Climategate (GW email leak)

toastywombel · December 13, 2009

I don't. I wouldn't be overly surprised if the LHC comes up with something that contradicts the standard model.

DH do you not believe in global warming?

D H · December 13, 2009

No, I don't "believe" in global warming. Sheesh. I don't "believe" in evolution, or in the laws of physics, either. Beliefs are the realm of religion, not science.

Read posts #46 and #97 to get an idea on my thoughts on this matter.

toastywombel · December 13, 2009

No, I don't "believe" in global warming. Sheesh. I don't "believe" in evolution, or in the laws of physics, either. Beliefs are the realm of religion, not science.

Read posts #46 and #97 to get an idea on my thoughts on this matter.

Beliefs are not part of the realm of religion, it is a rather simple word.

Believe:

-accept as true; take to be true; accept as being an accurate description of real events; "I believed his report"; "We didn't believe his stories from the War"; "She believes in spirits"

-think: judge or regard; look upon; judge; "I think he is very smart"; "I believe her to be very smart"; "I think that he is her boyfriend"; "The racist conceives such people to be inferior"

-be confident about something; "I believe that he will come back from the war"

-follow a credo; have a faith; be a believer; "When you hear his sermons, you will be able to believe, too"

-credit with veracity; "You cannot believe this man"; "Should we believe a publication like the National Enquirer?"

It describes to believe is to accept as true, or as accepting something to be an accurate description of real events. Hopefully I cleared up your misunderstanding on the definition of the word believe. So I revert to the original question I asked you.

Do you believe in the idea of Global Warming? Global Warming, referring to the mass release of CO2 into the atmosphere being the major factor contributing to the current warming trend of the Earth's climate.

Edited December 13, 2009 by toastywombel

D H · December 13, 2009

Read posts #46 and #97.

toastywombel · December 13, 2009

Emphasis mine:

Curious choice of words, bascule. Beliefs normally are something relegated to the domain of religion, not science. Are your religious beliefs in this matter getting in the way of your scientific objectivity?

Regarding my thoughts on this matter, our release of massive quantities of CO₂ into the atmosphere almost certainly result in some changes in the climate. How big an effect this represents is a matter of debate, as is whether the net effect is deleterious overall. That this is the biggest problem facing humanity? I'm trying to keep an open mind, but right now, I don't think so. The leaked emails certainly didn't help this religious cause.

I did read the other post but then again i say your assumption that beliefs refer to the realm of religion is incorrect.

Furthermore, lets break down how much CO2 is in the earth's atmosphere. According to wikipedia, Earth's atmosphere is made up of 5,000,000 gigatonnes of gasses, aerosols and other chemicals. About 0.04% of that is CO2. This means that 2000 gigatonnes of CO2 is currently in the Earth's atmosphere. Of that 2000 gigatonnes 95% is created by natural causes.

However, there is a natural balance of CO2 emitted every year, there is also a natural absorption process of CO2 every year. The emission of the 27 gigatonnes of CO2 that is emitted every year by humans through artificial means, tips the balance of CO2 emission to CO2 absorption in favor of CO2 emission. This means about 10 gigatonnes of CO2 is emitted every year that will not be absorbed, which was not the case before the mid-1800's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

D H · December 13, 2009

Did you read my posts? I am not disputing that we have increased the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere. It is the climatological significance of that increase. With net zero feedback, the IPCC claims a forcing of 3.7 W/m² and predicts a warming of 1ºC. To get the claimed figure 1.4 to 5.8 degree figure (or more), they had to posit significant positive feedbacks. Take away most of those positive feedbacks and there is no crisis. With a net negative feedback this becomes a non-problem.

The claimed cure to this maybe problem is to reduce our CO₂ by a whopping 80%. That is an extremely extraordinary claim, and as been stated many times, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I don't see the extraordinary proof.

I used to be a luke warmer on global warming. I could ignore the wackos on the left because (a) they were well-balanced by wackos on the right, and (b) they're all wackos. I didn't see the science as solid as I would have liked, but I did see the projected problems as being credible. Not yet actionable, but credible. Those emails, along with some recent bad articles and reports that represented the top of the field (e.g., Mann's hurricane study, the initial release of the UN's Climate Change Science Compendium 2009), have made me a bit more skeptical. No, a lot more skeptical.

toastywombel · December 13, 2009

Did you read my posts? I am not disputing that we have increased the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere. It is the climatological significance of that increase. With net zero feedback, the IPCC claims a forcing of 3.7 W/m² and predicts a warming of 1ºC. To get the claimed figure 1.4 to 5.8 degree figure (or more), they had to posit significant positive feedbacks. Take away most of those positive feedbacks and there is no crisis. With a net negative feedback this becomes a non-problem.

The claimed cure to this maybe problem is to reduce our CO₂ by a whopping 80%. That is an extremely extraordinary claim, and as been stated many times, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I don't see the extraordinary proof.

I used to be a luke warmer on global warming. I could ignore the wackos on the left because (a) they were well-balanced by wackos on the right, and (b) they're all wackos. I didn't see the science as solid as I would have liked, but I did see the projected problems as being credible. Not yet actionable, but credible. Those emails, along with some recent bad articles and reports that represented the top of the field (e.g., Mann's hurricane study, the initial release of the UN's Climate Change Science Compendium 2009), have made me a bit more skeptical. No, a lot more skeptical.

Well I explained why the amount of CO2 we release is just enough to tip the scale, as opposed to more CO2 being absorbed than emitted now more CO2 is emitted than absorbed. That is why that small amount of CO2 we emit effects the climate.

Also the emails don't really show anything about mass fraud or anything to that nature, it was blown out of proportion. I suggest you watch this

. (just noticed that this video has already been posted)

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Furthermore, reducing our CO2 by 80% is a very do-able process over a 10-15 year time-span. The internal-combustion engine can be replaced by hydrogen-cell, electric,

As for other energy needs such as home/office needs: wind-mills, solar panels (on-homes, and solar farms), and nuclear power-plants can all take the place of coal power-plants, which over half of our electricity comes from (in the United States). Also these energy sources, once the infrastructure was put in, would be much cheaper than drilling for oil and mining for coal. With exception to nuclear power-plants of-course which are very expensive, but even with nuclear power-plants it is possible to recycle the uranium, France does it right now. You cannot recycle coal as far as I know, and you cannot recycle gasoline or oil.

Edited December 13, 2009 by toastywombel
Consecutive posts merged.

JohnB · December 13, 2009

I haven't checked his source studies' date=' so please keep me honest and if you feel he's just another blogger trying it on, please check for me...
(I'm in the middle of a mid-life career change. )[/quote']

I'm in a similar boat. The company I worked for was closed a couple of weeks back and I'm in the throws of starting my own business. That's why I said RL was getting in the way.

A quick check of the paper referenced in the article you linked to (Cook 2004) shows that it doesn't appear to say what the blog claims. Cook 2004 was titled "Extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere land temperature variability

over the past 1000 years". Series were not divided as claimed, as all the series were NH ones. I'll have to read the references fully to be sure of this though. Unless the definition of "North" is between 55 and 70⁰ North Latitude and "South" is from 35-50⁰.

Further reading required and it's 11pm. Ormay Aterlay.

I might be wrong, but the first few paragraphs, and especially the bit about London's population, make it appear you haven't even see how the tree rings track against temperature.

I do see how they track. My point is that for the instrumental period 1880-2010. (We're almost there) is 130 years. The good track is only for 80 of those years and for 50 it's way out.

Hence we can safely say that the rings track well for only 61% of the calibration period. I don't see how this can inspire confidence. Unless we find the cause, the correllation will only get worse.

Go 50 years into the future. (assuming we haven't found the cause) and we will be in the situation where the rings will correllate to less than 50% of the calibration period.

Just to make certain that there is no misunderstanding here. I'm talking specifically about the very northern series that suffer from this problem. This is not to say that all tree rings should be thrown out, just that those series that demonstrably suffer from divergence should be left out. They should not be "edited" or "truncated". They should not be used until the problem is solved.

I apologise if I didn't make that clear earlier.

PS: What about bore holes, stalagmites, coral, glaciers, ice-cores, lake sediments, and other proxies? The way the Denialists are carrying on you'd think ALL the tree-rings at ALL latitudes were now suspect, let alone there being completely different proxies telling the same story.

We use them, that's what multiproxy studies are. I've never said otherwise. You are aware that there are numerous proxies that don't tell the same story though, aren't you?

D H · December 13, 2009

Well I explained why the amount of CO2 we release is just enough to tip the scale, as opposed to more CO2 being absorbed than emitted now more CO2 is emitted than absorbed.

One more time, I am not disputing that we are dumping lots of CO₂ into the atmosphere, nor that it is building up in the atmosphere because of us. Read posts 46 and 97, for example. Why are you harping on this?

Also the emails don't really show anything about mass fraud or anything to that nature, it was blown out of proportion. I suggest you watch this
.

For Fs sake! Enough with the broken record on this stupid video! Yes, idiots have jumped on the emails. Showing their idiotic pronouncements does not serve your cause. This is poisoning the well. I have already said I don't give a crap what the likes of Limbaugh and Fox News have to say about this topic.

Here is one of climate science's biggest fans on the matter: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

toastywombel · December 13, 2009

I wasn't harping, in-fact, I think the progression of topics have progressed quite well in our short discussion.

1st: I asked if you believe in global warming, you said you don't believe in global warming and that "believe" is a word that belongs in the realm of religion

2nd: I was pointing out that the word believe is not a word that belongs simply in the realm of religion and has many uses, and I posed the question again. Then you reverted me back to your previous posts.

3rd: You stated that you do not believe that CO2 has a big effect on the climate and that the emails were did not help the environmentalist cause. Then you stated that an 80% reduction is an extraordinary claim. I, then attempted to explain why the amount of CO2 we release effects the climate and that it causes a build up. I also tried to explain that reducing our CO2 emissions would not be an impossible task because it seemed to me you were implying that it was.

I also put in parenthesis after the video link that I saw that this had been posted before. I added that in an edit at 6:48, you may have already been in the process of replying to that before the edit though.

I don't mean to be harping I am just trying to reason with you about the effects of CO2 on our climate.

I was also just trying to point out that the emails really should have no effect one whether you believe in global warming. Scientific studies, research, and peer-reviewed papers on the subject should be the determining factor on whether CO2 effects the climate. And the vast majority of studies in this field say for the most part that CO2 emissions have, do, and will effect our climate.

Hope this cleared up the mis-understanding and I wont harp any more on the "CO2 emissions effecting our climate" topic.

D H · December 13, 2009

Furthermore, reducing our CO2 by 80% is a very do-able process over a 10-15 year time-span. The internal-combustion engine can be replaced by hydrogen-cell,

Ths is a pipe dream. From the debate in the article you cited: 'The Director of MIT's Sloan Automotive Lab told Congress this month, "the total time to noticeable impact" for hydrogen fuel cell cars "is likely to be more than 50 years."' Also see Hydrogen Cars Won't Make a Difference for 40 Years (Wired News), Honda's striking, amazing hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle may be the most expensive, advanced and impractical car ever built. (LA Times), to name a few.

This isn't even a pipe dream. It's a nightmare. Where does the hydrogen come from? Current answer: Electrolysis, which means power most likely from coal-powered plants, burnt inefficiently, and electrolyzed even less inefficiently. Gasoline is a *lot* cleaner than this. Future answer: We are not going to get rid of coal powered plants any time soon. Sorry.

Next.

electric,

That electricity comes from somewhere, and right now that somewhere is coal-fired electric power plants. Those who buy electric cars because they think they are saving the environment are fooling themselves. The power losses in the generation, transportation, and battery storage of the electricity magnify the problem. Compared to hydrogen, there is some hope with this technology -- but only if power generation can be made significantly cleaner than it currently is.

Then there is the problem with batteries. Those things are hazardous waste, big time. If CO₂ emission is not the big scary climate destroyer some think it is, we are solving a non-problem here but creating a very real one.

The Patent Office out-and-out rejects any claims to an over-unity machine. A car that runs on water is such a machine. (The original idea is not. It also is not useful. The inventor, John Kanzius, admitted that more energy goes into electrolyzing the water than comes out in combustion.)

Sorry, there are two laws of physics at play here. Oh, that's right. :doh: How could I possibly have forgotten that Congress can rewrite the laws of physics?

As for other energy needs such as home/office needs: wind-mills,

Better get your environmentalist buddies to stop blocking them, then. They kill birds. They also eat money. Power from windmills cost considerably more than that from nuclear plants, which in turn costs more than power using existing hydrocarbon technologies.

They also don't work when the wind doesn't blow, and when peak usage times come (which happens five days a week), we don't yet know how to conjure up a convenient wind to generate the extra power.

solar panels (on-homes, and solar farms),

Maybe, but once again, this is completely unproven technology at the scope needed to replace our existing power plant base. And like batteries, these are a pile of toxic waste.

and nuclear power-plants

Nuclear power plants take five or so years to build -- once construction starts. It takes more years to plan them and get past all the regulatory hurdles. Then there is the cost. These things are flipping expensive. France and Japan have built up a significant nuclear power generation capability, but they did this over decades. Where is the money going to come from to build up the nuclear power capabilities outside of these two countries? The US is already deeply in debt.

The waste problem is a big problem. France hasn't solved it. We thought we had solved it, but that plan was nixed. Finally, there are the NIMBYs. Environmentalists, unless they have had a change of heart, hate nuclear power. The reason that Yucca Mountain was put on mothballs is because the Senate Majority Leader is on of the biggest NIMBYs of them all.

The NIMBYs might have good cause. Anthropogenic global warming might not be as big a problem as some think, and there is no argument about which of anthropogenic CO₂ versus nuclear waste sticks around in the environment longer. Is switching over to a power generation capability really the right thing to do?

Bottom line: The only way we are going to cut our CO₂ output by 80% in a 10-15 year time span is to give up 80% of our power consumption. I guarantee that if such a scheme is passed, Republicans (and Republicans of the worst sort) will be put back in office lickety-split. We care about the environment, but not if that means reverting to a standard of living from a over a century ago.

Edited December 13, 2009 by D H

iNow · December 13, 2009

As DH pointed out. "Poisoning the well". As well as being utterly irrelevent to the topic of divergence. So aside from the logical fallacy, your point was?

It's not poisoning the well when it's a descriptive statement of fact. Steve McIntyre is a liar who intentionally misleads and deceives people, and he has been caught in more lies just this week:

http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/

And John... about the tree rings... The divergence problem has been discussed in numerous articles by numerous researchers. I commented on it already earlier in the thread. In summary, though... Comparing tree ring proxies to other proxies (like ice cores, coral, etc.) we see strong alignment and confluence... until roughly the 1960s... at which point our own climate began warming rapidly, and the tree ring proxy was no longer a valid or accurate metric. So, instead of using a method known to be flawed when representing temperature data after the 1960s, the researchers chose to use a method known to be accurate for the last few decades... thermometers... the instrumental record. In essence, they were aware of problems with the tree ring proxy after a given point, and so chose instead to ensure their data was MORE accurate by using the instrumental record. Why this is supposed to be a problem is really beyond me, and perhaps you can explain.

toastywombel · December 13, 2009

First, When I mentioned that a engine designed around using salt-water could be devised, I was in no way inferring that it should be a perpetual-motion device, so I do not know where you got that from.

I am aware that electricity that goes into electric cars, and the energy to extract hydrogen for hydrogen fuel-cell cars would require power plants. However, you are assuming that it would have to be done by coal power-plants.

If we did not use coal power-plants that would be a non-issue. So lets go to the power plant issue:

"Better get your environmentalist buddies to stop blocking them, then."

I actually do not have any buddies who are environmentalists attempting to block wind-farms. Furthermore, that seems like somewhat of a personal attack and a rather unnecessary comment. Please do not make assumptions about my personal life, and I wont make assumptions about yours thank you .

"They kill birds."

This is a very weak argument, So do planes, and windows on tall buildings.

"They also eat money. Power from windmills cost considerably more than that from nuclear plants, which in turn costs more than power using existing hydrocarbon technologies."

Really now, I would like you to prove that statement you just made.

"Maybe, but once again, this is completely unproven technology at the scope needed to replace our existing power plant base. And like batteries, these are a pile of toxic waste."

On the contrary, I live in New Mexico, we have solar panels on our home and we actually sell some of our electricity back to the electric company. Also we can attempt to contain waste created by batteries and nuclear waste, there is no viable way of containing the toxins and CO2 released by coal factories.

You are absolutely correct on nuclear power though, it is very expensive and it is a heavy task to build a nuclear power-plant.

It costs 500,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 dollars to construct a nuclear power-plant.

One nuclear power plant could generate around 1 million kilowatts, a typical house uses around 10 kilowatts of power at any given time. That means a nuclear power-plant could generate around 100,000 houses.

According to census.gov there are 105,842,000 household in the United States.

So if we build 1,059 nuclear power plants, at the cost of 500,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 dollars that would cost us somewhere around $529,500,000,000 to $1,059,000,000,000.

Interestingly enough the cost of the Targeted Asset Relief Program falls within that range quite nicely doesn't it?

So we can afford to give money out through TARP, money that has not been tracked nearly at all, and cannot really be accounted for. BUT! We cannot afford to invest the same amount of money to build nuclear power-plants in our country?

Furthermore, imagine the amount of jobs that would be created by a project like that. So I will accept that building nuclear power-plants would be expensive, but so expensive we could not pay for it, I don't think so.

Sources:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071209213547AA11On3

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/nuclear_power.html

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp#electricity_use_home

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp#nuclear_generation

Edited December 13, 2009 by toastywombel

Cap'n Refsmmat · December 13, 2009

The United States does not consist entirely of houses. There are also businesses and factories to consider, which will likely double your estimate.

Then there's the question of what to do with the waste of one or two thousand nuclear power plants. Or how to even fuel them -- we don't even have enough uranium to feed our current reactors for long:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0627

toastywombel · December 13, 2009

The United States does not consist entirely of houses. There are also businesses and factories to consider, which will likely double your estimate.

Then there's the question of what to do with the waste of one or two thousand nuclear power plants. Or how to even fuel them -- we don't even have enough uranium to feed our current reactors for long:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0627

Very good points, I was just trying to get across the point that it is not too expensive. Maybe we are just screwed as far as energy goes.

Edited December 13, 2009 by toastywombel
Consecutive posts merged.

D H · December 13, 2009

First, When I mentioned that a engine designed around using salt-water could be devised, I was in no way inferring that it should be a perpetual-motion device, so I do not know where you got that from.

These "cars that run on water" are a re-occurring scam, and they are just that -- a scam. Think of it this way. The water has to be split into its constituent parts, oxygen and hydrogen. Whether this is done by electrolysis, electromagnetic radiation, or whatever process you can think of, if it runs at 100% efficiency it will take 286 kJ of energy to split one mole of water into its constituent part. Burn the resulting hydrogen with oxygen and you will get 286 kJ of energy back. Any claims of excess energy violates the first law of thermodynamics. In short, the first law of thermodynamics says that the best you can do is break even. The second law of thermodynamics is a much harsher mistress: You can't break even.

If we did not use coal power-plants that would be a non-issue. So lets go to the power plant issue:

Onward, then.

Regarding

"Better get your environmentalist buddies to stop blocking them, then."

That was not meant to be a personal attack. I'm sorry that I gave that impression.

That environmentalists have occasionally gone all-out to stop wind farms because they kill birds and are ugly is a fact. This however, is not the main point against wind power. It is expensive. Were it not for the massive subsidies given to wind farms and the like, they simple could not be competitive with other sources of energy.

British Parliament, The Economics of Renewable Energy - Economic Affairs Committee, Chapter 7: Recommendations and Conclusions, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/19510.htm

233.

The cost of electricity from onshore wind farms at good locations would only be comparable with that from fossil fuel generators when the prices of oil, gas and coal are very high or allowance is made for the price imposed for carbon emissions permits (effectively a tax). It is more expensive than nuclear generated power—base cost 7 pence per kWh, as opposed to around 4 pence per kWh for the other technologies. Offshore wind, biomass, wave and tidal power are even more expensive. And these estimates exclude the additional costs of integrating more renewable generation into Britain's electricity grid (paragraph 74)

.

234.

Future developments depend upon many variable factors But it seems clear that the base costs of generation of electricity from onshore wind are likely to remain considerably higher than those of fossil or nuclear generation and that costs of generation of marine or solar renewable electricity are higher still (paragraph 85).

We hope that the Energy Technologies Institute's work will yield technological advance and lower costs. The Government should consider, perhaps in collaboration with others, offering a substantial annual prize for the best technological contribution to renewable energy development (paragraph 93).

235. Although their declared purpose is to improve the environment, it is clear that renewable energy installations can also have adverse environmental impacts which the Government should bear in mind as it weighs the benefits and costs of expansion of renewable generation (paragraph 96).

Wind Energy - The Case of Denmark, https://www.cepos.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Arkiv/PDF/Wind_energy_-_the_case_of_Denmark.pdf

The exported wind power, paid for by Danish householders, brings material benefits in the form of cheap electricity and delayed investment in new generation equipment for consumers in Sweden and Norway but nothing for Danish consumers.

Taxes and charges on electricity for Danish household consumers make their electricity by far the most expensive in the European

Union (EU)

. The total probable value of exported subsidies between 2001 and 2008 was DKK 6.8 billion (€916 million) during this period. A similar amount was probably exported prior to 2012 and larger quantities will be exported following the commissioning of 800 MW of new offshore wind capacity in 2013.

More on this study, http://www.masterresource.org/2009/09/iers-danish-wind-study-response-to-critics/

Wind is heavily subsidized;
Wind power is an inefficient way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. (The Danish wind study, for example, found that it costs on average $124 per ton of carbon dioxide reduced); and
Subsidizing wind power is a very inefficient way to create jobs. (The Danish wind study found that, optimistically, “the subsidy per job created is 600,000-900,000 DKK per year ($90,000 – $140,000 USD). This subsidy constitutes around 175-250% of the average pay per worker in the Danish manufacturing industry.”)

I can find plenty more; it's not hard. Wind power is far from a panacea.

"They also eat money. Power from windmills cost considerably more than that from nuclear plants, which in turn costs more than power using existing hydrocarbon technologies."

Really now, I would like you to prove that statement you just made.

See above.

"Maybe, but once again, this is completely unproven technology at the scope needed to replace our existing power plant base. And like batteries, these are a pile of toxic waste."

On the contrary, I live in New Mexico, we have solar panels on our home and we actually sell some of our electricity back to the electric company. Also we can attempt to contain waste created by batteries and nuclear waste, there is no viable way of containing the toxins and CO2 released by coal factories.

What happens when your solar roof gets hit by a hailstorm? When they fail? (They're exposed to sunlight, which has rather deleterious effects on lifespan.) Those solar cells are laden with nasty chemicals. They need to be disposed of as hazardous waste.

Do you how incredibly nasty the manufacturing process is? Think of it this way: The manufacturing is very similar to that used to make your computer, only those solar cells many times bigger than your computer. Your computer, and your solar cells require rare earths. Because they are rare, mountains need to be torn down to provide the materials for your precious solar cells.

For example, see http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/03/the-ugly-side-o.html.

You are absolutely correct on nuclear power though, it is very expensive and it is a heavy task to build a nuclear power-plant.

It costs 500,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 dollars to construct a nuclear power-plant.

That figure is off by a factor of 5-10, and maybe more.

Turkey Point, two new reactors, 10-12 years from inception to first power, at a cost of $24 billion dollars. http://scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2008/11/How-Much-Will-New-Nuclear-Power-Plants-Cost/

South Texas Nuclear Generating Station, two new reactors, 8 years from inception to first power, at a cost of $17 billion dollars. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/Nuclear_cost_estimate_rises.html

One nuclear power plant could generate around 1 million kilowatts, a typical house uses around 10 kilowatts of power at any given time. That means a nuclear power-plant could generate around 100,000 houses.

According to census.gov there are 105,842,000 household in the United States.

The people who live in those houses need jobs to pay their mortgages. To do that, the need to work somewhere, and those businesses use a lot of power.

Interestingly enough the cost of the Targeted Asset Relief Program falls within that range quite nicely doesn't it?

That is a pipe dream. That money is probably mighty tempting to a politician. However, they know that to touch it for these purposes would be political suicide.

Edited December 13, 2009 by D H

toastywombel · December 13, 2009

Well as fun as this argument has been, I will end my involvement here. You make some very good points, including about wind farms being expensive. The problem I have is the mindset you seem to have, "It cannot be done."

Maybe we can't afford to do it, but can we afford not to do it? I don't know about you, but I do not like the idea of gambling the habitable world.

Cap'n Refsmmat · December 13, 2009

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Which way damns you more? Who knows?

iNow · December 13, 2009

I'll take this opportunity for a bit of shameless self-promotion. I addressed some of the issues with cost back in post #53:

Actually, more important than the concept of "cost" in and of itself is the need to properly represent "cost." Most people (and seemingly you, as well) care only about short-term immediate monetary costs, and lose total sight of long-term health, security, and opportunity costs... or the cost of failing to take action now. Those are the true costs to consider IMHO.

Supporting these points, a recent study found that the annual health costs as a result of our burning fossil fuels are about $120 billion. The majority of these costs are related to premature deaths as a result of pollution as well as preventable diseases like asthma. None of these costs can be found in the price we pay for a gallon of gas or a kilowatt-hour of electricity.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12794

Another study found that global production of the six largest crops suffered significant losses due to global warming between 1981 and 2002. The study also found that global wheat growers lost $2.6 billion in 2002. Again, none of these costs end up on our monthly utility bill.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/2/1/014002/erl7_1_014002.html

Then there are the national security costs. A RAND Corporation study released earlier this year looked at the cost to the U.S. taxpayer of protecting the supply and transit of oil from the Persian Gulf. The study found that the annual cost to U.S. taxpayers is more than $90 billion — about 12% to 15% of the current U.S. defense budget. Once again, these costs are not included in the price we pay for gas or electricity.

http://www.rand.org/nsrd/

And, there are countless other "costs" which require inclusion in these discussions. If you're going to raise the specter of "cost," then you need to at least represent the issue authentically and honestly, and include in your calculations the cost if we do nothing and later discover that the projections about CO2 are fully accurate.

... As well as why we should "Go Cheney" on it back in post #98:

While the emotive response of our populace to AGW certainly has similarities to the concerns of nuclear weapons and other similar issues, that's primarily because the likely outcome can be so deleterious to our way of life and our own likelihood of survival... It would be a supremely "high-impact" event.

Is it not warranted to act in the most responsible way possible on an issue like this... Or, as recently put, to "Go Cheney on this Problem?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opinion/09friedman.html

In 2006, Ron Suskind published “The One Percent Doctrine,” a book about the U.S. war on terrorists after 9/11. The title was drawn from an assessment by then-Vice President Dick Cheney, who, in the face of concerns that a Pakistani scientist was offering nuclear-weapons expertise to Al Qaeda, reportedly declared: “If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.” Cheney contended that the U.S. had to confront a very new type of threat: a “low-probability, high-impact event.”

Soon after Suskind’s book came out, the legal scholar Cass Sunstein, who then was at the University of Chicago, pointed out that Mr. Cheney seemed to be endorsing the same “precautionary principle” that also animated environmentalists. Sunstein wrote in his blog: “According to the Precautionary Principle, it is appropriate to respond aggressively to low-probability, high-impact events — such as climate change. Indeed, another vice president — Al Gore — can be understood to be arguing for a precautionary principle for climate change (though he believes that the chance of disaster is well over 1 percent).”

<...>

When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.

If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.

But if we don’t prepare, and climate change turns out to be real, life on this planet could become a living hell. And that’s why I’m for doing the Cheney-thing on climate — preparing for 1 percent.

Mr Skeptic · December 13, 2009

And John... about the tree rings... The divergence problem has been discussed in numerous articles by numerous researchers. I commented on it already earlier in the thread. In summary, though... Comparing tree ring proxies to other proxies (like ice cores, coral, etc.) we see strong alignment and confluence... until roughly the 1960s... at which point our own climate began warming rapidly, and the tree ring proxy was no longer a valid or accurate metric. So, instead of using a method known to be flawed when representing temperature data after the 1960s, the researchers chose to use a method known to be accurate for the last few decades... thermometers... the instrumental record. In essence, they were aware of problems with the tree ring proxy after a given point, and so chose instead to ensure their data was MORE accurate by using the instrumental record. Why this is supposed to be a problem is really beyond me, and perhaps you can explain.

The problem is not replacing the tree ring proxy data with data known to work (thermometers), it is that if you had to do that now, how do you know whether they are accurate historically as well? If they have diverged now, how do we know that they did not diverge historically?

I know there are other proxies as well. How do they compare to each other and to known temperatures?

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I also tried to explain that reducing our CO2 emissions would not be an impossible task because it seemed to me you were implying that it was.

I just got the impression that he was saying it would be difficult -- in other words, expensive.

----

DH, would you agree that many of the goals for reducing CO2 emissions also align nicely with other commendable goals? For example, increasing efficiency, reducing pollution, decreasing dependence on fossil fuels (they will eventually run out, and oil dependence is particularly nasty for national security), recycling? Obviously some proposed actions only make sense in the context of global warming, but what of the ones I mentioned?

iNow · December 13, 2009

The problem is not replacing the tree ring proxy data with data known to work (thermometers), it is that if you had to do that now, how do you know whether they are accurate historically as well? If they have diverged now, how do we know that they did not diverge historically?

As I alluded to above, via their alignment with other proxy data such as ice core samples, corals, fossil pollen, ocean and lake sediments, and others.

Sign In

Climategate (GW email leak)

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

iNow

iNow

D H

Important Information