I just watched An Inconvenient Truth

[SkepticLance]

bascule said :

 

The site is run by a PhD climate scientist and includes collaboration from other PhD climate scientists. Can you find me a "global warming skeptic" web site run by a PhD climate scientist?

 

Yes, the New Zealand based climate coalition web site, which I have shown you before.

 

I do not trust that site either. Bias at either end of the spectrum is suspect. Both sets of climate scientists use the same facts but come to different conclusions, which shows that interpretation is important. Scientists are people also, and make interpretations through the veil of their pre-existing beliefs, whether those beliefs are alarmist or sceptical.

 

There are so many studies on climate change, and so many sets of results, that people can draw almost any conclusion by data mining. I find it difficult to get definitive conclusions, and I certainly do not trust biased views.

 

The idea that climate scientists form a consensus is also wrong. Even the recent report of the IPCC, which is touted as being a consensus of 2500 scientists is not. It is a compromise, drawn from many dissenting views.

 

It is so easy to come to a conclusion that matches your bias.

Take ice in Greenland for example. Separate studies have shown the following.

1. Sea ice is melting rapidly.

2. Glaciers at the sea's edge are melting and collapsing, often spectacularly.

3. The thickness of ice in inland areas is thickening, and the total mass of ice on land in Greenland is increasing. This has been shown with GPS studies. This is supposedly due to a higher moisture content in the air, leading to more precipitation.

 

Depending on your bias, you will say that melting ice in Greenland is contributing to sea level rise, or else that thickening ice in Greenland is contributing to slowing sea level rise. I can predict what your interpretation will be.

[1veedo]

I am not a fan of the realclimate web site, since it is as biased towards global warming alarmism as certain other sites are biased towards global warming scepticism. However, in this case, at least they are honest enough to admit that their dogma has a high degree of uncertainty. They used the words "could have' instead of the unmodified word "caused".

Ok let me give you a crash course in science jargon.

 

In science, there are no absolute proofs. Science can always change when new data comes up so you will absolutely never hear a scientists saying 100% we know exactly what's happening. Science isn't like that. However, the certainty about global warming, from a general non-scientific perspective, is 100%.

 

Just to put this in perspective, the older a scientific theory is, the most likely it is to stick around. Relativity and quantum mechanics are both less then 80 years old and global warming is more than 110 years old! This means that global warming is even more likely to be true then relativity and quantum mechanics! Every major scientific acadamy is sayign that global warming is real and that we are causing it. The IPCC calls it a 90% chance, "very likely." This translates from science jargon into every day people language as "Global warming is definitely real and we are definitely causing it."

 

Another thing most people dont understand is what scientists mean by "theory." People who dont understand science jargon think theory means a "guess." Anit-evolution groups use the same arguments about language ("could have" for ex) in their campaigns. But in reality, a theory is much more than an educated guess. A theory is a way of explaining relationships between data that we know to be true.

The reason I have said carbon dioxide does not cause a positive feed-back loop in the warming periods of the last nine odd interglacial periods is because the data shows no acceleration of warming. The very nature of positive feed-back implies an accelerating effect, at least for a time.

 

The argument that carbon dioxide increase a million years ago has something to say about carbon dioxide increase today is so much nonsense also. The two situations are distinctly different. I accept that today's increase is anthropogenic, and that it is a major cause of current warming. That is quite different to previous times.

It's much more complex then that. For a very simple positive feedback loop, that's how it works, but in climate science, there are several different feedback loops that come into play. You can learn all about how this works at your local university or by reading Understanding Climate Change Feedbacks by the NAP,

 

http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10850.html (you can read it online for free.)

 

"During the past decade, scientists have learned much about the complex natural processes that influence climate variability and change, and our ability to model climate has increased significantly. We also have begun to better identify those parts of the climate system that are particularly important and not well understood and that therefore limit our ability to project the future evolution of Earth s climate. One of these critical areas is our understanding of the role of feedbacks in the climate system and their role in determining climate sensitivity. Feedbacks are processes in the climate system that can either amplify or dampen the system s response to changed forcings. This study looks at what is known and not known about climate change feedbacks and seeks to identify the feedback processes most in need of improved understanding. It identifies key observations needed to monitor and understand climate feedbacks, discusses ways to evaluate progress in understanding climate feedbacks, recommends ways to improve climate modeling and analysis for climate feedbacks research, and identifies priority areas for research."

 

The thing about previous glacial cycles is that the sun, all by itself, would not causes the temperature to vary anywhere near as much as it has. In order for us to have ice ages and warm periods, we need CO2 to feed back into the system. W/o CO2, changes in temperature would be very small. This is just a simple fact, we understood how all this worked before we started noticing global warming.

 

I am not a nuclear physicist, but puhlease! That is so basic.

 

I am fully aware of U235 vs U238 and which is used for what. I do not think you understood my point about Uranium being safer, because the active U235 can be diluted with U238 making it impossible to use in a bomb. To enrich the Uranium again to make it explosively fissable requires technology beyond a terrorist organisation. However, Plutonium can be purified using simple chemical means, which is well within the ability of said terrorists. This means that if terrorists steal Uranium reactor fuel (ie purity too low to make a bomb) they will not be able to make a bomb. But if they steal Plutonium, they will.

The issue was never about safety, it was just about the fact that you can use plutonium as a fuel source.

 

However, the fact that plutonium power plants can make nuclear power safer is discussed in Kenneth S. Deffeyes book Beyond Oil. This is the direction we are currently headed, it's a relatively new development. The United States is actually encouraging new nuclear power plants, the problem is that it's not economical to build more power plants -- The production of new plants wont return a very large payback to investors because it'll take work from other plants -- plants operated by the same companies. Add in the price to manage and build it and you've got an economic looser. Essentially the most econimic way to run power plants is to only have enough on the grid to meat peak capacity. Anything more and you're making less money.

I do not trust that site either. Bias at either end of the spectrum is suspect.

A bias for science is much better then a bias against science.

There are so many studies on climate change, and so many sets of results, that people can draw almost any conclusion by data mining. I find it difficult to get definitive conclusions, and I certainly do not trust biased views.

Here is a definite conclusion, as told by thousands of scientists around the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

I dont find it difficult at all to understand what they're saying. If you want I can explain it to you: Global warming is real and humans are causing it. That's a dumbed down version of modern climate science in a nutshell.

The idea that climate scientists form a consensus is also wrong. Even the recent report of the IPCC, which is touted as being a consensus of 2500 scientists is not. It is a compromise, drawn from many dissenting views.

That is simply not true.

 

The IPCC has releases a couple summaries of current climate research and they concluded that the Earth is warming very rapidly and that the cause for this is rising greenhouse gases from human activity.

 

These statements have been endorsed by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK). ( http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619 )

 

On top of the IPCC, many other institutions have poplished the same conclusions. These include, but are definitely not limited to, the National Academy of Science, NASA ( http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/ ), The National Center for Atmospheric Research ( http://eo.ucar.edu/ ), The Environmental Protection Agency ( http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html ), and the American Meteorological Society ( http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf ).

 

And on top of this there are thousands of studies that show the same results.

 

If this is not a "general agreement" (aka consensus) then I dont know what is.

[SkepticLance]

1veedo

Do you realise how arrogant and patronising your last post is??

 

I can assure you that I, and many others who have the temerity to disagree with you, do have a firm grasp of basic science. You do not need to take us through juvenile school.

 

You said

 

For a very simple positive feedback loop, that's how it works, but in climate science, there are several different feedback loops that come into play.

 

Your post claimed nothing but a very simple positive feedback loop. If there were other parameters involved you did not mention them, not did your realclimate reference. If you want to introduce other factors, fine, but try to do it up front.

 

The thing about previous glacial cycles is that the sun, all by itself, would not causes the temperature to vary anywhere near as much as it has.

 

 

Between 1910 and 1940, there was a warming which, decade by decade, was as great as modern warming. This in spite of the fact that greenhouse gas increase was minimal. Then, during a time when greenhouse gas increase was far greater, from 1941 to 1975, there was a cooling of 0.2C. These temperature changes went against what we would expect from greenhouse gas variations, and were almost certainly the result of solar variations.

 

Since 1976, there has been a warming that is consistent with greenhouse gas based predictions. Solar activity has increased, and probably is a part of what exacerbated the warmings. In spite of this, I have not claimed that warming since 1976 is caused solely by the sun. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases are undoubtedly a substantial part of this warming.

 

 

A bias for science is much better then a bias against science.

 

Again, this comes across as very arrogant. I am not sure you mean to be. However, what you appear to be saying is that your interpretation of the data is science, and anyone else's is not. I hope you did not really mean that, and your wording was purely an accident.

 

Global warming is real and humans are causing it. That's a dumbed down version of modern climate science in a nutshell.

 

Again, a statement that comes across as pure arrogance. Do you really mean this?

 

Modern climate science is still far from nailing anything down with certainty. Even the latest IPCC reports cannot give prediction of future warming with any reliability.

1.1 to 6.4 Celsius warming by 2100 means they expect the next 100 years warming to be anything from 100% more to 1100% more than the last 100 years. Do you call this precision? Do you call this good science? I do not.

 

What I call it is a serious problem with enormous doubt and uncertainty.

[Edtharan]

I do not see any alternative for some decades to nuclear power. You talk about solar and geothermal. OK. They may become important. However, my point is that they are not suffciently developed as of right now. Nuclear is. If we want to build more power stations that do not pump out GHGs, then nuclear is the only viable option.

...and...

 

nothing dramatic is likely to happen for the next 30 years. Oil will still be extracted and burned in cars etc.

So even if go down the Nuclear path, nothing will happen for 30 years or so. Why not use those 30 years to develop other power generation technologies rather than spend it on Nuclear power plants which, by the time they are built will be obsolete?

 

By the way. There is a major flaw in your argument about the cost of nuclear fuel. Fuel is one of the small costs in running a nuclear power station. The biggest costs are building the station, and in decommissioning it when finished. Fuel by comparison is a small cost. Thus a doubling in cost of fuel will not anywhere near double the cost of nuclear power.

Yes, getting the fuel into the power plant is not a big cost, what the real cost is, is dealing with the waste products. Storage for tens of thousands of years will cost a bit. And then we have to protect it against natural (earthquakes, etc) and man made disasters (like wars, terrorism, etc).

 

The flaw here is you are not considering the full cost that Nuclear fuel generates. The Mining to plant cost is small, but the handling of the waste product is very expensive.

 

On the contrary. I am very aware of positive and negative feed-back loops. For the graphs we were discussing, a positive feed-back is not indicated. On such a graph, this would be shown as an acceleration of warming, or cooling. The graph does not show that.

Only if there was the positive feedback loop. Negative feedback loops can slow this acceleration down. Also there is the "Sinks" that can occur that will absorb some of the effects, but once they have been saturated, then there will be nothing to slow down the acceleration.

 

It is a complex system and you present simplified examples that just barely escape being Strawman (due to their simplifications) arguments against GW and it's effects.

 

Actually, the switch form Glacial to Interglacial is rapid, and that indicates that there is a positive feedback loop causeing acceleration of the effects. If it was just the amount of Solar energy being different, then the switch from Glacial to interglacial would be slow and match the rate of change of the solar energy.

 

As the rate of change doesn't and the change is very rapid (compared to the rate of solar energy change), then this is, bot exactly proof, but very strong evidence for it. Also there is a period of delay where the warming effects from the increased solar energy doesn't cause immediate warming. This would be because of sinks and negative feedback loops keeping the system in "check". But a point is reached where these sinks become saturated and the negative feedback loops become overwhelmed by the positive feedback loops and you get a rapid switch from glacial to interglacial.

 

So yes, the graphs do support the positive feedback loop scenario of GW.

 

I was not trying to say that. Tuvalu is a red herring. That is all I was saying. Sea levels continue to rise steadily at 2 mm per year as a global average.

Actually it was a strawman, by you. I claimed that due to GW countries would face serious problems. I used Tuvalu as an example as, if sea levels keep rising, it will become swamped.

 

What you then posted was that this was not the case as you said that the sea levels around Tuvalu were decreasing. However, this is not due to anything but a special occurrence of currents which will not continue forever. And, even if they did, the sea level will still rise and swamp the country.

 

So your counter argument to this problem is not really a counter argument at all, it does not change the fact that the sea level is rising and eventually the country of Tuvalu will become the proverbial Atlantis and sink beneath the waves.

 

This was pointed towards your dismissal of the problems that rising sea levels cause by GW will create. You said that people could just move, but these people will loose their entire country and have to move to other countries. Are you willing to have these people come into your town, take over your jobs?

 

It is not just Tuvalu, many Island peoples will face this exact same situation and many peoples living on what is now the coasts will have to move. The disruptions to the economies of the world will be quite large.

 

The current use of DDT in South Africa is very sensible. It appears that the Anopheles mosquito has the habit of landing on a surface somewhere before swooping to suck blood. This is exploited by spraying DDT on the inside surface of the huts people live in. The mosquito lands and dies. No bite. Since the DDT is just a thin film on a restricted surface, there is no health or environmental problem.

So the fact that these chemicals will be in close proximity to people. Mosquitoes are not the only things to touch these surfaces, people will lean against them, children will touch them, pets and other animals too. Rain and condensation will wash the chemicals off and onto the floors and into the water supplies.

 

This is an extremely careless use of it. You seem to only look at the most simplified aspects of any system. This is either because you don't understand how the complexities of the world really are, or deliberate.

 

You suggest we have to think long term. In fact, we have to think short term and long term, both. Short term, as I said, we have to go with proven technology. Long term, we develop new technology. We introduce new technology over a period.

Yes. We do have to also think short term. But the short term solutions you propose don't take into account their long term effects.

 

Yes, Nuclear would be effective in the short term, but it also has very long term problems (storage and management of the waste for tens of thousands of years). So your short term solution leaves us with an unacceptable long term problem.

 

Gas and Coal fired power stations were an effective short term solution. They needed a cheap and easily used power supply and other technologies would take too long to develop. Look at the problems we now face because they just grabbed at a short term solution and didn't take into account (or know) the long term problems it would cause.

 

For one who said to avoid knee jerk solutions, you seem to fall for them. By the time the Nuclear power stations could be got up and running, we could have developed some of these renewable power sources and created the power stations to exploit them.

 

You can;t just "drop" a Nuclear power station in somewhere when you need more power. It can take decades to build and prepare the site for it. When planing a Nuclear power station, they are planing 30 to 50 years in advance before it goes operational. This means that even if we make the decision today to install a Nuclear power plant, we will not see it come online for at least 30 years. In 30 years time, research into Solar or Geothermal will be mature (if we took the billions that would be spent to get a single Nuclear power plant up and running and put that into researching Solar or Geothermal). The infrastructure necessary for Solar or Geothermal is far cheaper and can be installed in far less time than the Nuclear station can be created.

 

SO for the costs of 1 or 2 Nuclear stations, we could have effective Solar or Geothermal plants up and running far sooner and supplying more power. Therefore Solar and Geothermal will actually be a far better short term solution as we could have them operation sooner than the Nuclear stations could possibly be operation.

 

Your post claimed nothing but a very simple positive feedback loop. If there were other parameters involved you did not mention them, not did your realclimate reference. If you want to introduce other factors, fine, but try to do it up front.

May be it our fault for not saying that we were considering the real world, not a simplified view of it.

 

We are talking about the environmental system of Earth, therefore we did not consider it necessary to give a complete list of every single aspect of it for every example that we present.

 

It would be assumed that if you are discussing the climate systems then, even if you just use 1 example form it, you also are including the effects of all the other aspects of that system.

 

See, the other problem is that we don't know all of the feedback loops that exist in the climate systems, so how can we list them if we don't know about them?

 

We have to just assume that if we are talking about an entire system, then if we discuss a single part of that system that the people in the discussion will know enough to actually take it in the context of the whole system.

 

Sea levels continue to rise steadily at 2 mm per year as a global average.

Again: What is your source on this data? You have used this several times and I haven't heard where you got this from.

 

 

 

Lets see if we can agree to the basics:

 

1) CO2 is a gas that reduces the amount of energy lost from the Earth's atmospheric and oceanic systems.

 

2) Increased energy in the atmospheric and oceanic system can lead to an increase in temperature.

 

3) Increased temperatures will increase the amount of ice that melts in summer.

 

4) Increased temperatures will decrease the amount of ice that forms in winter.

 

5) If there is less water locked up as ice on land then this will cause the sea levels to rise

 

6) Land formally locked up in ice that is now thawed has vegetation which will rot and cause more greenhouse gasses to be released. This causes a positive feedback loop (one of many such loops both positive and negative)

 

7) There exist "Sinks" that can absorb the effects of GW, until they become saturated, at which point they no longer can delay or reduce the effects of GW.

 

8) People are producing Greenhouse gasses like CO2 and Methane.

 

9) We can change the amount of greenhouse gasses that we produce.

[1veedo]

Well I'm sorry I made you feel that way but this is very basic stuff. Just read wikipedia or something. These exact same questions come up time and time again from every single global warming denier and absolutely none of them hold any scientific validity.

Between 1910 and 1940' date=' there was a warming which, decade by decade, was as great as modern warming. This in spite of the fact that greenhouse gas increase was minimal. Then, during a time when greenhouse gas increase was far greater, from 1941 to 1975, there was a cooling of 0.2C. These temperature changes went against what we would expect from greenhouse gas variations, and were almost certainly the result of solar variations.

 

Since 1976, there has been a warming that is consistent with greenhouse gas based predictions. Solar activity has increased, and probably is a part of what exacerbated the warmings. In spite of this, I have not claimed that warming since 1976 is caused solely by the sun. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases are undoubtedly a substantial part of this warming.[/quote']Yes, the temperature does go up and down. Between 1900 and 1910, temperatures also dropped off some (see, I cna read graphs too ) There's a big difference between climate change and weather. Climate change is slow and gradual. Weather fluctuates a lot. We're mostly concerned with the slope over 30+year intervals.

 

The thing is that there are more factors than just greenhouse gasses. I hope we've established that climate systems are very complex. All that scientists are saying is that CO2 is the largest forcing on global temperatures.

 

However, there is actually a very good explanation for the 1940s and 50s. During this time, there was an increase in human aerosol emissions. Latter regulations and new replacements decreased the amount of aerosol we put into the atmosphere and after that point, CO2 took back over and started warming the planet again. It was just temporarily offset by aerosol in a phenomenon known as global dimming.

 

Also, although completely trivial, it's simply not true that between 1910 and 1940 there was as much warming as we've seen in the last thirty years. I dont know where you're getting reduced CO2 emissions either, although it is true that in the last 30 years we've started putting out tremendously more of it (cant yuo cite your sources?). I'm just looking at a graph and reading the 2005 analysis I gave a link to above,

 

"Global warming is now 0.6°C in the past three decades and 0.8°C in the past century. It is no longer correct to say that "most global warming occurred before 1940". More specifically, there was slow global warming, with large fluctuations, over the century up to 1975 and subsequent rapid warming of almost 0.2°C per decade.

 

Recent warming coincides with rapid growth of human-made greenhouse gases. Climate models show that the rate of warming is consistent with expectations (5). The observed rapid warming thus gives urgency to discussions about how to slow greenhouse gas emissions (6)."

 

It says it pretty clear, last century temperatures rose .8C. However, the last 25 years of that century saw a .5C rise. That means it took an entire 75 years to go up the other .3C.

Again, this comes across as very arrogant. I am not sure you mean to be. However, what you appear to be saying is that your interpretation of the data is science, and anyone else's is not. I hope you did not really mean that, and your wording was purely an accident.

Well, lets take a look at what other scientists are saying. This is the way they "interpret" it, not me. I'm not a climate scientist; I only know what I've read in books (and no, I didn't read nor watch an inconvenient truth) so it would not be right for me to give you my own special interpretation.

 

"The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.

 

There will always be some uncertainty surrounding the prediction of changes in such a complex system as the world’s climate. Nevertheless, we support the IPCC’s conclusion that it is at least 90% certain that temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8oC above 1990 levels by 2100 1. This increase will be accompanied by rising sea levels, more intense precipitation events in some countries, increased risk of drought in others, and adverse effects on agriculture, health and water resources...

The balance of the scientific evidence demands effective steps now to avert damaging changes to the earth’s climate."

 

Earlier I gave you a quote from NASA GISS, in my above post I clearly pointed out that there is indeed a scientific consensus about climate change, and just now I gave you part of statement signed by 16 different world science organizations:

Australian Academy of Sciences http://www.science.org.au

Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts http://www.kvab.be

Brazilian Academy of Sciences http://www.abc.org.br

Royal Society of Canada http://www.rsc.ca

Caribbean Academy of Sciences http://www.e -caribtrade.com/cas/index.htm

Chinese Academy of Sciences http://www4.nationalacademies.org/oia/iap/IAPacInfo.nsf

http://www.academie-sciences.fr

French Academy of Sciences

http://www.leopoldina.uni-halle.de

German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/oia/iap/IAPacInfo.nsf

Indian National Science Academy

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/oia/iap/IAPacInfo.nsf

Indonesian Academy of Sciences

http://www.ria.ie

Royal Irish Academy

http://www.lincei.it

Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/oia/iap/IAPacInfo.nsf

Academy of Sciences Malaysia

http://www.rsnz.govt.nz

Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

http://www.kva.se/eng

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk

Royal Society (UK)

Again, a statement that comes across as pure arrogance. Do you really mean this?

 

Modern climate science is still far from nailing anything down with certainty. Even the latest IPCC reports cannot give prediction of future warming with any reliability.

1.1 to 6.4 Celsius warming by 2100 means they expect the next 100 years warming to be anything from 100% more to 1100% more than the last 100 years. Do you call this precision? Do you call this good science? I do not.

 

What I call it is a serious problem with enormous doubt and uncertainty.

It is perfectly good science. They're saying exactly what they know; that temperatures are going to rise between 1.1 and 6.4 C(1.4 to 5.8 according to the lattest IPCC -- It seems we're getting better at this...). We don't know anything more then that and claiming so would be lying.

 

It is true that scientists aren't completely sure about the future. The fact is that global warming is real and humans are causing it. Predicting what the effects will be is much harder. The controversy around global warming, explicitly, is this:

 

What's going to happen in the future. (What are the effects going to be? The scientific question of interest: What will the net effect of greenhouse gases be working through positive feedback?)

What should we do about it, if anything at all. (Should we reduce greenhouse emissions, etc)

 

So yes, they have not nailed anything around this for certain. That doesn't change the fact that they have nailed, for certain, that global warming is real and that humans are causing it. You cannot make a straw man nor equivocate anything like this; just because certain areas of a science are still unknown doesn't make everything else invalid.

 

You're overlooking what we do know with what we don't. Global warming is one of the most studied and understood natural phenomena ever observed. We know more about climate change then we do most other areas of science. It is, in fact, a shining example of good science at work to help humanity.

[SkepticLance]

Edtharan said :

 

Why not use those 30 years to develop other power generation technologies rather than spend it on Nuclear power plants which, by the time they are built will be obsolete?

 

That process, of course, is already well under way. The first hybrid cars are on the market, and research into hydrogen fuel cells, and into biofuels is massively funded. Research into new generation electricity generation is also well under way, and will continue. However, it is unlikely to realise any major new method of meeting humanity's needs for quite some time. It is more difficult that most people realise to convert a 'good idea' into a realistic and practical generating method.

 

It is a matter of time scales. Short term, we need coal, natural gas, hydro and nuclear generation. Medium term (20 to 50 years) we need massive investment in nuclear. Long term (50 to 100 years) we may see new and dramatically better electricity generation methods taking over. My guess is that in that time, we will see nuclear fusion becoming practical, and that is the grandaddy of all power generation methods.

 

It is a complex system and you present simplified examples that just barely escape being Strawman (due to their simplifications) arguments against GW and it's effects.

 

Deep sigh. This argument is getting tedious. I see you and others trying to apply the situation relating to interglacial warmings to the current warming. The two situations are not the same, and we are leading each other up the proverbial garden path. Let's just agree to argue about the situation today, shall we?

 

So your counter argument to this problem is not really a counter argument at all, it does not change the fact that the sea level is rising and eventually the country of Tuvalu will become the proverbial Atlantis and sink beneath the waves.

 

Edtharan. Take another look at this, please. You have no data to support this statement. The fact is, we cannot predict the future of Tuvalu. We don't know if the currents lowering local sea level will increase, decrease, or reverse for all we know. Let's keep our arguments focused on facts.

 

Edtharan, on modern use of DDT.

 

This is an extremely careless use of it. You seem to only look at the most simplified aspects of any system. This is either because you don't understand how the complexities of the world really are, or deliberate.

 

I merely reported how it is currently being used, and why. My understanding of the complexities of the system are irrelevent, since I have not designed the DDT application, or approved it. That is up to the authorities in South Africa. I suspect they know what they are doing.

 

Edtharan on sea level rise

 

What is your source on this data? You have used this several times and I haven't heard where you got this from.

 

This figure was mentioned several times in the latest IPCC report. In fact, it is still a little less than 2 mm per year as a global average.

 

I agree with most of your 'basics' but must comment on a couple, anyway.

 

4) Increased temperatures will decrease the amount of ice that forms in winter.

 

Actually, not always. Warmer air means more water vapour in the air. As that air moves to higher altitude, such as over Greenland, it gets colder and drops the water as snow. Thus, the inland parts of Greenland (and probably Alaska and Siberia) get more snow and ice than before.

 

6) Land formally locked up in ice that is now thawed has vegetation which will rot and cause more greenhouse gasses to be released. This causes a positive feedback loop (one of many such loops both positive and negative)

 

And on top of the rotting vegetation, a forest grows.

 

Edtharan, I am not a global warming denier. I know, as you do, that the world is growing warmer and anthropogenic greenhouse gases are probably a prime cause. I also know that it is smart to look to alternative fuels and alternative ways of generating electricity to try to reduce this effect. However, we need to keep a balanced view of this, and avoid unrealistic exaggeration.

[Pangloss]

Of course you are, Lance. You don't accept the evidence. Therefore you're a GWD.

 

Welcome to the club. Hemp necktie fittings are on Thursdays!

[bascule]

Yes, the New Zealand based climate coalition web site, which I have shown you before.

 

(Thanks for not providing a link. Google to the rescue)

 

Looking at this list:

 

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/assets/2006510215450.CSCWhoWeAre.pdf

 

Their scientific staff includes: A PhD chemist, a PhD geologist, a professor of atmospheric science, 3 non-PhD geologists, an electrical and mechanical engineer, a professor of philosophy, and two individuals with no listed academic background.

 

So sorry, that site does not meet my criteria of "PhD climate scientist". But hey, you're welcome to try again... I would truly like to read the web site of a PhD climate scientist who does not believe CO₂ is the foremost radiative forcing.

 

I do not trust that site either. Bias at either end of the spectrum is suspect. Both sets of climate scientists use the same facts but come to different conclusions, which shows that interpretation is important.

 

Actually, what it demonstrates is how important the peer review process is.

 

Scientists are people also, and make interpretations through the veil of their pre-existing beliefs, whether those beliefs are alarmist or sceptical.

 

So they submit their papers to their peers for criticism. If they can't defend their viewpoints among the peer community, chances are those viewpoints aren't scientifically valid.

 

The idea that climate scientists form a consensus is also wrong. Even the recent report of the IPCC, which is touted as being a consensus of 2500 scientists is not. It is a compromise, drawn from many dissenting views.

 

Yes, that's how it works. You submit your papers to the peer review process. They are criticised, and you must respond to the criticism.

 

However, you're still trying to downplay the fact that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, including many who are renowned skeptics of the climate science community (including my former boss) still recognize CO₂ as the foremost radiative forcing.

 

It is so easy to come to a conclusion that matches your bias. Take ice in Greenland for example. [...] I can predict what your interpretation will be.

 

I have no opinion on that at present. I'm also guessing that wasn't what you predicted.

 

I also don't have opinions on impacts, vulnerabilities, and mitigation vs. adaptation. I would only go so far as to say I predict water vulnerability will be a worsening problem which has the potential to impact the lives of millions of people.

[SkepticLance]

bascule said :

 

So sorry, that site does not meet my criteria of "PhD climate scientist".

 

The site list includes two Professors of paleoclimatology, and one Professor of Atmospheric Science. I would be inclined to say that is one hell of a lot of relevent expertise. However, let's not get involved in that as an argument. I already said I take their views with a big grain of salt. Just as I do the views on realclimate. Good data I accept. Interpretation has to be considered potentially wrong. Or right. But it needs to be shown to be correct. The falsification principle.

 

 

Bascule,

I respect a lot of your views, and I do not think you and I are actually very far apart on our views. The main one appears to be a debate on 'certainty'. I do not believe that anything that comes from logic, deduction, theory, or calculation is certain. Thus, the idea that human activity is the main cause of global warming is something I accept as a strong possibility. Just not as a certainty. That is where we differ.

[Edtharan]

4) Increased temperatures will decrease the amount of ice that forms in winter.

Actually, not always. Warmer air means more water vapour in the air. As that air moves to higher altitude, such as over Greenland, it gets colder and drops the water as snow. Thus, the inland parts of Greenland (and probably Alaska and Siberia) get more snow and ice than before.

I am glad you mentioned Siberia. Currently in Siberia, the permafrost is retreating. This is despite increased precipitation.

 

The fact remains that if the temperature is above 0 degrees Celsius, Ice can';t form, no matter how much precipitation occurs.

 

I thought you were smarter than this. For Ice to form the water has to freeze. If the temperatures are above freezing, then ice can't form.

 

So increasing the temperatures will reduce the areas that ice can form. The amount of precipitation has no effect. Your counter augment against this point has absolutely no relevance and is an extremely obvious Red Herring.

 

6) Land formally locked up in ice that is now thawed has vegetation which will rot and cause more greenhouse gasses to be released. This causes a positive feedback loop (one of many such loops both positive and negative)

 

And on top of the rotting vegetation, a forest grows.

A forest would take years to grow. The vegetation is rotting now so there will be, at best, a delay where the greenhouse gasses are all released before the forest grows.

 

And besides, forests produce CO2 and methane as the vegetation in them rots. The do act as sinks for CO2, but they do become saturated rapidly and can no longer soak it up (this occurs pretty much as the forest is growing so they are not all that big of a sink). Mostly they act as a sink for their own CO2 production, so any CO2 produced by the rotting vegetation from the permafrost is not absorbed by the forest.

 

Again, Siberia is a good example. The loss of permafrost there has dramatically increased the amount of greenhouse gasses released and no forest has yet grown on the sites.

 

Deep sigh. This argument is getting tedious. I see you and others trying to apply the situation relating to interglacial warmings to the current warming. The two situations are not the same, and we are leading each other up the proverbial garden path. Let's just agree to argue about the situation today, shall we?

Even deeper sigh

 

Look. You missed the entire point of what I was sasying. You were saying that there is no evidence that there exists runaway warming effects due to positive feedback loops. When I give examples of them, you dismiss them (with a sigh). You seem to not like evidence that contradicts your cherished beliefs.

 

the point was that a small amount of warming CAN lead to a positive feedback loop in which warming and CO2 release becomes rapid. You said it couldn't, I showed evidence that it can.

 

Yes, there might not be evidence that is obvious in the last few hundred years, but if you actually look at what I was saying, then you will understand that there is a small period of time where the temperature can slightly increase before this runaway effect starts up.

 

Just think about it. The temperatures of the Earth fluctuate quite a bit. The difference in temperatures between summer and Winter can be quite extreme in certain locations. But the average temperature does not remain at extremes for long periods of time.

 

The amount of permafrost (only one known positive feedback loop) is quite large. It won't all melt in one or two summers, or if the temperatures increase a small amount. However, once the temperatures raise up enough and last long enough to melt the permafrost there will be a large release of CO2 in a geologically short time period (100 years or so).

 

As these greenhouse gasses are released they will add to the effects of any warming that already exist. Now you have an effect that is a positive feedback loop and a runaway effect.

 

But, and here is the important thing, it doesn't occur over night. It takes a certain amount of temperature increase over a certain period of time to get going. Once it starts it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to stop.

 

Yes, there are differences between the interglacial warmings and human caused warmings. But there are crucial similarities. Namely the positive feedback loops (which we were discussing) that exist and that caused a rapid acceleration of the warmings at these times.

 

So, during these interglacial warmings, the rate of temperature increase can not be accounted for by the energy form the sun. The only explanation for them is that there were some form of positive feedback loops causing an acceleration of the warming. Investigations of what these were gave us some of them.

 

Could these same feedback loops effect the situation today with global warming. YES.

 

So, we need to understand them and see how they could effect the results of GW. That is what I did and you dismissed it. That is not healthy scepticism, that is denial.

 

Edtharan, I am not a global warming denier.

Yes you are. You ignore evidence and side step issues. You use logical fallacies to support your views. You are in denial.

[bascule]

I respect a lot of your views, and I do not think you and I are actually very far apart on our views. The main one appears to be a debate on 'certainty'. I do not believe that anything that comes from logic, deduction, theory, or calculation is certain. Thus, the idea that human activity is the main cause of global warming is something I accept as a strong possibility. Just not as a certainty. That is where we differ.

 

I agree, but then you have to admit that all science is inherently uncertain, and that unless the alternate views are able to present a scientific argument, they should be dismissed until that time.

[firetree]

The reason toxic gases are allowed to pour into the ONLY ATMOSPHERE we breathe because the human lifetime is about 80 years. In the history of mankind we have separated ourselves from nature by the simple fact that we do what we can for self preservation while we are here, at the expense of factors that won't matter once we are dead. The more we see ourselves as a force of nature the intricate balance will not be such a burden.

 

The whole climate change issue will become another political, money-making issue for these reasons.

Carbon trading for example is a joke. Say your body is the earth. Every night you get drunk and this is definately not good for your body. Every day you excercise and drink lots of water and this is good for your body.

So the two cancel each other out, right?

It would be good if this were the case, but this is what businesses propose.

If I emit CO2 into the atmosphere, I just plant trees to uptake that CO2 to offset the emissions.

Though it's a good start, we really need to take a good look in the mirror and see we are a part of this environment and not the controllers.

 

It's not what we don't know that will harm us. It's what we do know that just ain't so......Mark Twain

[Edtharan]

Carbon trading for example is a joke. Say your body is the earth. Every night you get drunk and this is definately not good for your body. Every day you excercise and drink lots of water and this is good for your body.

This is not an accurate analogy. It would be a better analogy to have the person drinking and having their blood filtered of alcohol.

 

Drinking and Excersize do not remove the alcohol from your system. Where as the whole purpose of the carbon trading is to remove the offending substances from the atmosphere. You example would be more like removing heavy metals form the oceans to offset CO2 emissions.

[waitforufo]

Have you seen The Great Global Warming Swindle? You can watch it all at <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=the+great+swindle>

 

I found it quite interesting. The general thesis is that global warming is a hoax brought on by two unlikely bed fellows. Nuclear power enthusiasts (like my self) and anti-capitalists (very much unlike myself). Something Skepticlance should enjoy.

[1veedo]

I've seen this video being discussed elsewhere.

 

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

 

The general consensus is don't believe it.

[SkepticLance]

I have only heard about that video.

I suspect I would end up treating it in the same way as I treat Al Gore's masterpiece (which I have seen). That is, a biased, jaundiced version of the truth, to be taken with a big pinch of salt.

[Edtharan]

And even Climate Change scientist Hanson has debunked Al Gore's 600 thousand year graph as bogus because the CO2 changes FOLLOW the temperature change. (Does the orbit cause those much longer term temperature changes?)

What this could also mean is that positive feed back loops have more effect than previously thought. It could mean that a small rise in CO2 (not enough to show up in the resolution scale of the graphs and our ability to detect) could lead to a feedback loop that causes the temperature to go up, which causes more CO2 to be released (which would occur with a delay), which causes the temperature to go up, which releases more CO2...

 

The fact that CO2 levels and temperature have any correlation indicates (but doesn't prove) that there is something going on between them. IF there was no correlation between them, we should not expect to see any correlation in the graphs. But as there is a correlation in the graphs, this correlation has to be explained or refuted (both require evidence).

 

As we know that increased CO2 does lead to a warming, then we do have some correlation between them already.

 

Past warmings might not have been initiated by increased CO2, but the warming might have caused a release of CO2. The final warming would then have been less (probably far less if the physics we know about CO2 is true) if the CO2 was not released.

 

What matters is not what initiated that initial warming into a feedback loop, but the feedback loop itself.

 

If raising the atmospheric temperature beyond a point will trigger this feedback loop, then we should do our best to stop the Earth from entering this feedback loop.

 

If the past warming has increased CO2 levels and CO2 does contribute to warming, this is its self a feedback loop.

 

The general thesis is that global warming is a hoax brought on by two unlikely bed fellows. Nuclear power enthusiasts (like my self) and anti-capitalists (very much unlike myself). Something Skepticlance should enjoy.

I am very sceptical of any Conspiracy theory (or name to that effect). Usually the motives behind the conspiracy are not very convincing and the rewards for implementing the conspiracy are not really worth it.

 

For instance, the anti-capitalists really don't have much to gain. Capitalism requires expansion. New markets and new technologies are the corner stone of capitalism. Wouldn't alternative energy sources and the technology that goes with them therefore be an advantage to capitalists?

 

And Nuclear power is expensive and not really many people control it. Also, as there are many other forms of power generation (from solar to wind, geothermal to wave/tide) then they are running a huge risk that someone else will develop one of these technologies in competition (leaving them exactly where they are now).

 

This make a conspiracy extremely unlikely as the control needed to ensure that only Nuclear power is developed any where in the world is far beyond them and the rewards for the anti-capitalists would be greater from embracing alternative technologies.

 

In fact, after each revolution in power generation, capitalism has leapt in leaps and bounds, so if anything the capitalists should be pushing for new energy technology, if for historical precedent if nothing else.

[SkepticLance]

Edtharan.

 

You are a smart, intelligent and educated person. You know better than the argument you put forward about CO2 and warming/cooling over the past 1 million years (excluding the past 100 years). Over that longer time period, we are NOT talking about positive feed-back. Positive feed-back relationships accelerate. The time periods we are talking about showed no acceleration. Sure, you can hypothesize about negative feed-backs that modify the acceleration. But isn't it smarter to keep things simple and just say that warming causes CO2 increase, and cooling causes CO2 decrease? A nice simple cause and effect relationship?

 

We even have a mechanism. As oceans warm, they dissolve less CO2 and vice versa. Thus, with warming, the oceans get hotter and give off CO2 into the atmosphere. And vice versa.

 

The last 100 years are a different situation. You do not need to come up with greenhouse gas effects over the previous million years to justify your position on the last 100.

 

Incidentally, I agree with you on conspiracy theories. The vast majority of so-called conspiracies do not exist. There is a simple law of conspiracies. You cannot have a successful, long term conspiracy with more than 7 conspirators. Why? Because one or more will see personal advantage in breaking the conspiracy. Classic example is OPEC which is a conspiracy for setting high oil prices. They have more than 7 members and they repeatedly fail in their aim.

[waitforufo]

In my last post I wrote "The general thesis is that global warming is a hoax brought on by two unlikely bed fellows" with regard to The Great Global Warming Swindle. Perhaps I should have said that the hoax was promoted and promulgated by two unlikely bed fellows. It would be foolish to suggest a conspiracy. A conspiracy suggest that people actually meet or have contact to plot there next moves. No one is suggesting the Margaret Thatcher conservatives and anti-capitalists meet to plot there next global warming moves.

 

I suggest you watch the program. It can be seen in it's entirety at <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=the+great+sw indle>

 

On the science side, the program provides data on how the sun, particularly sun spot activity, is the primary source of global warming. The science is impressive.

 

On the political side the program suggests the following.

 

1) Thatcher conservatives wanted to promote nuclear power. They wanted to do this for two political reasons. First, they wanted to reduce dependence on foreign sources of energy. Second, they wanted to break the coal mining unions that supported their political opponents. Global warming gave them a reason to promote these political goals.

 

2) Political environmental extremists latched onto the idea to promote there political agenda. Capitalism is killing the world, we need world socialism. Put the United Nations in control. This is my paraphrase and it is a bit extreme, watch the program. Politically speaking however, it does give the United Nations a vested interest in promoting global warming.

 

3) Scientists need funding for there research. Items 1) and 2) above have created huge amounts of funding money. Scientists are creatures of nature. They are drawn to funding money like bees to honey. Just add "Global Warming" to your research topic and the funding money flows. It is in their vested interest to dismiss or attack anyone who will cut off their funds. This vested interest should cause suspicion of scientists that promote global warming. This suspicion should be similar to that cast on scientists that accept funds from coal and oil companies against global warming.

 

No conspiracy, just unconnected groups all pushing their own agenda from the same vantage point.

 

Finally, in the program, some of the scientist participating state that the IPCC were fully aware of there research and chose to ignore it. Peak Oil Man mentions this fact as evidence that the program should be dismissed. The program participants are not trying to hide this fact so why dismiss them?

[swansont]

Edtharan.

 

You are a smart, intelligent and educated person. You know better than the argument you put forward about CO2 and warming/cooling over the past 1 million years (excluding the past 100 years). Over that longer time period, we are NOT talking about positive feed-back. Positive feed-back relationships accelerate. The time periods we are talking about showed no acceleration. Sure, you can hypothesize about negative feed-backs that modify the acceleration. But isn't it smarter to keep things simple and just say that warming causes CO2 increase, and cooling causes CO2 decrease? A nice simple cause and effect relationship?

 

 

 

It is difficult to reconcile a plea for simplicity when there are other complaints about how we cannot possibly understand what's going on because of how complex the system is.

 

And a simplification to the point that it's wrong is a nonstarter. Do you have any peer-reviewed research that says that CO2 does not contribute, in any way, to the greenhouse effect?

[YT2095]

I just watched the same the other night, the impression I`m left with is that GW was inevitable anyway and that CO2 (from OUR contribution) has played little to no part in this at all.

 

I did have facts figures and dates of historical significance to cite in defense of my opinion, but I`ve lost them

non the less, my opinion hasn`t altered, I think that we Should cut down of CO2 contribution, but I don`t blame us for the cause of GW!

[tomgwyther]

I happend to see the 'The great swindle' too, and it simply confirmed what I'd been aware of for a while. that the carbon cycle is mostly concerned with the oceans, that when more sunlight hits water, more water and CO2 contained within are released into the atmosphere,

 

hot sun = hot planet = more CO2... not the other way around!

I though everybody knew that.!!

The Idea that a few humans (Who only inhabit about 1% of the Earths surface) could have a greater effect on planetary temperature than a giant thermo-nuclear fireball (the sun) has always sounded stupid.

 

It's long been known that Earth's temperature fluctuates, e.g Greenland used to BE green, hence it's name, it was hotter then.

 

Airplanes for example help reduce sunlight penetration, via the vapour trails they leave.

(This was noticed on September 12th/13th 2001, after nearly every aircraft was grounded, researchers across the globe noticed increased sunlight and temperature.)

 

You can always rely on reactionist tossers and the media to spread panic amoung the masses.

It's up to us scientists to see through te crap!!

[foodchain]

I happend to see the 'The great swindle' too, and it simply confirmed what I'd been aware of for a while. that the carbon cycle is mostly concerned with the oceans, that when more sunlight hits water, more water and CO2 contained within are released into the atmosphere,

 

hot sun = hot planet = more CO2... not the other way around!

I though everybody knew that.!!

The Idea that a few humans (Who only inhabit about 1% of the Earths surface) could have a greater effect on planetary temperature than a giant thermo-nuclear fireball (the sun) has always sounded stupid.

 

It's long been known that Earth's temperature fluctuates, e.g Greenland used to BE green, hence it's name, it was hotter then.

 

Airplanes for example help reduce sunlight penetration, via the vapour trails they leave.

(This was noticed on September 12th/13th 2001, after nearly every aircraft was grounded, researchers across the globe noticed increased sunlight and temperature.)

 

You can always rely on reactionist tossers and the media to spread panic amoung the masses.

It's up to us scientists to see through te crap!!

 

Yes, but then why is it that such is not visible then in our natural history. For the sun to warm or cool or even have a cycle of such is not a new idea in any regard(sunspot cycle?), but the idea that more CO2 is in the atmosphere now then in hundreds of thousands of years is. Where did this come from and why now at this point, and also why is the noticeable increase in CO2 somewhat parallels with the industrial revolution and not only this seems to be accelerating. I would suggest that if such was tied to the sun's activity that such should be visible by some natural indicators. Plus using dust concentration in the atmosphere, something visible amongst other forms of data in say ice cores, the cycle of the sun and its relative impact on the planet has been noticed to be overcome by a volcanic explosion, though such is not fully qualified yet.

 

Lastly Venus the planet has an atmosphere that greatly influences its global climate, compared to say other planets, like Mars, Earth or Mercury. Venus is warmer then Mercury even. Without an atmosphere or some way to regulate or interact with energy, maybe something that could be studied with entropy, global climate would be drastically different. Also, people are not so miniscule, when using billions of barrels of oil alone on a regular basis, then add to this a continued deforestation of the planet, are we to think action and reaction somehow cease to exist for this? I think it would be difficult at this point overall to discern fully all the variables and influence of such, but again just from natural indicators like ice cores, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased by 33-35% since the industrial revolution, to levels that have not been visible or existing for hundreds of thousands of years. CO2 behaves in a way to get it the label greenhouse gas.

 

If such is purely on the sun, they we would have to say that since the industrial revolution, the sun has been getting either warmer or colder then? That is to coincide with the data, unless it is just some conspiracy.

[swansont]

The Idea that a few humans (Who only inhabit about 1% of the Earths surface) could have a greater effect on planetary temperature than a giant thermo-nuclear fireball (the sun) has always sounded stupid.

 

Does it sound more or less so than using a logical fallacy, like argument from incredulity, or a strawman?

[SkepticLance]

Swansont said :

 

And a simplification to the point that it's wrong is a nonstarter. Do you have any peer-reviewed research that says that CO2 does not contribute, in any way, to the greenhouse effect?

 

Re-read my posting. I did NOT deny that CO2 can cause warming. What I said was that, over most of the past million years, from the fact that CO2 increase comes AFTER warming, a sensible conclusion is that warming can be the cause of CO2 increase. I even mentioned the mechanism.

 

tomgwyther said :

 

e.g Greenland used to BE green, hence it's name, it was hotter then.

 

Actually, that is not true. Historical records show that Greenland was always cold. However, the Nordic promoters of the colonies in 1000 AD told little lies, and the name was one such lie. It is probable that it was a little bit warmer then than today, since those same historical references show they grew five different crops there, which we cannot do today.