On July 27 2012 06:31 Bigtony wrote: The fact is fossil fuels are a brute force answer to energy, one that we have refined to be very efficient. The harsh truth however, is that they will run out eventually. Isn't it better to research an alternative now, while we still are in a good place?
We have at least hundreds of years to do it. Diverting resources and effort to this is actually short-sighted as well as bad economics.
On July 27 2012 06:31 Bigtony wrote: The fact is fossil fuels are a brute force answer to energy, one that we have refined to be very efficient. The harsh truth however, is that they will run out eventually. Isn't it better to research an alternative now, while we still are in a good place?
We have at least hundreds of years to do it. Diverting resources and effort to this is actually short-sighted as well as bad economics.
I'm not going to contest this, because I've seen articles on both sides. Some say we will flat out run out within 100 years (not that long). Some say several hundred years. Some say it wont run out fro 100+ years but in 30-50 the cost will go up exponentially. I'm not sure who to believe, but I doubt it's a waste of resources to refine our alternative energy research.
This is one of the best threads I have read in a long time. Very well done sir!
I'm pretty sure It will get all used up. I highly doubt large corporations will do anything since they only care about money. I do believe that it shouldn't get burned and we should take the bullet. It's better to have a shit or non-existent economy for 10-20 years than to have a world in which it's near impossible to live on. As time goes on, the sun will only get hotter as well.
Sometimes people need to learn things the hard way. Unfortunately this means punishing all other life on earth but we'll learn eventually. Sad that it will be too late to matter.
On July 27 2012 06:31 Bigtony wrote: The fact is fossil fuels are a brute force answer to energy, one that we have refined to be very efficient. The harsh truth however, is that they will run out eventually. Isn't it better to research an alternative now, while we still are in a good place?
We have at least hundreds of years to do it. Diverting resources and effort to this is actually short-sighted as well as bad economics.
Without contesting the number, you have to shy away from exporting any of that oil-equivalence if any of his numbers should count towards the years he is spewing right and left. Diverting resources to developing technologies with the ability to compete with oil if oil-price increases is not exactly shortsighted. As I said earlier: The price of 3 $ per liter is a safety-net if all else fails. As people have said before: Electricity, ethanol, hydrogen and several other compounds are entering the fuel-market and with its current development, the price of using those instead of oil is nearing competitive status even without an increase in fuel-price (For hydrogen it is already rather effective, but safety is a concern for non-scientists since 200 bar of pressure with explosive gas is a bit worrying.).
On July 27 2012 02:56 jdseemoreglass wrote: This movement has NEVER been about facts or reality or numbers, it's about having an ideology which makes you feel smart and moral and better than other people. Anyone who took an honest and objective look at the facts would realize that even if global warming is entirely anthropogenic there is absolutely no way to reverse the trend without leaping towards the stone age.
So a few environmentalists are finally catching on to the fact after all these years that achieving their desires would necessarily bankrupt the planet and lead to widespread death, poverty, and suffering? You cannot reverse the carbon release. It's simply not possible without completely turning back industrialization, which would entail starvation, poverty, etc. There is zero doubt in my mind that a global economic collapse will lead to FAR more death and suffering than whatever a couple degree increase in temperature will bring.
Most people though will keep the delusional hope alive for "renewable energy," not so much as to provide a viable alternative as to provide a means to criticize the current system and people running it.
There's absolutely no contesting that even if "global warming" isn't real, we're doing serious damage to our environment, in particular to our oceans, atmosphere, and farm land that will probably kill everyone. The changes needed to slow and in some cases reverse this damage won't "put us back to the stone age." How on earth is reducing the use of fossil fuels and replacing them with things that generate less CO2 and pollutants (nuclear, wind, solar, something else), going to put us back to the stone age?
How will more responsible fishing and farming and marketing methods put us back to the stone age? How will reducing waste and better recycling methods put us back to the stone age?
There's no downside to going green if you do it right.
Replacing things like engines to generate less CO2 does not decrease the amount of CO2. Cars still increase CO2. All that you are advocating is a decrease in the exponential INCREASE in CO2 in the atmosphere. And if you take even a glance at the numbers you will realize this makes no difference at all, especially when you consider that each plant that opens each day in China offsets thousands and thousands of hybrid cars.
You are fighting a losing battle. Even if the entire United States went into the stone age, China and other industrializing countries would still be increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is why reversing the trend would in fact require a global economic depression.
But you seem to think that using solar energy and recycling more is gonna fix the problem over time, which affirms my point that such people don't care about facts or numbers, only the feeling that they are impacting the world.
Basically your argument boils down to : Since we cannot do everything, let us do nothing. Nice black and white fallacy.
On July 27 2012 04:13 Thorakh wrote: By use of the scientific method climatologists show that global warming is anthropogenic.
The great scientific method which gives us stuff like this.
I see nothing scientific in the article you mention, so I have no idea what are you trying to point out. Whole article is just poor logic mixed with misinformation.
On July 27 2012 07:38 Maxd11 wrote: Sometimes people need to learn things the hard way. Unfortunately this means punishing all other life on earth but we'll learn eventually. Sad that it will be too late to matter.
Its not only "other life" the effect on tropical and subtropical climate will make life harder for people there than it already is.
On July 27 2012 02:59 Perdac Curall wrote: Your entire article is premised on the argument that burning all those fossil fuels will cause a 6 degree rise in temperature. This is false, and thus your whole argument is moot. There is no Scylla and Charybdis that we are between. This is a false dichotomy that has been created because of believing these so-called "scientists" who make this claim. The fact is that CO2 plays a very minor role in the overall greenhouse effect on the planet. 90% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor. The other greenhouse gases all compete to play a role in the other 10%. Climate is mostly determined by solar and cosmic radiation. Whether the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere makes up 0.025% or 0.037% is of little consequence.
Why do you even post when you have no idea what you're talking about?
If not the people who actually study this field, the climatologists (and for your information, there is no dispute in this field that global warming exists and is manmade), then who do you trust? Random anti global warming blogs on the internet? Politicians? Your neighbors?
Here you go good sir, I will never deny someone some sources for further research if they ask for them.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC4 Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.
Go ahead and read it all that is only a very small sample, there are dozens more quotes from scientists all around the world. I would also suggest you check out the work of Henrik Svensmark and the CERN CLOUD experiments.
On July 27 2012 02:59 Perdac Curall wrote: Your entire article is premised on the argument that burning all those fossil fuels will cause a 6 degree rise in temperature. This is false, and thus your whole argument is moot. There is no Scylla and Charybdis that we are between. This is a false dichotomy that has been created because of believing these so-called "scientists" who make this claim. The fact is that CO2 plays a very minor role in the overall greenhouse effect on the planet. 90% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor. The other greenhouse gases all compete to play a role in the other 10%. Climate is mostly determined by solar and cosmic radiation. Whether the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere makes up 0.025% or 0.037% is of little consequence.
Why do you even post when you have no idea what you're talking about?
If not the people who actually study this field, the climatologists (and for your information, there is no dispute in this field that global warming exists and is manmade), then who do you trust? Random anti global warming blogs on the internet? Politicians? Your neighbors?
Here you go good sir, I will never deny someone some sources for further research if they ask for them.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC4 Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.
Go ahead and read it all that is only a very small sample, there are dozens more quotes from scientists all around the world. I would also suggest you check out the work of Henrik Svensmark and the CERN CLOUD experiments.
Regarding the quotes: Ms Simpson has a healthy and standard scientific scepticism. I can respect that and there is nothing wrong with what she says. You only have to understand that she seems to be very clear about her scepticism being about the specific models used and not specifically denying the existance of AGW. Scepticism is healthy in any science and does not mean a rejection! These are very significant distinctions.
Dr. Kiminori is clearly commenting on the fearmongering in the media. He does not seem to question any part of the basis behind AGW. He actually seems to support it implicitly by telling the trueth will disappoint people and not claiming any competining theory.
Dr. Pal Brekke is clearly stating that the results are not perfect yet and I completely agree. AGW as a thesis does not seem in question here at all.
Mr Goldenberg is pretty frank in his rejection of AGW. I, however do question his rejection of something that has been proven at several instances, including in this thread.
Dr. Zágoni is somewhat stating a scientific thesis for rejection of AGW. Now, he just have to give a thesis for why the temperature has acted as it has the last 100 years.
Svensmark has actually contributed a lot to the theories and models used by IPCC. He has been pretty clear about his views and he actually do recognise AGW as a part of the problem although he is of the opinion that the sun is more important. Since this documentary he has contributed some interesting data showing effect of solar radiation. The big problem for Svensmarks theory is that nobody has been able to produce the effect needed for Solar radiaton to account for the temperature pattern...
Edit: And just for the record: There are other threads for discussing AGW. This thread is about carbon-cycle, the "potential" effect on GW and how to avoid it. Discussing AGW is a bit of a detour and does not give much progress.
Hmm 6 degrees, while that is rather significant and extremely significant in some places, I cannot equate that with destruction of the world, it's just changing the world. Some kinds of flora and fauna will perish, and new ones will flourish in their place.
On July 27 2012 19:48 Phenny wrote: Hmm 6 degrees, while that is rather significant and extremely significant in some places, I cannot equate that with destruction of the world, it's just changing the world. Some kinds of flora and fauna will perish, and new ones will flourish in their place.
Yeah sure, life will go on. That's some small comfort when contemplating our extinction.
Global warming is a lie. Composition of air and our atmosphere changes independently of humans. If we would be polluting earth for 1000 years, then there maybe would be some effect. But we are that doing for somewhat 60 years only so we are perfectly fine.
Did anyone notice that ice ages come and go from time to time, so changes in climate and temperature. Even if temperature would shift 5 degrees a year it would mean that new ice age is coming and its not our fault.
More money will naturally be invested into alternative energy once oil becomes too expensive. Ethanol and electric cars will look mighty attractive when the only oil left on earth is miles under the ocean. You should applaud high gas prices because it gets people thinking about alternatives.
It might be a bumpy transition, but society will find a way to continue.
On July 27 2012 21:18 M4nkind wrote: Global warming is a lie. Composition of air and our atmosphere changes independently of humans. If we would be polluting earth for 1000 years, then there maybe would be some effect. But we are that doing for somewhat 60 years only so we are perfectly fine.
Did anyone notice that ice ages come and go from time to time, so changes in climate and temperature. Even if temperature would shift 5 degrees a year it would mean that new ice age is coming and its not our fault.
Yeah, except all the proof is against your "idea".
On July 27 2012 21:18 M4nkind wrote: Global warming is a lie. Composition of air and our atmosphere changes independently of humans. If we would be polluting earth for 1000 years, then there maybe would be some effect. But we are that doing for somewhat 60 years only so we are perfectly fine.
Did anyone notice that ice ages come and go from time to time, so changes in climate and temperature. Even if temperature would shift 5 degrees a year it would mean that new ice age is coming and its not our fault.
The actual climate scientists rack their brains over math, physics, chemistry, biology, building computers etc., and do so for decades of their life. They all say there is global warming happening, and it is caused by human civilization. Suspiciously, the only people arguing against global warming happening and being man-made are doing so purely by playing with words.
Too bad the poll only has three "I agree" options. Why not an option which says something like,
"The financial implosion let banks consolidate a lot of resources and power, and going cold turkey would allow the energy industry to do the same", or,
"The effects of carbon on the climate are widely exaggerated/debated, And we won't reach a temperature that the earth hasn't seen before for hundreds/thousands of years"?
This post makes a lot of assumptions about what's correct and suggests there's only one real course of action. We could go steady on the path we're on, as long as we end up with some new technology that lets us go mostly solar or go to space. In spite of the doomsayers, the world is not going to end in less than a hundred years. Climate scientists have said similar things for the last 50 years; in fact some claimed that by the year 2000 we would already have catastrophe.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of money tied up in directing scientists what/how to research, and a lot of corruption too (as we saw with 'climategate', where the largest supporters of these ideas were shown to be faking data). I think one of the worst solutions is government intervention with some sort of carbon tax/tracking system. Sadly, if any solutions comes, I feel like that's exactly what we'll get. Which won't help at all, since financial penalties don't affect the population uniformly. Just see China's 'one child policy' for an example: the rich simply ignore it.
EPT
