Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[Pat]

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

I still say, our planet needs saving from us. Our foot print is just too large, we can be more efficient and therefore have less effect on the environment.
Most peeps in this thread would agree with the above. I just beleive AGW is a great excuse to change...rapidly.

 

[2020hindsight]

The "data" is a joke, anyone with an idea in testing and measurement knows it. ....

Think I agree with mit - It sure does look like a mountain..
Here is NASA's website :-
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Our traditional analysis using only meteorological station data is a line plot of global annual-mean surface air temperature change derived from the meteorological station network [This is an update of Figure 6(b) in Hansen et al. (2001).]

Uncertainty bars (95% confidence limits) are shown for both the annual and five-year means, account only for incomplete spatial sampling of data

lusk, I assume you ("anyone with an idea in testing and measurement") know what confidence limits mean?

btw, remember we are heading for at least 2 degrees hotter than that by 2100. (assuming we really get behind this) - and a damned site more than that if we dont The entire y axis as drawn is only 1.4degC.

 

[2020hindsight]

PS here's another graph from that NASA website . an interesting comparison of nth and sth hemispheres..

 

[Pat]

Think I agree with mit - It sure does look like a mountain.

Yes the evidence is there. They make reference to the hypothesis it in text books I'll be using in uni next year.

It is the same for Evolution Denial, AIDS Denial and Holocaust Denial. They all sound the same.

I like this quote mit. Denial of the AGW possibility due to pressure on the economy. Well we don't need AGW to stuff the world economy do we?

 

[lusk]

Think I agree with mit - It sure does look like a mountain..
Here is NASA's website :-
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/



lusk, I assume you ("anyone with an idea in testing and measurement") know what confidence limits mean?

btw, remember we are heading for at least 2 degrees hotter than that by 2100. (assuming we really get behind this) - and a damned site more than that if we dont The entire y axis as drawn is only 1.4degC.

I know what accuracy of measurement is, just think of the monumental task of co-ordinating all the equipment to measure, keep calibrated and log for 100 years and your looking at a change of 1C, that would be error alone.

The rapid change on that graph could be nothing more than equipment and measuring systems improving over time and the recorded values reaching the true value.

l do agree that we need to seriously look at the way we treat this planet, it's nothing short of a disgrace and something needs to be done. l just don't think we are going to roast like we are led to believe.

 

[Calliope]

The cost of trying to reduce carbon emissions is a luxury we can no longer afford. Bob Brown and the thousands of cloistered academics who have been predicting the end of the world from global warming will now become irrelevent.

The news coming out of the world's markets this morning should convince any rational person that the choices of saving the world from global warming for our grandchildren or saving ourselves now from the poorhouse are not compatible.

 

[Smurf1976]

The cost of trying to reduce carbon emissions is a luxury we can no longer afford. Bob Brown and the thousands of cloistered academics who have been predicting the end of the world from global warming will now become irrelevent.

The news coming out of the world's markets this morning should convince any rational person that the choices of saving the world from global warming for our grandchildren or saving ourselves now from the poorhouse are not compatible.

I've noted on various occasions that public concern about the environment peaks when the economy peaks.

I saw a news item yesterday saying that climate change had slipped from 1 to 5 on the list of major issues the general public is concerned about. In all seriousness, I'd be surprised if it's even on the agenda in 12 months time unless we see a serious turn around in the economic situation. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this. It's just what I think will actually happen.

 

[wayneL]

The cost of trying to reduce carbon emissions is a luxury we can no longer afford. Bob Brown and the thousands of cloistered academics who have been predicting the end of the world from global warming will now become irrelevent.

The news coming out of the world's markets this morning should convince any rational person that the choices of saving the world from global warming for our grandchildren or saving ourselves now from the poorhouse are not compatible.

I wonder if we can cut the climate alarmist gravy train budget then?

Make them walk and use pushbikes instead of limousine motorcades. Make them use video conferencing instead of meeting at luxury south pacific resorts.

 

[Calliope]

There are thousands of people out there with over-mortgaged, unsaleable four-bedroomed houses, unpaid-for Toorak tractors, BMAs and giant plasma TVs. These are the same people who had feel-good ,warm and fuzzy feelings about saving the earth from global warming. They said they were quite prepared to make financial sacrifices to achieve this goal, and they thought you and me should do the same.

They will now come back to earth with a thud. Their feel-good fuzzy feelings will disappear like rats up a drainpipe. A lot of these people have parasitic occupations in financial services and banking. They will find there are not many global warming theorists in the dole queue.

Even all those GW theorists living on tax-payer funded hand-outs will not be immune. Pensioners can forget about a rise. Taxpayer funded maternity leave will be on indefinite hold. All available funding will be needed for the genuinely unemployed

 

[Pat]

Seems that the environment and GW is still on top of the news-
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24424571-2,00.html

 

[Pat]

On another note, what may help the financial and environmental sting would be doubling or tripling the efficiency of cars, trucks, busses, planes etc.
Heaven forbid the oil co's go broke as well.

 

[Pat]

A little article on the some of the costs involved for the individuals on making a change...

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24429007-5009760,00.html

"But there's a chance, just a chance, that humanity will deal with this matter in a way that future generations judge to be satisfactory.

"If we fail ... the failure of our generation will haunt humanity until the end of time."

Good to see where at least trying and submitting solutions

 

[Green08]

I watched a Discovery programme this morning. Had me wondering on the merits of human intervention.

An American had the idea of blanketing the entire area of Greenland in a white poylurethne material to reflect light and hopefully keep the ice underneath frozen.

As the programme rolled on I could see their sense of determination and sincere wish to stop the melting. Kudo's to them. They did a control area of 2 acres covered in 3 days. Yes they took into account most events that could topple their creation.

But, the 'blanket' is made from a human made processed fibre. So you take in the sourcing, manufacturing, energy to process, protective plastic over the blanket, delivery from Austria, and all the other elements to final application. Let alone all the other items needed for implementation.

Now doesn't the entire manufacturing process and delivery of all items negate the whole theory of preventing or slowing down the melt - in the broad sense?

I do believe the climate is changing. Cause? No idea, could be all the exhaled mojo smoke. Nothing we do will stop it. Nature repeating itself once again. If we can't stop tsunami's, tornadoes, flooding, volcanoes erupting seriously - are humans so egotisically minded to think we can alter the earth's climate? We just have to go with it isn't that what we've been doing- evolving and extinguishing. We are but a speck of dust in the scheme of things. Humans have a brillant way of constantly wasting limited resources on things they can't change.

 

[Soft Dough]

Humans have a brillant way of constantly wasting limited resources on things they can't change.

Absolutely,

Now please tell this to our politicians who, even though they know AGW is a scientist beatup designed to get them limitless funding, will do whatever it takes to keep the general public vote.

It is such a shame that people who are influencing decisions of this ludicrous position of AGW have no idea about science, and no idea of historical climate history, causes and implications.

 

[Pat]

Humans have a brillant way of constantly wasting limited resources on things they can't change.

I reckon we waste more on administering red tape...

Absolutely,

Now please tell this to our politicians who, even though they know AGW is a scientist beatup designed to get them limitless funding, will do whatever it takes to keep the general public vote.

It is such a shame that people who are influencing decisions of this ludicrous position of AGW have no idea about science, and no idea of historical climate history, causes and implications.

Anthropogenic climate change is a scientist beat up?
Limitless funding for what? Giant blankets?
Its a shame all those Doctors and Professors (who have no idea about the science) are giving biased information to fuel their lust for further funding the science beat up...

Profitability is stopping the transition to cleaner transportation and power.

 

[Green08]

I reckon we waste more on administering red tape.

Yes Pat humans are good a wasting alot of things - money is number one.

Profitability is stopping the transition to cleaner transportation and power.

A lot of Uni students and inquisitive people / kids who aren't paid a cent, do come up with some great ideas. Half the problem is acknowledgment and funding. One great Australian couldn't get funding for a solar project in Australia. So he went to the USA and California gave him millions to instigate the project. It was so successful it is being repeated across the country.

My problem with intervention is the 'race to get the funding' on projects that are not solving anything as their very nature of production negates the goal they want to achieve.

I'm all for new technology if we can just clean up our environment and have clean air and healthier surroundings. That would be a major achievement.

I don't believe humans can do anything major to slow down a natural event.
One persons goodwill is counter acted by some one who does understand or care. Being asked to pay for saving the Amazon is a slap in the face. They stuff up due to greed then expect us to pick up the tab. You can't stop little minds from continual abuse of the forest, it will never stop.

When the solar flares start in the next year or so the weather will probably become more extreme. Then the 'blame' will be put on the sun.

If your (not personal to you) world is changing and you don't like it, move, adapt to the change but don't expect sympathy when you carry on and sit like a stunned rabbit.

 

[Smurf1976]

Profitability is stopping the transition to cleaner transportation and power.

It is energy productivity that is the inherent barrier with alternative energy sources. Oil is simply the most productive thing we've come up with thus far with gas and coal not far behind.

Productivity? Consider that just one barrel of oil represents the energy content of more than a full year's worth of hard manual labour. But it doesn't take anywhere near one man year of work to get a barrel of oil out of the ground - it is thus a means of leveraging human productivity and that's the primary reason we use it.

Oil, gas, coal, hydro are all highly productive in terms of return on human effort invested. To be a viable replacement, any alternative needs to achieve that same level of productivity - not easy when you're dealing with dispersed resources like wind, sun etc rather than the highly concentrated energy in oil, coal or from a single dam on a big river.

That's why oil, coal, hydro etc are viable energy sources but solar generally isn't - there's nowhere on Earth that has a natural high concentration of sunlight sufficient to enable high productivity in its use. We do the best we can with wind farms on hill tops, which do provide a natural concentration of wind to some extent, but it's still a diffuse energy source versus the highly concentrated energy in fossil fuels, nuclear or hydro.

 

[Pat]

I don't believe humans can do anything major to slow down a natural event.

They say we can slow it down because we have sped it up, or enhanced climate change.

Science is a funny thing, most discoveries are serendipitous, that costly blanket might provide a breakthrough in some other field of science, say insulation... There is usually a profitable reason for funding.

 

[Pat]

It is energy productivity that is the inherent barrier with alternative energy sources. Oil is simply the most productive thing we've come up with thus far with gas and coal not far behind.

Productivity? Consider that just one barrel of oil represents the energy content of more than a full year's worth of hard manual labour. But it doesn't take anywhere near one man year of work to get a barrel of oil out of the ground - it is thus a means of leveraging human productivity and that's the primary reason we use it.

Oil, gas, coal, hydro are all highly productive in terms of return on human effort invested. To be a viable replacement, any alternative needs to achieve that same level of productivity - not easy when you're dealing with dispersed resources like wind, sun etc rather than the highly concentrated energy in oil, coal or from a single dam on a big river.

That's why oil, coal, hydro etc are viable energy sources but solar generally isn't - there's nowhere on Earth that has a natural high concentration of sunlight sufficient to enable high productivity in its use. We do the best we can with wind farms on hill tops, which do provide a natural concentration of wind to some extent, but it's still a diffuse energy source versus the highly concentrated energy in fossil fuels, nuclear or hydro.

Yes this is true, we are unable to meet demand...

But then I guess we need to analyse "demand", and how this came to be.

Economic success relys on on the glutenous use of resources and population growth.

Perhaps Malthusian limits apply not only to food, but many resources.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/06/cheap-food/bourne-text

But we are were we are, and it would seem some change is coming... slowly.
I understand "alternative energy" cannot meet demand... yet, it will one day.

 

[basilio]

Climate change groundhog day

The same nonsense, the same confusions - all seem to be endlessly repeated. But what needs more explaining? (From Real Climate.org)

..........recently there has been more of a sense that the issues being discussed (in the media or online) have a bit of a groundhog day quality to them. The same nonsense, the same logical fallacies, the same confusions - all seem to be endlessly repeated. The same strawmen are being constructed and demolished as if they were part of a make-work scheme for the building industry attached to the stimulus proposal. Indeed, the enthusiastic recycling of talking points long thought to have been dead and buried has been given a huge boost by the publication of a new book by Ian Plimer who seems to have been collecting them for years. Given the number of simply made-up 'facts' in that tome, one soon realises that the concept of an objective reality against which one should measure claims and judge arguments is not something that is universally shared. This is troubling - and although there is certainly a role for some to point out the incoherence of such arguments (which in that case Tim Lambert and Ian Enting are doing very well), it isn't something that requires much in the way of physical understanding or scientific background.

.....A case in point is a 100+ comment thread criticising my recent book in which it was clear that not a single critic had read a word of it (you can find the thread easily enough if you need to - it's too stupid to link to). Not only had no-one read it, none of the commenters even seemed to think they needed to - most found it easier to imagine what was contained within and criticise that instead. It is vaguely amusing in a somewhat uncomfortable way.

Communicating with people who won't open the book, read the blog post or watch the program because they already 'know' what must be in it, is tough and probably not worth one's time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/08/network-climate-change-groundhog-day

I think this article reflects how I feel about the mindless repetition of arguments against the reality of man induced global warming that simply are not true and proven not to be the case many times over.