EPT
great read TL vs. Climate Change (Denial) - Page 31
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
mcmartini
Australia1972 Posts
great read | ||
|
Acasta
27 Posts
I believe in human-made climate change, and i think your research is very important, as understanding a problem and making everyone aware that there is one, is the first and most important step for solving it. I'm making my B.Sc. in Geoscience right now, want to do my Master in Applied Geophysics (so may be working for the oil industry) and I'm very interested in any kind of energy related issue. I would like your personal opinion on this: The most important contributor to climate change is the burning of fossil fuels as energy-sources (oil, gas and coal); and while this affects the climate it also affects our society, lifestyle, and view of what humanity is capable (always expecting economic growth even though our energy sources are limited). With the words of Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley: "Energy is the single most important challenge facing humanity today" and cheap energy is also a very big part of the solution for various other problems of humanity (Water, Food, Wars/Terrorism). (see Lecture of Richard Smalley about Energy for more information) Now that we have passed peak oil, energy is just going to get more expensive, and while we are currently not able to meet our energy demand with renewable energys (and dont unterstand me wrong; renewable energies have to be the solution and research should get more funded), we remain dependent on fossil fuels for at least the next 40 years. So: Aren't the problems deriving from not having cheap energy (wars, financial crisis, a step backwards in solving the water and food problem) less important than the problems caused by fossil fuels (climate change, oil spills, environmental damage caused by oil sand)? This is a very difficult question and i don't think that there is a perfect answer; (hard to quantify the problems and damage) In my opinion the solution has to be a compromise between both, fossil fuels and environment (obviously regulating our energy demand will also be important); but fossil fuels are to important for the next 40 years to discard them in favor of climate change. I would like your opinion (and the opinon of others) on that :-) Thanks for reading :D | ||
|
ikl2
United States145 Posts
On February 05 2012 16:27 Frunkis wrote: No doubt he's a kook. It's irrelevant. There's dozens of articles saying the same thing, pick a different one if you like. The numbers don't change. The study is invalidated by selection criteria, sample size, question phrasing and confined by organization affiliation. There are plenty of papers that attempt to poll the same thing but the one that gets the most attention despite its glaring flaws is the one that gives the magical 97% consensus bullshit. Read the paper. Some of those things are reasonable, some of them actually just aren't true. (a) Selection criteria. Yes, that is one bar of one graph, but all of the data is published - not just the highest bar. (b) Sample size. Agreed! We shouldn't think that that is really statistically valid. What we should conclude is it seems to indicate the possibility that most climatologists that are interested in climate change - whether or not that number is 97% - probably think that climate change is happening. (c) Question phrasing. This is another enormous strawman the kook ignores in his article. His criticism of question 2 entirely elides the 'significant' part of 'do human beings have a significant effect on climate'. This to me changes to analysis. (d) Yeah, he made that up whole cloth as far as I can tell, or got it from a source aside from the paper. | ||
|
AlphaWhale
Australia328 Posts
On February 05 2012 18:55 Xapti wrote:\ Based off my understanding, what you're saying is quite misleading. They don't really Absorb the CO2 and release it afterward, they convert CO2 to Carbon (which combined with the hydrogen obtained from water, form sugars) and oxygen. As far as I know, little to no CO2 is produced when a plant goes dormant or dies for the winter (unless it is burned). Well I'm hardly an expert. But the point I was trying to make is that trees aren't a problem, nor is chopping them all down going to solve anything. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On February 06 2012 00:12 AlphaWhale wrote: Well I'm hardly an expert. But the point I was trying to make is that trees aren't a problem, nor is chopping them all down going to solve anything. Trees are actually a very interesting area in the carbon-cycle. When a plant dies some of the organic carbon is converted back to CO2 but some of it is not as easily convertible. That is lignin, cellulose and hemi-cellulose primarily. It takes months and often years for bacteria in the soil to digest that. Some of it can become so hard to access and break down that it will not be broken down in thousands of years. It is mostly happening in wetlands, but will also happen in soil to a certain degree. If you remove the forest you are removing the source of lignin, cellulose and hemi-cellulose and therefore stopping this natural "carbon-sink" it presents. It has been mathematcally calculated that removing forests can have a very harsh effect on this system, releasing a lot more CO2 to the athmosphere and it is one of the most important reasons, why using wood to create biofuels is not efficient enough to save CO2 at its current state. The next thing will be growing algae, seaweeds and waterliving plants in general to produce the carbon-source. Doing it on deep water will also have the benifit of removing some CO2 from the active cycle - <100-1000 years of transformation-time. | ||
|
reincremate
China2210 Posts
| ||
|
shuurai
75 Posts
With that out of the way, I'd like you to address a few points: 1) Quite recently, several key institutions leading the charge have, without much fanfare, revised their forecasts into their very opposites. These include the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia, of "Climategate" fame, as well as NASA and the UK's Met Office, which now admit that their data shows no warming trend in the past 15 years -- which, almost needless to say, flies straight in the face of their highly alarmist claims dating back to the turn of the millenium. That in essence leaves us with only one conclusion: Their models are nowhere near accurate, and should thus not be taken for gospel. Can you possibly dispute that? 2) There is ample evidence for historical periods of substantially more warmth in history (e.g. Medieval Warm Period, Holocene Optimum) , none of which have been caused by industrialization and none of which resulted in ecological disaster -- to the contrary, in fact. Knowing that vast changes have occurred quite naturally, and without disastrous results, what arguments are there to justify the current efforts to "fix" the climate? 3) Ice cores, providing us with the longest historical temperature records available, clearly indicate a larger cycle of about 100.000 years of which roughly 10.000 tend to be "interglacials", i.e. times in between ice ages (The underlying theory of which, "Milankovitch Cycles", now is being recognized by the likes of NASA et al btw...). What's more, the end of the current interglacial is just about overdue, making excessive future cooling a very likely -- and very hostile -- scenario, calling for its very own preparations in stark contrast to those for "global warming". If you discard this scenario, on what grounds? Thanks for reading. PS: These graphs speak louder than words, I can not recommend studying these enough for perspective: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/ | ||
|
ikl2
United States145 Posts
| ||
|
shuurai
75 Posts
| ||
|
ikl2
United States145 Posts
These include the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia, of "Climategate" fame, as well as NASA and the UK's Met Office, which now admit that their data shows no warming trend in the past 15 years -- which, almost needless to say, flies straight in the face of their highly alarmist claims dating back to the turn of the millenium. Okay. So your assertion is that all of these people no longer think that there caused climate change? Or is it the independent claim that you don't think that there is? Because those are different claims, and I'm only really interested in your assertion that none of the above authorities think that there is. Your response suggests that you're talking about the latter claim, as NASA very clearly still thinks that the world is warming, according to what you've already said. NASA, which you've already looked at, but which definitely does not support your claim that they don't think the world is warming: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120119/, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ The Met Office: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/solar-output-research; http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/ (Spoilers: The people who say the Met Office doesn't think that the world is warming is the Daily Mail, not the Met Office...) I can't find anything to do with East Anglia in the thread. These are all links pulled out of pages 25-31. Pardon my initial '5 pages' claim, as it seems to have been six. Edit: I suspect, in entirely unrelated news, that the reason we lost our very civil and well-informed OP is that the people asking the questions are unwilling to read the entire thread and look for answers that have already been given! | ||
|
shuurai
75 Posts
Doesn't bode too well for the theory, nor the scientists advocating it. "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." - Kevin Trenberth, NCAR PS: I think, in entirely related news, that the original poster's customary inclusion of all responses in this original post via editing gives credence to the assumption that posters not willing to read through 30+ pages of mostly mudslinging should be able to get up-to-date by only reading said original post. I also think that wrapping personal accusations in concern-feigning innuendo is the hallmark of a snivelling coward. | ||
|
ikl2
United States145 Posts
| ||
|
shuurai
75 Posts
Also, even though I'm sure we disagree on this, I don't think these press releases "answer" the question. The models predicted warming even if CO2 emissions stopped. They didn't, and still there has been no warming. Therefore, they are models of anything but reality, and should thus not be authoritative in shaping it. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17831 Posts
On February 06 2012 04:37 shuurai wrote: I'm trying not to deal in opinion, but fact -- and fact is that contrary to '99 IPCC predictions that we would experience warming even if we stopped emitting CO2 completely [http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AR4_projections.jpg], there has been no discernible warming over the last decade despite CO2 emissions increasing steadily (akin to the "A2" scenario in the graph). Doesn't bode too well for the theory, nor the scientists advocating it. PS: I think, in entirely related news, that the original poster's customary inclusion of all responses in this original post via editing gives credence to the assumption that posters not willing to read through 30+ pages of mostly mudslinging should be able to get up-to-date by only reading said original post. I also think that wrapping personal accusations in concern-feigning innuendo is the hallmark of a snivelling coward. Here, have the whole story, in stead of ripping quotes out of context: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm | ||
|
shuurai
75 Posts
Just look at this impeccable weaseling: We know the planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide... Ok, so what's new? ...but that surface temperature sometimes have short term cooling periods. Alright, so it's "continually heating", even though sometimes...it's not. Fascinating. This is due to internal variability Sure can pin a lot of unexpected outcomes on that. "Look, here are our super duper computer models of earth in space, which allow us to actually predict the future! Oh, nevermind that our predictions from 10 years ago turned out to be the exact opposite of what actually transpired, we obviously knew about that all along. It's actually a feature which we like to call "internal variability"! Now, if you'd kindly acquiesce to the creation of yet another monumental financial bubble, courtesy of carbon credits, expertly handled by the economical wizards of Wall St, a regulatory carte blanche of all industry and adjunct metabolisms to our most benign globalist overlords, and regular get togethers of all those most concerned about CO2 footprints in popular vacation hubs, you'd have our express gratitude." Does it not bother you at all that this supposed global warming is simply not happening?? What if it'll not be here in 10 years? 20? How many will it take? | ||
|
ikl2
United States145 Posts
Look closely at the two claims you're contrasting: (1) The planet is continually heating. (2) Surface temperatures have short term cooling periods. A few things to note: (1) is a claim about the planet as a whole, which is emphasized in the rest of the answer. (2) is a claim about one element of the planet, which is partly constituent of but not identical with the subject of (1). They are not, strictly speaking, contradictory. Edit: I could make that clearer. I'm not a scientist, so I'm going entirely based on the argument on the page, but it seems to me that the appropriate comparison is an apartment. Say you live in an apartment - like mine - where one room seems consistently colder than every other room in the house. If someone turns up the thermostat in that apartment, the temperature of the entire system goes up, but the temperature in the room may not. As a result, we could hold an analogous two positions quite sensibly: (a) The apartment is heating. (b) The room is not heating. (1), based on the rest of the post, isn't communicated with absolute precision, unless 'heating' means something different in physics than it does colloquially. Here, heating seems to mean 'acquiring energy'. Finally, the claim about natural variability is precisely Trenberth's problem. He doesn't find it especially satisfying either, and wants to figure out precisely where the energy we're accumulating is going. | ||
|
shuurai
75 Posts
PS: And then where is that heat supposed to be hiding? According to instruments, it's neither in the ocean nor the atmosphere. Maybe it's in Trenberth's apartment? | ||
|
Dbla08
United States211 Posts
Edit: also, if anyone truly believes that carbon-dioxide is the sole cause of climate change, they've either been horribly fooled or are horribly stupid. methane is almost 10x more dense than carbon dioxide, and its prevalence is growing much more rapidly than carbon dioxide. the industrial slaughter of cows/pigs etc, as well as the frozen tundra of russia releasing large quantities of methane contribute to climate change so much more than the carbon dioxide the biomass of earth produces, and consumes, the eco-system has a natural way of eliminating massive amounts of carbon dioxide. its called photosynthesis via chlorophyll, and every plant that's green does it. methane doesn't have such an out, it simply stays or is burned and broken down into CO/CO2 and some other trace chemicals etc. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
this vid and person made a great impression on me, verry interesting! dont mind the subtitles, its in english. hes not right on every part btw, like there is still for 400 years+ coal in the ground wich he says is near its end but its interesting nonetheless. Production of meat contributes more to global warming then transport O-o never thought about that. Hmm its getting a bit idealistic near the end. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On February 06 2012 09:54 Rassy wrote: Meh after watching a few vids on the internet and reading a bit more about it i am slowly becoming a believer.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9wM-p8wTq4&sns=fb this vid and person made a great impression on me, verry interesting! dont mind the subtitles, its in english. hes not right on every part btw, like there is still for 400 years+ coal in the ground wich he says is near its end but its interesting nonetheless. Production of meat contributes more to global warming then transport O-o never thought about that. Hmm its getting a bit idealistic near the end. The issue is the same we are having as peak oil. There's probably centuries of oil left but now that we have transcended peak oil, prices are going up really fast. Same will happen with coal, eventually we will get to a point where its no longer sustainable to keep mining coal even though there is plenty left, and electricity prices will go up really fast. | ||
| ||
