Climate change

[financeguy]

Where is this graph going next?

Climate scientists say 2008 will be coolest year of the decade | Environment | guardian.co.uk


Looks like a peak to me.

How do you short global warming hysteria stocks?

 

[purpleoscar]

2015 is only 10 years after An Inconvenient Truth when the world goes to a point of no return and that's also the date when Malaria will be defeated according to Bono.

You win some and you lose some.

 

[financeguy]

Brrrrr.

Feck, I'm cold.

 

[purpleoscar]

Don't worry they will move the deadline just like Cultists who overstep the end of the world dates and have to create new ones.

Nostradamus would be proud.

Global warming: Delayed! ? Tad Cronn

People talking about Cheney Haliburton, and prison investment. I wonder what benefits Al Gore will get with his green busine$$e$.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I strongly agree that the green movement embraces irrational fear, it has some of the trappings of religion (the guilt, carbon-credit indulgences and millennialism). I don't feel guilty about enjoying a high living standard which demands energy, I do think there are environmental consequences that ought be studied so we can minimise our impact on the world.

The Earths climate system is not static, it is very dynamic, it can operate in hothouse states and we have evidence that climate change is impacting the biosphere. The exact causes, feedbacks and outcomes of this change are not properly pinned down. There must be more research.

It would be heartening if the greenies could take a page from the economist Bjorn Lomborg, and do a cost-benefit on their policies; the money thrown away on carbon trading schemes (which ultimately fail at cutting emissions) could possibly (its an open question) deliver better outcomes with nuclear technology.

 

[ntalwar]

No climate change? Where have the honey bees and birds gone? I don't see them anymore.

 

[diamond]

They're cold.

They're lying low in doors getting warm w hot cider.



<>

 

[ntalwar]

I haven't seen them in years. No more flocks of migratory birds - used to see them all the time as a kid.

 

[purpleoscar]

No climate change? Where have the honey bees and birds gone? I don't see them anymore.

Honey bees are being attacked by parasites. BTW climate change can be natural. The scientists don't know how much is man made vs. water vapour vs. Solar fluctuations. We shouldn't be pouring money into projects and bureaucrats until the science gets better. I'm pretty sure if the sun starts changing there is really little we can do about it.

I believe the environment has to be balanced with economics to be truely viable. If the new energy sources are less efficient than oil then you get in a situation that shows that we must reduce our standard of living to reduce C02. When Al Gore lives it up and most of the proponents of man made climate change live it up it sends the wrong signal. It makes it even more ironic since the left adopts these ideas but also worries about the poor in our countries and in Africa. The more we have to pay for energy the less our standard of living will be. People don't want our standard of living to stay the same or go lower. They want it to increase.

Nuclear power is the cheapest of the green technologies and it's still more expensive than oil. Wind turbines and solar power can help but are not enough to make us energy independent.

This guy wants to find a way to recycle C02 biologically. I have no idea if it is viable anytime soon but if it is this will most likely be a better option. The scale is probably the problem.

YouTube - Craig Venter: On the verge of creating synthetic life

I think environmentalists should be focussed on clean water and clean air instead of taking a basic element of photosynthesis and treating it like a poison. In the mean time we need better technologies than nuclear power to increase our standard of living with less energy expenditure. I don't see oil being replaced in my lifetime.

 

[Badyouken]

The Green movement did become some kind of religion. Yet scientific evidence supporting the anthropogenic climate change theory remains fairly strong.

But let's assume for a second that climate change does not have anthropogenic causes, that it is entirely natural. The debate on climate change has led to research and policy promoting energy conservation, energy efficiency, and alternative energy sources/carriers (which will eventually be needed, as fossil fuel sources are depleted). In other words, this whole debate has forced us to try to make better use of energy. Building cogeneration power plants rather than conventional power plants. Making more fuel-efficient systems. Developing solar, wind, geothermal energy technologies. Doing more with what we have.

We would have eventually explored these techniques, but at a slower pace.

Even if the causes of climate change have been misinterpreted, our actions are definitely not useless.

 

[ntalwar]

When Al Gore lives it up and most of the proponents of man made climate change live it up it sends the wrong signal. It makes it even more ironic since the left adopts these ideas but also worries about the poor in our countries and in Africa. The more we have to pay for energy the less our standard of living will be. People don't want our standard of living to stay the same or go lower. They want it to increase.

Al Gore's house now has a solar roof, after local zoning laws were changed - more zoning laws need to change in this country. The oil industry has enjoyed tax breaks and subsidies, and wind/solar should be entitled to the same, which will help offset the cost.

 

[cydewaze]

Looks like a peak to me.

Coulda said the same thing in 1940, and look where we are today.

Let's hope it keeps going down. There are too many people in the world as it is, and it'll only get worse if a bunch of occupied land ends up underwater.

FWIW, there's little difference between global warming doomsayers and global warming naysayers. Since global warming has been turned into a political issue, people just line up on their respective side of the fence and cherry-pick issues that support their pre-chosen beliefs.

The fact that belief in global warming is almost 100% determined by political affiliation sort of proves that there's no critical thinking going on.

 

[Se7en]

I think environmentalists should be focussed on clean water and clean air instead of taking a basic element of photosynthesis and treating it like a poison.

a large percentage of carbon emissions are byproducts of burning fossil fuels, which also emit a host of other pollutants. nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, among others. so just out of curiosity, how do you see focusing on a reduction of carbon emissions as being a separate issue from "clean air?" is it the framing of the issue that bothers you? if people campaigned around clean air instead of climate change would that make a difference to you?

also, i think it's a bit disingenuous to say that anthropogenic co2 emissions are a basic element of photosynthesis. the united states pumped out 5.89 billion metric tons of energy related co2 in 2006. combined with other industrialized nations, that creates a massive amount of co2 that is unnecessary for the continuation of photosynthesis.

 

[the iron horse]

No climate change? Where have the honey bees and birds gone? I don't see them anymore.

They might be disoriented with a few million cell phone microwaves constantly being crashed through the sky.

 

[Badyouken]

The fact that belief in global warming is almost 100% determined by political affiliation sort of proves that there's no critical thinking going on.

Yup.

 

[AliEnvy]

I haven't seen them in years. No more flocks of migratory birds - used to see them all the time as a kid.

Speaking of migratory birds, one day last week on my commute into work and again heading home, I saw huge flocks of Canadian geese heading due north. Odd.

 

[purpleoscar]

Al Gore's house now has a solar roof, after local zoning laws were changed - more zoning laws need to change in this country. The oil industry has enjoyed tax breaks and subsidies, and wind/solar should be entitled to the same, which will help offset the cost.

Remember that Al Gore can afford these changes. What can the average person do? The average in the population has some major debt and mortgages to deal with first. It's like a tax the rich can afford but the middle class would struggle with. The gap between rich and poor would definately increase if these changes were pursued aggressively. These changes should be adopted slowly because people can't produce so quickly to adopt them. Solar panels are crappy technology and are made with rare materials so if everyone tried it the price would prevent it from happening. Solar panels in northern regions also get less sun so they are even less useable.

I think nuclear power is the only viable way at the moment to not crush the standard of living. Environmentalists need to study economics more (other than Karl Marx) if they want to see real success. People would love to adopt cheaper alternatives, but they won't sacrifice their children's future economically.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

Environmentalists need to study economics more (other than Karl Marx) if they want to see real success. People would love to adopt cheaper alternatives, but they won't sacrifice their children's future economically.

"Economists" and I use that term lightly, need to study the Environment more, that is if they want their children to have a habitable world to live in.

Solar panels are not nearly as expensive as oil interests want you to believe, the technology continues to improve and the cost continues to decrease. As ntalwar said, if the same amount of tax breaks and incentives were given to alternative energy as oil and gas you would see a drastic change in price.

Even if the common person cannot afford solar panels or what not, surely they can afford to replace standard light bulbs with energy efficient fluorescents, turn down their heat and AC by a couple of degrees and god forbid - walk or bike or take a bus once and a while...

 

[ntalwar]

People would love to adopt cheaper alternatives, but they won't sacrifice their children's future economically.

Of course solar works only where there is sun. Consider how many thousands of wind turbines and other clean energy projects could have been built with the financial bailout money, on the other hand. Good mass transit is also lacking in the US compared to Europe. In the DC area, we finally just got a rail extension approved to Dulles Airport (and through heavily populated areas)- in Europe those types of rail projects were done decades ago. It shows how much influence the oil industry has here.

 

[purpleoscar]

a large percentage of carbon emissions are byproducts of burning fossil fuels, which also emit a host of other pollutants. nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, among others. so just out of curiosity, how do you see focusing on a reduction of carbon emissions as being a separate issue from "clean air?" is it the framing of the issue that bothers you? if people campaigned around clean air instead of climate change would that make a difference to you?

It would. Reducing C02 to 1990 levels is just not feasible therefore not politically feasible. The population has increased and there would have to be lots of poverty to accompany it. This is especially true for developing countries. By focussing on clear air and water there would be less attention to C02 and more to other gasses that can create acid rain and respatory problems. I mean we are getting WAY out there now that Cow farts are being looked at for carbon tax purposes.

Farmers target EPA report they say might tax cows

There's something unnatural and exaggerrated with scientists today that looks political and maniac like. It doesn't help when Patrick Moore the founder of Greenpeace says that there is not enough evidence to show man being the main cause of warming. At least he's a proponent of nuclear power:

Greenpeace founder now backs nuclear power | News Updates | Idaho Statesman

If we are going to make a premptive stike on global warming without the evidence then we need to look at options like nuclear power because they are more cost effective though there would have to be reprocessing in place to make it safer:

Nuclear reprocessing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reading the Skeptical Environmentalist by Lomborg showed quotes from scientists with WWF exaggerating their claims on purpose to scare people into doing the "right" thing. It becomes a cry wolf situation where premises are created about the environment and proven wrong over time. If any people in other professions did this on a consistent basis they wouldn't be trustworthy or professional.

The Skeptical Environmentalist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

also, i think it's a bit disingenuous to say that anthropogenic co2 emissions are a basic element of photosynthesis. the united states pumped out 5.89 billion metric tons of energy related co2 in 2006. combined with other industrialized nations, that creates a massive amount of co2 that is unnecessary for the continuation of photosynthesis.

Well you can't have photosynthesis without C02 so that I don't think it is disingenous. Also there has been no set point of "optimum" C02 since planet earth has gone through natural climate change its entire history. What is excess? What may have been optimal for us was not necessarily what has happened in Earth's history and may not be optimal in the future. We could have an ice age 1000 years from now that is totally natural and it would wipe out much of life. Do we really have the power to control the warming or cooling on this planet yet?

I'm sure C02 has some warming affect but the science hasn't proven how much is related to humans conclusively.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf

Richard Lindzen's view of the IPCC report and their conclusions to man made global warming:

1. Evidence for natural variability is restricted to model outputs.
2. Evidence is said to include the irrelevant claim that only by assuming human causality is policy relevance assured. To be sure, policy relevance is important, but it cannot be a reason for a scientific conclusion.
3. The assertion that there is no reason to suppose that there are factors omitted from the models is likely to be false as we shall discuss shortly. So too is the claim that such factors are currently unknown to science.

Looking at this report you can see a simplification of the data that goes too far and when there is an absent explanation for warming we see a pointing to humans automatically and a ruling out of other causes we aren't sure of, or have little studies on. I want to see the science improve so that there is much more consensus on what's happening in the atmosphere before we go into a thicket of world taxes and regulations.

UAHuntsville News

Here's another guy who backs up some of Lindzen's assertions of the Iris hypothesis:

Iris hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Science is still gathering evidence and tests. The debate isn't over yet.

 

[purpleoscar]

Even if the common person cannot afford solar panels or what not, surely they can afford to replace standard light bulbs with energy efficient fluorescents, turn down their heat and AC by a couple of degrees and god forbid - walk or bike or take a bus once and a while...

This is fine but it won't be enough to reduce it down to 1990 levels. Your examples definately won't destroy the economy but many people won't bike to work because they have to use their car for employment purposes or have to commute from far away. I do like the idea of trying to find work nearby so I could walk to work but most people can't be too choosy. They are just happy to have a job to go to.

I'm all for finding more ways to be efficient and buying more efficient cars because if it even helps my pocketbook it is actually good for the economy. There is an argument for reducing extravagent lifestyles so you can actually save money and reduce the usage of our oil reserves at the same time. Yet don't expect Hollywood green types like DiCaprio to actually live like that and still go to work. Let's be clear. The people who are supposed to reduce their carbon footprint are the majority of the population. The jet set will still use their private planes and won't live lower middle class lifestyles.

 

[A_Wanderer]

One thing we can do to cut climate emissions is encourage more work from home, a computer and high speed internet connection, even used for a day or two a week, would have a decent effect on carbon emissions and traffic congestion.

 

[the iron horse]

Snow in Vegas.

What snows there stays there.

 

[BVS]

Snow in Vegas.

So obviously climates are being thrown off...

 

[mobvok]

I want to see the science improve so that there is much more consensus on what's happening in the atmosphere before we go into a thicket of world taxes and regulations.

What would you define as a "consensus"?

 

[purpleoscar]

What would you define as a "consensus"?

Like the consensus on gravity.

 

[BVS]

Like the consensus on gravity.

You're willing to make a ban on nicotine, other drugs, abortion, etc...

Yet none of these have a consensus like gravity.

You're inconsistent at the least, but more than likely misinformed.

 

[BVS]

I will concede that the evidence is not absolute.

But the opposition has to step up, for you are all looking like fools.

You have given us proven hoax oppositions. You can't decide if global warming is just a natural cycle or doesn't exist at all. Within your own evidence you preach both...

Your own mouthpieces are preaching that burning fossil fuels has no negative effect what so ever(Rush, Hannity, etc). The scientific process is lost to so many of you... What you present as "science" is just

 

[mobvok]

Like the consensus on gravity.

You mean the consensus about general relativity that we need to gather more evidence and tests because it's incomplete, as evidenced by its fundamental conflict with quantum mechanics?

If "the debate isn't over" until scientists are done gathering evidence and conducting tests, then by not even your standard can we accept gravity.

Of course we do, because the overwhelming scientific evidence supports the practical conclusions of general relativity. Parallels....

Link

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

But we need much more consensus? Zero is too high?

 

[purpleoscar]

You're willing to make a ban on nicotine, other drugs, abortion, etc...

Yet none of these have a consensus like gravity.

You're inconsistent at the least, but more than likely misinformed.

I think you're forcing juxtapositions on issues.

Does anybody want to pay huge taxes for Al Gore's businesses without solid science? I'm sure believers would get a bad taste in their mouth if years later an entire government apparatus was erected for the mere purpose to fleece citizens. (Hello new religion?!)

Nobody is debating what an abortion does to a baby. Nobody is seriously debating whether smoking is good for you or not. We even have solid evidence that second hand smoking is bad for you.

I already posted Lindzen's study and it shows that the people supporting the man-made climate change are simplifying the data so it's easier to explain to the public (even if it's overly reductionist). There is an element of cooling in the atmosphere that needs to be studied further because the actual projections have been proven wrong because of it.

The most worrisome is blaming humans on unknown variables without studying oceans and the El Nino and La Nina effects. There should be more studies on the sun as well. It's obvious the science isn't convincing yet. Especially since there has been a study that those with the largest carbon footprints are the ones advocating reductions in emissions. They should lead by example. As long as they don't the public will reject it out of envy because the middle class couldn't stay middle class if they try and keep up with expenses that the rich do with expensive inefficient environmental technologies. As Clinton would say "It's the economy stupid."