the fact that wind turbines are not a carbon-free solution to energy production. I wasn't the one who brought it up, I was merely commenting on an error another poster committed. This is not unusual at JREF.

As for you deigning to answer my question, I'll pass. The fact that you think I'm making some argument instead of asking a question, the fact that you've put words in my mouth, and the tone of your post demonstrate that you're highly emotionally invested here and are unlikely to be willing to discuss this as a scientific question. I, in contrast, have no dog in this fight. Personally, I prefer nuclear power to any other type, and would love to be able to power my appartment via solar power (for private reasons--I hate paying electric bills). So to me wind, coal, oil, etc. are poor second choices. If I'm making any argument (and I'm not saying I was) it's about the state of knowledge of many people advocating for wind power, and nothing to do with global warming. Furthermore, you've demonstrated that you will not actually respond to what I'm saying, as opposed to what you want me to have said. So no, I'm not going to engage you on this topic.

Indeed, it took a billion years or so for the Earth's surface to cool below the temperature of molten rock. Ah, for the good old days!

Zachos et al., 2001 deals with the Cenozoic. If you look at the Phanerozoic as a whole, glacial periods like the one we're in are fairly rare. For the majority of the Phanerozoic the world was warmer than it is now. Complex, multicellular life thrives under such conditions. Mammalian life thrives under such conditions. I'm not saying HUMAN life does; we frankly have never existed in such a time period, so the rock record has nothing to say on that point. And again, tranisitions can be painful to catastrophic.

All I'm doing is pointing out that we are in an ice age right now, and speculating that humans may push the planet out of that ice age. I'm not speculating on the ecological impacts of such a push.

 

[Olowkow]

.......

Olowkow, that graph is objectively wrong. Both views ignore the very real issues involved in the variation. The temperature is bouncing all over the place in that graph. WHY the temperature is bouncing is an important question. Both trends are oversimplifications of a phenomenon that is incredibly complex. It's not, in my mind, sufficient to say that there's a trend. There are obviously trends within the moving average much more complex than simply "The temperature goes up".

Secondly, if we're going to talk graphs, an interesting one to look at is Zachos et al., 2001, Figure 2. It's freely available on Google. There are a number of interesting aspects of it, but the one that strikes me most is that outside of the recent (perhaps current) glacial period the world has long been far warmer than it is now. Yes, transitions tend to suck when you're talking about ecological paradigms. That said, we're not entirely sure what happens when our planet leaves an ice age. Humans may in fact mererly be providing the final push to get our planet back to what is really the normal state for it, temperature-wise.

..

Here is a link to that pdf.

https://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES206/readings/Zachos2001.pdf

I'm not wedded to any particular graph, but what is objectively wrong with the one I posted? It merely shows noise on the order of +/- 0.2 degrees for global temperatures within a trend whose best fit is a rising slope over several decades.

 

[Dinwar]

I'm not wedded to any particular graph, but what is objectively wrong with the one I posted?

The trend line isn't an accurate representation of what's going on. The issue is that BOTH views of the graph are misrepresentations. The first view (blue lines) represent a moving average that divides the time into arbitrary chunks. The red line represents a simple trend line that ignores the substantial variation in the system. When I see that much variation my first question is whether a trend line is even viable, long before I ask if a simple trend like the red is appropriate. Neither represent an accurate view of temperature through time.

When I was in school, we were given a series of brachiopods and the time they lived. We plotted size through time, and it appeared to make a nice, neat, straight line from small to large. Then the professor pointed out that the reality was vastly more complicated--sizes did all kinds of weird things through time that our graphs simly didn't reflect. The trend line was perfectly mathematically defensible, but it grossly mischaracterized the data. Therefore, it was wrong.

Also, both are relatively standard statistical techniques. Moving averages are extremely common in time sequences where the variation is important (in fact, most climatological data I've seen uses a moving average instead of the straight trend line this one uses). The red line is merely a larger version of the blue lines. Let's face it, cutting off the graph at a few decades ago is just as arbitrary as far as temperature is concerned as cutting the data into smaller chunks. The italicized part is important: I'm not saying that there are no reasons for using that cut-off (rigorous temperature readings are a fairly new thing, for example). I'm just saying that our ability to measure temperature has no bearing on what the temperature was doing before hand. In short, the moving average may in fact be very important--just as important as the trend line is, in fact. To dismiss it in such an offhand fashion is simply wrong. There ARE cycles in temperature. This is important information, information that the red trend line simply ignores.

Please note that I'm merely criticizing the cartoonish way the graph addresses this problem, and pointing out the poor logic underlying the graph. I'm not saying anything about global warming here. My issue isn't with the data; it's with the presentation.

 

[Dymanic]

I've been trying to find this out for 10 years now: What is the CO2 footprint of a windmill?

Or a nuke plant? Or a solar installation?

You're never going to get any one answer that cannot be challenged just as easily as any other. The question has some of the qualities of the
coastline paradox; it's a measurement that varies a great deal with the level of resolution (do you count the CO2 from the coal it took to generate the electricity it took to nuke the burrito the mechanic ate for lunch...etc?).But we know that whatever amount of CO2 is needed to build these things, it isn't infinite. So it has some of the qualities of Zeno's "Achilles and the Tortoise" paradox as well.

I've seen it claimed that two-thirds of the PV solar in place worldwide has been installed since January 2011:

http://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...r-pv-has-been-connected-in-the-last-2.5-years

That's a lot of carbon footprint. It takes quite a bit of energy to manufacture and install photovoltaic solar panels, and though efficiency is improving, it still takes some time to reach the break-even point on that investment. The thing is, you do reach a break-even point eventually, just as is the case with windmills (assuming that suitable sites are chosen for installation, and that there are not an inordinately large number of premature failures). A coal plant may break even on the initial monetary investment, but it never "pays back" its carbon debt.

 

[Olowkow]

@Dinwar
OK. I see your point. The whole area of AGW is one that I rigorously try to avoid in arguments, because it is clearly an enormously complex issue, and I freely admit I don't know enough about it, though I have an opinion. I thought the graph was useful just to show how some may look at the data differently and derive a different significance.

 

[Dinwar]

Or a nuke plant? Or a solar installation?

I would say yes, except for one thing: the environmentalists I've encountered (and I'll certainly accept that my sample may be biased) have had those facts ready at hand. So when I ask those questions, the answer is easy to find. In contrast, the information on the carbon footprints of wind turbines is essentially unavailable. I've even read through a few EIR/EIS documents and couldn't find it.

Again, please don't add more to what I'm saying than what I'm actually saying. I'm not saying that the carbon footprint of turbines is worse than that of other form of energy production. I'm speaking to the availability of the data; I'm agnostic concerning the interpretation of the data.

I WILL say that anyone who thinks carbon footprint is the main issue should look into the Ivanpah Solar Power Plant. I've read a few newspaper articles about its impact to wildlife. ALL energy production is a ballancing act; the question is how to achieve that ballance.

The whole area of AGW is one that I rigorously try to avoid in arguments, because it is clearly an enormously complex issue,

I avoid arguments about interpretation. I have my views, but people seem to insist on misinterpreting them (seems anything other than "CO2 will kill us all!!!!!" will be taken as denial of science by some people). It's simply not worth getting into. That's why I've been trying to be extremely careful to precisely deliniate what my arguments are about--and you can see that even that doesn't seem to work all the time (not saying anything about you; it's aleCcowaN's twisting of my post that I'm thinking of here).

 

[Dymanic]

I would say yes, except for one thing: the environmentalists I've encountered (and I'll certainly accept that my sample may be biased) have had those facts ready at hand. So when I ask those questions, the answer is easy to find.

I don't see how anyone can really speak to what unnamed "environmentalists" may be or may not be saying. Lots of people (of various persuasions) are running around saying lots of things, some of which are fact-based and some of which are completely crazy. Let's not try to throw a net over all of them at once. Name these "environmentalists" and provide the "facts" they are presenting, and we might have some basis for further discussion along that line.

In contrast, the information on the carbon footprints of wind turbines is essentially unavailable. I've even read through a few EIR/EIS documents and couldn't find it.

I've tried to do the same with nuke plants, and found it to be rather complicated.

Again, please don't add more to what I'm saying than what I'm actually saying.

Of course. And I will expect you to extend to me the same consideration.

I'm speaking to the availability of the data; I'm agnostic concerning the interpretation of the data.

I don't see those as quite so neatly separable. Until you've chosen at least a rudimentary (or perhaps "provisional") interpretive framework, I don't see how you can even begin to decide what should be included as "data". No, that's not quite right. You can certainly begin; the trouble is deciding where to stop. It's really a judgement call, and very prone to personal biases. You do see what I mean?

 

[Dinwar]

I don't see how anyone can really speak to what unnamed "environmentalists" may be or may not be saying.

Which is why I mentioned the sampling issue.

That said, considering the fact that I work in an environmental consulting firm, I think my understanding of the views of the field are pretty accurate.

Name these "environmentalists" and provide the "facts" they are presenting, and we might have some basis for further discussion along that line.

The environmental remediation industry, for one. These are the people paid to know this stuff. And my issue with them is that they don't provide the facts at all--again, my issue is that when I ask "What is the carbon footprint of a wind turbine farm?" the answer is "I have no idea."

This also happeend in Environmental Studies classes in school, by the way. I was told that wind turbines had no carbon footprint. I pointed out that this was obviously false (again, it's front- and back-loaded but it exists). No one in that deptartment had studied the carbon footprint ofo a wind turbine. This was an acredited state university; hardly ranting crackpots.

I've tried to do the same with nuke plants, and found it to be rather complicated.

Fair enough. The issue as I see it is that in both cases the main CO2 output is during construction and decommissioning, and that's extremely hard to determine accurately.

Of course. And I will expect you to extend to me the same consideration.

I'm doing my best.

I don't see those as quite so neatly separable.

I don't see how one can be anything BUT agnostic about the interpretation of data when that data is unavailable. I can only form conclusions when I have something to base them on. At present, as far as wind power is concerned, I don't have that data.

Until you've chosen at least a rudimentary (or perhaps "provisional") interpretive framework, I don't see how you can even begin to decide what should be included as "data".

Fair enough. What I mean is, I'm not saying anything about whether wind power should be preferred or not as far as CO2 is concerned. If wind power produces less CO2 per kilowatt/hour, it's better in this limited sense (I'm not saying anything at all about the other environmental impacts). If wind power produces an equal amount, it's a wash. If it produces more, it's worse. I believe that's not something that would be controversial. I find that this is the best way to avoid personal bias entering in: it's a simple, objective test of extremely limited scope. It doesn't matter who asks the question, 5 tons per kw/h is greater than 7 tons per kw/h.

 

[epepke]

I've been trying to find this out for 10 years now: What is the CO2 footprint of a windmill?

I'm currently helping construct a wind farm. I can assure you, it isn't 0.

It certainly is not 0, and that's quite a valid consideration.

I think that one of the reasons that it has been difficult to find out the footprint of a windmill is that is has changed rather dramatically over the past 10 or 15 years. Back in the 1990s, wind power could reasonably have been called a pipe dream. Now, however, there have been significant improvements in efficiency, manufacturing, and bearing technology.

The big inequality has always been the amount of energy you get out versus the amount you put in. For quite some time, arguments against "renewable" sources were quite valid, because you had to take into account making and maintaining the stuff. Yes, there is a great deal of energy expended and therefore carbon dioxide released. However, the manufacturing network for making and replacing the damn things is huge.

Trouble is that one really does have to see if improvements actually work. Numbers for maintainability seem good, but it won't be until a couple of decades with the new technology that we'll know anything for sure. Maybe there will be some sort of fatigue-based catastrophic failure 15 years from now. I hope not, but it's always a possibility. Metal fatigue failures were only noticed around 20 years ago, yet the metallurgy has been around since the 1950s.

 

[lenny]

i'd suggest you find out if your are debating an anti-science denier (someone arguing from the conclusions to the facts) or someone who just hangs on to a few selective facts hoping "it ain't so" but opening to learn what the science implies.

He might be both. But I'm certain he's an AGW denier.

understood. in that case can you find out what he does believe in? ideally something you two can agree on to start with? does he reject the basic physics? does he reject the observations that the planet is warming on the hundred year time scale? does he reject CO2 as an agent in that warming at all?

you can be very open that you are trying to find common ground, with him and the audience, to see what it is you really disagree on.

of course if you have an audience to inform...

It's not he I care to persuade; it is the audience. More importantly though I'm attempting to show how people in general and this one in particular ignore and twist for their own position and benefit data they don't like.

OK good. i’d suggest you hard focus on one case of the data that is being twisted, avoid being drawn off into bigger pictures or interesting diversions. take two or three examples you are confident of, then let him pick which one to focus on first. if he dodges and weaves, this will be apparent to your audience. if he engages in twisted data, you (two) can discuss the potential flaws in the analysis. remain silent on diversions that to not directly inform the case under discussion.

there are plenty of folks on this forum that can provide background/advice on the more commonly abused/ignored/mispresented data.

play nice, just keep the focus where you want it. accept you cannot force him to engage. make it clear to the audience that he talks a lot but does not engage. offer to move to the second point on your original list and try and get him to engage there. agree with him if he turns out to be right on one of the points…

Here's a look at one post of his. He himself has never defined the categories listed below yet expects me to. I suspect his plot is this. If I can't explain this red herring he's setup then climate change is not real.

Your responses would be a lot less of an embarassment is, after all this time, you demonstrated that you have even the slightest understanding of the difference between: "global warming"; "anthropogenic global warming"; "climate change" and "anthropgenic climate change".
Each of these is a seperate and distinct phenomenon, and each requires an entirely different response; if any.

this doesn’t look like he wants a discussion or a debate. it seems likely he may demonstrate your point of how one can “ignore and twist for their own position and benefit data they don't like” for you if you give him the chance. Looks like you’ll have to ignore a lot of personal abuse along the way. just stay with our actual question, do not get drawn off topic, note briefly he is off topic, ask honestly why he thinks resolving “red herring 27” is a precondition to answering “the agreed question XXXX”.

If I can't explain this red herring he's setup then climate change is not real.

i see what you mean. you could ask him that: "why do you seem to think my lack of knowledge implies XXXX, what is the/your evidence for XXXX?"

and accept from the outset that you cannot force him to have a conversation, if he wants to rant while twisting and ignoring. (but he may well make that last fact clear to the audience for you).

hope that helps.

 

[CapelDodger]

You make my pedanticism seem so,...pedantic!

We are precise. They are pedantic.

This is all very diverting, but that is the obvious intention. The scientific basis of AGW is not rationally debatable, and can be easily presented. The evidence of it is hardly more debatable. The emerging science and evidence is where the real interest lies, and where debate is reasonable.

This is why I mention the meandering jet-stream, which seems not to be a great surprise as such but does seem to be manifesting earlier than expected. If these blocked weather-systems remain as frequent as recently the implications are pretty serious.

 

[lenny]

I pointed out that the current warming doesn't match what climate models based on global warming theory predict. This was declared wrong, so I asked what the predictions of global warming theory were.

so i agree that today's models do not closely resemble the planet we are interested in in detail and that, as others have said, in the future they will be of only "historical interest."

but i do not know which models or which obs you intended when you noted the "current warming doesn't match what climate models...". and i'd like to know.

what exactly was the evidence you were referring too? who declared that evidence "wrong"? on what grounds?

 

[Jerrymander]

The big inequality has always been the amount of energy you get out versus the amount you put in. For quite some time, arguments against "renewable" sources were quite valid, because you had to take into account making and maintaining the stuff. Yes, there is a great deal of energy expended and therefore carbon dioxide released. However, the manufacturing network for making and replacing the damn things is huge.

If you have one opinion where both the manufacturing and the product release carbon and one where just the manufacturing releases carbon, isn't that still a cut down?

 

[aleCcowaN]

If you have an answer, post it. I will thank you for it. If you don't, that's fine; no environmentalist has been able to give me an answer.

Open then a proper thread and I will answer, as I'm not an environmentalist. If I answered here I would be contributing to your clear attempt to derail this thread.

As for "devilish windmills", you appear to want to add FAR more to my statements than I put there. You've even gone so far as to put words in my mouth in order to make my position more easily dismissed. I am merely pointing out the fact that wind turbines are not a carbon-free solution to energy production. I wasn't the one who brought it up, I was merely commenting on an error another poster committed. This is not unusual at JREF.

Two things to reply to your paragraph:

First of all, you were not commenting on an error from another poster at all. The error was only yours as you took a photo used to illustrate the notion of mankind modifying its behaviour, a photo with windmills and a disused coal power plant and the statement "ZERO coal" for generating electricity, and you eagerly branched off to carbon footprints of windmills in one of your typical rhetorical twists.

The photo was used to in-topic comment to the derail of daffyd and JihadJane. Yours was an attempt to move the topic to something of your interest, as clearly your post #15 is an opening post of a different thread, hence my suggestion of you having indeed your thread.

Secondly, "devilish windmils" is not and addition to your statements but a mockery of your use of adjectivation to sell rotten meat. You know very well that a footprint can be easily estimated and that such information is widely available, even in Internet. But anyway, in your "opening post" you had to feign there's secrecy and doubt about windmills carbon footprints -your 10 years curious about learning it- and to suggest they "destroy and stupendous amount of terrain" and all sort of innuendos, including "destruction of endangered species".

Again, if you wanted to denounce "devilish windmills" open a proper thread and stop trying to derail this one.

As for you deigning to answer my question, I'll pass. The fact that you think I'm making some argument instead of asking a question, the fact that you've put words in my mouth, and the tone of your post demonstrate that you're highly emotionally invested here and are unlikely to be willing to discuss this as a scientific question. I, in contrast, have no dog in this fight. Personally, I prefer nuclear power to any other type, and would love to be able to power my appartment via solar power (for private reasons--I hate paying electric bills). So to me wind, coal, oil, etc. are poor second choices. If I'm making any argument (and I'm not saying I was) it's about the state of knowledge of many people advocating for wind power, and nothing to do with global warming. Furthermore, you've demonstrated that you will not actually respond to what I'm saying, as opposed to what you want me to have said. So no, I'm not going to engage you on this topic.

Why don't you apply as an associated writer in Days of Our Lives or Home and Away. You have a knack to it, though the trick of "I know they destroy an stupendous amount of terrain ... and ... destruction of endangered species" but "you are highly emotionally invested" is pretty lame.

 

[Dinwar]

If you have one opinion where both the manufacturing and the product release carbon and one where just the manufacturing releases carbon, isn't that still a cut down?

Problem is, wind energy takes a LOT more to construct and tear down. Just in terms of site grading and foundation excavation we're talking several orders of magnitude more effort for wind power than for an equivalent amount of, say, natural gas (I've worked on both types of plants, and am speaking from personal experience here). It's the difference between grading an acre and grading a township section. One reason to like solar power is that it doesn't require as much grading--you don't need to dig the foundations for the poles the panels sit on (they're driven piles, a completely different process), and they typically pick prett flat areas to work in to begin with, minimizing the need to move dirt around.

In order for wind power to be better in terms of CO2, all that grading plus the maintenance plus decommissioning has produce less CO2 than the grading, maintenance, operations, and decommissioning of a similar-sized power plant utilizing other sources of energy. (Shipping and the like are a wash, typically, and the power lines are the same for each--I want to consider apples to apples here).

 

[aleCcowaN]

Problem is, wind energy takes a LOT more to construct and tear down.

How about the recipe of apple pie and its carbon footprint? This thread's topic is natural vs human caused climate change -which are the markers that distinguish one for the other- and not a heavily adjectivated completely figureless speculation about different energy sources. You may start in this very forum all the threads you want about those different topics.

 

[Dinwar]

Open then a proper thread and I will answer

You're going on "Ignore" for a while. I simply don't have the patience to deal with your posting style. (ETA: to be clear, it's the "I have the information, but you have to dance to my tune" nonsense that I find insufferale. You know perfectly well that conversations meander. This is the natural state of conversations. To object to it is overly pedantic and authoritarian, things I find abhorent in scientists.)

 

[tsig]

How about the recipe of apple pie and its carbon footprint? This thread's topic is natural vs human caused climate change -which are the markers that distinguish one for the other- and not a heavily adjectivated completely figureless speculation about different energy sources. You may start in this very forum all the threads you want about those different topics.

You see, when he said uptread that he didn't want to argue about it he really meant he didn't want to defend his arguments.

JAQing about the carbon footprint of a windmill is rather disingenuous since he seems to be ignoring the carbon footprint of operating a coal plant.

ETA:I see you've joined the Ignored by Dinwar club.

 

[Dinwar]

You see, when he said uptread that he didn't want to argue about it he really meant he didn't want to defend his arguments.

I was very precise about what I will not debate: I will not debate whether or not warming is occurring, nor will I debate the ecological outcomes of any climate shift. I will gladly debate issues such as the carbon footprint of wind turbiens. In this case, I simply refuse to allow aleCcowaN to dictate how the conversation will go. I don't let anyone else do it, why should I let aleCcowaN? If s/he knows something that can contribute to this conversation, s/he should post it. If not, don't. I have no respect for anyone who will enter in to a scientific debate with "I know the information, but refuse to provide it."

JAQing about the carbon footprint of a windmill is rather disingenuous since he seems to be ignoring the carbon footprint of operating a coal plant.

This is simply a lie. There's no other word for it. I said the following:

In order for wind power to be better in terms of CO2, all that grading plus the maintenance plus decommissioning has produce less CO2 than the grading, maintenance, operations, and decommissioning of a similar-sized power plant utilizing other sources of energy. (Shipping and the like are a wash, typically, and the power lines are the same for each--I want to consider apples to apples here).

I'm not ignoring the carbon footprint of coal operations. I meant EXACTLY what I said earlier--that I simply don't know, and no one has been able to tell me, the carbon footprint of a wind turbine ("I know but won't tell you" translates to "I can't tell you" in the real world). I know the carbon footprint of coal power plants, so there's no reason to get into that. You don't ask questions to get data you already have; the concept is nonsensical.

Now, can we please shift this discussion away from being about me, and back onto the actually interesting topics at hand? While I think I'm interesting, I'm simply baffled by your habit of making discussions about me no matter the original topic.