Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Alan Goldhammer on October 26, 2017, 01:05:02 pm

Title: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 26, 2017, 01:05:02 pm
Climate change will affect us as photographers by ending some opportunities (disappearance of Arctic and Antarctic photo sites) and open up some new ones (lots of documentary opportunities).  We had a previous thread on this topic in The Coffee Corner that was shut down because the ad hominem attacks got out of hand.  This is a second attempt to focus the topic on science and key issues.  Ray and I posted on the existing thread about Changes in the Coffee Corner and are willing to give this another shot.  Personal attacks won't be tolerated and if we cannot lock the thread, we will contact Chris.

Let's keep this civil and focus on the research and issues that are coming forward.

As the first post, let me point you to an interesting article in The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/26/sea-levels-to-rise-13m-unless-coal-power-ends-by-2050-report-says) from researchers at the University of Melbourne (Ray's country!!!) who project a 1.3 meter rise in sea level unless coal burning for energy is phased out.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on October 26, 2017, 01:33:50 pm
Thanks for restarting the debate, Alan. Although the discussion alone, as Rob pointed out, won't change much directly, various posters contributed a lot of useful and interesting information which may serve as a valuable reference to a wide audience.

Recently, there was an interesting article about water evaporation, a powerful process in nature that affects ecosystems, water resources, weather, and climate. The natural evaporation from open water surfaces as a renewable resource could provide power densities comparable to current wind and solar technologies while cutting evaporative water losses by nearly half. It is estimated that up to 325 GW of power would be potentially available just in the United States.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-00581-w

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 26, 2017, 01:42:49 pm
Thanks for that reference Les.  There is a huge amount that can be done in improving the use of renewable energy resource systems.  The trouble is sifting through what is doable.  Other than ethanol and diesel fuel production we don't utilize plants biomass much at all.  A lot of the projects involving non-corn enzymatic conversion and fermentation seem not to be financially viable.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on October 26, 2017, 09:49:04 pm
Climate change will affect us as photographers by ending some opportunities (disappearance of Arctic and Antarctic photo sites) and open up some new ones (lots of documentary opportunities).  We had a previous thread on this topic in The Coffee Corner that was shut down because the ad hominem attacks got out of hand.  This is a second attempt to focus the topic on science and key issues.  Ray and I posted on the existing thread about Changes in the Coffee Corner and are willing to give this another shot.  Personal attacks won't be tolerated and if we cannot lock the thread, we will contact Chris.

Let's keep this civil and focus on the research and issues that are coming forward.

As the first post, let me point you to an interesting article in The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/26/sea-levels-to-rise-13m-unless-coal-power-ends-by-2050-report-says) from researchers at the University of Melbourne (Ray's country!!!) who project a 1.3 meter rise in sea level unless coal burning for energy is phased out.

Alan,
That's an excellent example of 'alarmist' news. One of the effects of 'alarm' is that it reduces our ability to think clearly about an issue.
My impression of this new paper mentioned in The Guardian (which is a very 'Pro-AGW newspaper), is that the research is again heavily based upon computer models.

To quote from the article:

"The new paper by Alexander Nauels from the University of Melbourne and colleagues uses simplified physical models............. "

"Nauels said his team’s work assumed that Antarctica would contribute to sea level rise as was suggested by the 2016 paper by DeConto, but more work was needed to confirm those findings."

“We still have to find out what’s going on in Antarctica,” he told the Guardian. “We can’t base all future sea level rise projects on just one paper. And the Antarctic ice sheet community are frantically working on the new insights.”


What we should be doing, for the benefit of all humanity, is address the issues that are known with a high degree of certainty, rather than divert money, energy and resources towards tackling an imaginary scenario in the future based upon an incomplete and sometimes erroneous understanding of a very complex subject.

The argument is often presented, by the alarmists, that it's better to do something, when there's a perceived risk, than do nothing. However, this is a false dichotomy. No sensible, organised and developed society does 'nothing' to protect its citizens.

Floods, droughts, hurricanes, heat waves and cold spells, are not new. They are a natural part of climate and have been occurring throughout history. To successfully tackle the very real risks of harm from such extreme events, that have occurred frequently in the past, way before the beginning of the industrial revolution, requires massive amounts of energy in order to build flood-mitigation dams, elevate roads and buildings above previous flood levels, strengthen homes to resist hurricanes (in regions that are subject to hurricane activity), build dykes or levees to protect cities from either rising sea levels or natural sinking due to the weight of the infrastructure, and so on.

Making energy more expensive, and/or less reliable, by imposing a ban on all CO2-emitting forms of energy, will no doubt result in less attention and resources being directed towards solving the real problems of protecting ourselves from the expected repetition of previously recorded, extreme weather events.

However, I can appreciate that demonizing CO2 can be politically popular. It can create a false sense of security, and can also be used to counteract any blame of incompetence which could be directed at a government as a result of flood or hurricane damage which could have been avoided if the government had paid attention to the history of extreme weather events in the area and organized its building codes and approvals accordingly.

The first comment in the news media whenever there's a devastating storm, is often to suggest that such an event is yet another example of climate change, thus reinforcing the meme that mankind's emissions of CO2 are to blame, and if we stop such emissions, our climate will become benign and our children, and their children, will live happily and securely forever after.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Farmer on October 27, 2017, 12:43:33 am
Ray - I would ask you to moderate your post.

Instead of calling people or things by names ("alarmist") and making inferences about poor understanding or logic, you should instead be presenting facts or discussing the facts to show why they're wrong or how they're misinterpreted and so on.

All you've done here is essentially call those you disagree with by a name and dismissed their views without any supporting evidence.

At least start by not using inflammatory language or, if you insist, moderate yourself out of the discussion.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: David Sutton on October 27, 2017, 04:37:35 am
Alan, I appreciate this is an important subject and I acknowledge what you are doing.
Having watched the previous thread and seeing how this has developed so far, I get this feeling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUE2qgx-xpM
I would like to take part but I don't have Phil's politeness and patience.
Kind regards.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 27, 2017, 05:30:49 am
Ray - I would ask you to moderate your post.

Instead of calling people or things by names ("alarmist") and making inferences about poor understanding or logic, you should instead be presenting facts or discussing the facts to show why they're wrong or how they're misinterpreted and so on.

All you've done here is essentially call those you disagree with by a name and dismissed their views without any supporting evidence.

At least start by not using inflammatory language or, if you insist, moderate yourself out of the discussion.

+1 (unless that's not allowed by the moderators here).

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Rob C on October 27, 2017, 07:06:12 am
Alas, it simply shows the impossibility of having things fair, cold and as emotionally charged as a dead fish.

Ideal doesn't equate with Internet chat for very long periods of time...

Rob
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 27, 2017, 08:30:09 am
Ray - I would ask you to moderate your post.

Instead of calling people or things by names ("alarmist") and making inferences about poor understanding or logic, you should instead be presenting facts or discussing the facts to show why they're wrong or how they're misinterpreted and so on.

All you've done here is essentially call those you disagree with by a name and dismissed their views without any supporting evidence.

At least start by not using inflammatory language or, if you insist, moderate yourself out of the discussion.

Indeed.

What could possibly go wrong when the OP starts with a quite moderate, balanced, and non-controversial statement?

So, it is ok to call others "deniers," "skeptics," but not "alarmist"!? Or to ask those you disagree with to shut up?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on October 27, 2017, 08:52:26 am
"A plague on both your houses."
Ray - I would ask you to moderate your post.

Instead of calling people or things by names ("alarmist") and making inferences about poor understanding or logic, you should instead be presenting facts or discussing the facts to show why they're wrong or how they're misinterpreted and so on.

All you've done here is essentially call those you disagree with by a name and dismissed their views without any supporting evidence.

At least start by not using inflammatory language or, if you insist, moderate yourself out of the discussion.
+10.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on October 27, 2017, 09:14:30 am
I don't see anything alarming in Ray's post.

As much as I am against all CO2, and even more about the exceedingly high methane production, it is shortsighted to hide behind the CO2 rhetoric and ignore all other pollution kinds - in air, water, and in the food. The ever increasing amount of plastics and other toxic materials in the lakes and oceans is much more damaging and alarming than the CO2.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on October 27, 2017, 09:15:47 am
Ray - I would ask you to moderate your post.

Instead of calling people or things by names ("alarmist") and making inferences about poor understanding or logic, you should instead be presenting facts or discussing the facts to show why they're wrong or how they're misinterpreted and so on.

All you've done here is essentially call those you disagree with by a name and dismissed their views without any supporting evidence.

At least start by not using inflammatory language or, if you insist, moderate yourself out of the discussion.

Phil,
Every thing, concept or person has a name. Without using descriptive names it's not possible to have any discussion or communication using a language.

If you don't think the term 'alarmist' is appropriate to describe someone who attempts to create a sense of fear about the increased devastation of future weather events that are claimed to be caused by miniuscule amounts of CO2, which at the current rate of 400 parts per million in the atmosphere are no more than a trace element (or compound), then please suggest a more appropriate name, and explain your reasons for the more appropriate name.

For example, I would object to the name 'climate change denier', which is often used to describe anyone who expresses doubt about the claimed detrimental effect on climate, of mankind's emissions of CO2.

I see a clear distinction between 'denial' and 'skepticism'. Denial is a psychological state of mind whereby some deep-seated emotion, perhaps suppressed in the subconscious, prevents a person from perceiving and understanding incontrovertible facts, such as the persecution of the Jews by the Nazis.

The effects on climate, of increased levels of CO2, at the current rate of increase, are not known with certainty. However, we do know with certainty that past changes in climate, in the absence of any significant anthropogenic CO2 emissions, have destroyed entire civilizations.

Such civilizations were not able to adapt. Modern civilizations have the technology and energy supplies to adapt. What we might not have is the political nous to make the right decisions to adapt.


Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on October 27, 2017, 09:25:50 am
Can someone specify a point in geologic history when the world wasn't experiencing "climate change?"
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 27, 2017, 09:28:28 am
Ray - the problem that you are seeing from others who are reading your post is the language that you used.  We are focusing on science and results.  You may think The Guardian's tone is 'alarmist' in nature but that may or may not reflect the underlying information in the scientific publication.  I have not read that paper yet but have seen reports in several other newspapers beside The Guardian.  We don't know if the projections of the Melbourne scientists will come true or not (and many of us likely will not be around by the end of this century).  It was my hope that by continuing this discussion that we could post links to articles and discuss them in terms of what the possible implications might be.

I know that you believe that increases in CO2 might mitigate a lot of the climate change issues by increasing plant growth.  That might happen.  However there is a lot of concern from coffee growers that climate change is real and will have a negative impact -https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/business/the-race-to-save-coffee/?utm_term=.24ba8dd20dc4  Most of us savor that first cup of coffee in the morning (and perhaps more throughout the day) and don't want to see climate change adversely impact that.

I would ask you to tone down the rhetoric if this thread is to continue.  You can certainly find better language to convey your thoughts.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 27, 2017, 09:35:24 am
Can someone specify a point in geologic history when the world wasn't experiencing "climate change?"
Of course climate change takes place every day and within a year we go from season to season.  I think what you want to know is within larger time spans what types of changes have been observed.  Precise measurements of climate such as mean temperature, rain fall, and other physical parameters have only been carried out for a 100-200 years.  Indirect observations such as tree ring, geological events, etc. are in the scientific literature and point to things such as the ice age.  What we have today is a lot of data coming out regarding atmospheric concentrations of C02, images of both the Arctic and Antarctic, various weather patterns (storms, hurricanes, drought) and temperature increases.  The difficulty is what to make of all this in terms of whether this is something short term that will be self-correcting or long term, requiring some type of adaptation.  Certainly there may be concerns in areas lying close to sea level if ocean levels rise leading to flooding.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on October 27, 2017, 09:59:52 am
Thanks, Alan, for the thumbnail review of the semesters of historical geology I took at University of Michigan. Yes, the current wild-eyed panic boils down to the shaky and mostly disproved, but still assumed disastrous effects of CO2. Maybe the rapid growth of sea ice in Antarctica is the result of CO2. Maybe the Arctic melt balanced against the increase in Antarctica will cause the planet to flip upside down. There's no end of possible scenarios.  Anyone wanting to panic is quite free to do so. But I'd appreciate it if they'd panic on their own time and not try to change my world to fit their theories.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 27, 2017, 10:08:49 am
You can’t possibly have a debate if you want Ray et al to shut up. You might have an orgy of self-congratulating, pat-each-other-on-the-back, +10, thinking-the-same crowd instead.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on October 27, 2017, 10:16:18 am
On another topic entirely, John Beardsworth provided a link to a Monty Python sketch.
I think it may be quite appropriate here.

Monty Python (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Farmer on October 27, 2017, 10:24:30 am
I don't want Ray to shut up, but if he wants to have a science-based discussion, he can do it by presenting science and logical discussion of the science, without starting the discussion off by using derogatory terms for those with whom he disagrees.

There is no need to use "alarmist" or "denier", and when you remove those terms and using them to diminish someone's position or argument (which is an actual ad hominem - it is literally saying someone is wrong because they are "insert name" instead of addressing their point) you have a chance of reasoned discussion where the quality of sources, the weight of sources, and so on comes into play.

If he's not prepared to do that, then he's not an acceptable moderator, and frankly no one should bother engaging with him else it will just be a repeat of the previous thread.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2017, 10:40:05 am
Ray more than anyone else had presented in the previous thread a counter-balance to most of the supporter's views here about CO2 and global warming.  He's spent more time giving specific data than anyone else on both sides.   Everyone telling him to "shut-up" now because they think his words aren't politically correct is just more of same PC stuff we get from the left to shut up people they don't agree with.  Frankly, Ray, if they don't like what you have to say, I'd recommend you don't post anything and let the choir sing to themselves. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2017, 10:49:52 am
Indeed.

What could possibly go wrong when the OP starts with a quite moderate, balanced, and non-controversial statement?

So, it is ok to call others "deniers," "skeptics," but not "alarmist"!? Or to ask those you disagree with to shut up?

Let's see.  You can call me a "skeptic" but I would consider you calling me a "denier" as personally inflammatory.  Please moderate your name calling.  :)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2017, 11:00:24 am
Since the original thread went "poof", there have been some interesting new science that we hadn't discussed before that could have a major impact on CO2 and "supposed" global warming.  The point that I see is that it's another important factor that may have been missed in computations as to the effect of CO2 and carbon based fuel.  Missing data is one of the things skeptics are concerned about.  That not all the data is incorporated in the algorithms that calculate climate change, so we arrive at faulty conclusions.

So the recent issue is: Decomposing organic matter in soil stores more carbon than both plants and the atmosphere combined.

It's worth a discussion.  We "skeptics" are concerned. :)

https://www.earth.com/news/soil-co2-climate-change/
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 27, 2017, 11:03:26 am
I came across this interesting abstract: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/2017GL074618/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/2017GL074618/abstract).
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 27, 2017, 11:21:50 am
Since the original thread went "poof", there have been some interesting new science that we hadn't discussed before that could have a major impact on CO2 and "supposed" global warming.  The point that I see is that it's another important factor that may have been missed in computations as to the effect of CO2 and carbon based fuel.  Missing data is one of the things skeptics are concerned about.  That not all the data is incorporated in the algorithms that calculate climate change, so we arrive at faulty conclusions.

So the recent issue is: Decomposing organic matter in soil stores more carbon than both plants and the atmosphere combined.

It's worth a discussion.  We "skeptics" are concerned. :)

https://www.earth.com/news/soil-co2-climate-change/
Organic matter decomposition can also be used to create biogass.  A number of dairy farmers use anaerobic microorganisms to metabolize manure to create methane which can be used for heating.  This is an old reference:  http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/3/3/034002   There were also some US EPA technical papers on this that came out in the mid-2000s but I don't know if they are accessible any longer.

There are a number of CO2 sinks and Alan has highlighted one of them.  This is why the CO2 story is so complicated.  Oceans and other bodies of water are a CO2 sink as well but the problem there is that CO2 leads to acidification.  One of the results of this is the possible destruction of coral reefs but I don't think the science is quite as firm on that point.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on October 27, 2017, 11:40:22 am
There is no need to use "alarmist" or "denier", and when you remove those terms and using them to diminish someone's position or argument (which is an actual ad hominem - it is literally saying someone is wrong because they are "insert name" instead of addressing their point

 
There is a need if the descriptions accurately fit the circumstances. Denial is a recognized psychological condition which is an appropriate description in specific situations.

Alarm is a very common experience in the life of many people, but mostly relating to events in the present or near future.
Alarm about the devastating effects of future climate conditions, if we don't reduce CO2 levels, is alarm. How else would you describe it?

If a person meets a tiger whilst trekking in the jungle, he would probably become alarmed. Are you suggesting that such a description of alarm would be an ad hominem attack? If so, you're not making any sense.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2017, 11:46:50 am
Organic matter decomposition can also be used to create biogass.  A number of dairy farmers use anaerobic microorganisms to metabolize manure to create methane which can be used for heating.  This is an old reference:  http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/3/3/034002   There were also some US EPA technical papers on this that came out in the mid-2000s but I don't know if they are accessible any longer.

There are a number of CO2 sinks and Alan has highlighted one of them.  This is why the CO2 story is so complicated.  Oceans and other bodies of water are a CO2 sink as well but the problem there is that CO2 leads to acidification.  One of the results of this is the possible destruction of coral reefs but I don't think the science is quite as firm on that point.
There are a lot of factors that are just unknown or if known, their impact is not well understood.  The media tends to highlight al the negatives without discussing a lot of the issues that are unknown or have positive impacts on the earth, man and other animals and plant species.  It's too one-sided.  That raises questions and skepticism about the claims. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2017, 11:49:56 am

...

If a person meets a tiger whilst trekking in the jungle, he would probably become alarmed. Are you suggesting that such a description of alarm would be an ad hominem attack? If so, you're not making any sense.
Apparently, the tiger trekking in the jungle can be alarmed by the person but not the other way around.  Ad hominin attacks on animals are acceptable. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on October 27, 2017, 12:00:29 pm
So the recent issue is: Decomposing organic matter in soil stores more carbon than both plants and the atmosphere combined.

It's worth a discussion.  We "skeptics" are concerned. :)

https://www.earth.com/news/soil-co2-climate-change/

This is a very interesting idea, Alan, which I've been aware of for some time. Modern farming practices significantly reduce the carbon content of the soil.

One method of farming which addresses this issue is called Permaculture, a method which was apparently introduced by an Australian called Bill Mollison.

Mollison has said: "Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted and thoughtful observation rather than protracted and thoughtless labour; and of looking at plants and animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a 'single product system'.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 27, 2017, 12:34:47 pm
This is a very interesting idea, Alan, which I've been aware of for some time. Modern farming practices significantly reduce the carbon content of the soil.

One method of farming which addresses this issue is called Permaculture, a method which was apparently introduced by an Australian called Bill Mollison.

Mollison has said: "Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted and thoughtful observation rather than protracted and thoughtless labour; and of looking at plants and animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a 'single product system'.

Unfortunately in the US a lot of the manure from 'factory' farms is just stored in lagoons and the carbon value of the manure is not captured.  'Permaculture' is defined as 'organic' farming in the US.  the intention is the same.  There is no question that better stewardship of agricultural inputs can be better managed.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 27, 2017, 02:03:50 pm
Can someone specify a point in geologic history when the world wasn't experiencing "climate change?"

Hi Russ,

The question should not be if the climate changed in the past, nobody denies it did, but what is causing the change.

As far as scientists are concerned, the current changes have in a large part an anthropogenic cause, and CO2 emissions are a large part of that.

The mounting concern is the rate of CO2 change, which is unprecedented as far as geological records allow to reconstruct. The rapid change is too fast for the earth to accommodate and adapt to without societal disruption. Another concern is that we may trigger events that are irreversible.

That's also the subject of the article that started the thread, above a certain increase of global temperature, a sudden (!) loss of Antarctic ice becomes more likely, which may be such an irreversible consequence.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on October 27, 2017, 02:16:32 pm
Yes, Bart, I know that's the theory. But nobody's actually been able to correlate CO2 emissions with temperature change, and there's some pretty good evidence that the idea doesn't hold water. I could give you references but you'd be able to come back with counter-references. The point is: nobody actually knows, though you'd never realize that from the stuff that gets written about it. At this point it's all theory. To actually make changes in our economies at this point would be insane, but that doesn't seem to bother politicians who are trying to make hay with this stuff.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 27, 2017, 02:39:29 pm
Yes, Bart, I know that's the theory. But nobody's actually been able to correlate CO2 emissions with temperature change, and there's some pretty good evidence that the idea doesn't hold water. I could give you references but you'd be able to come back with counter-references. The point is: nobody actually knows, though you'd never realize that from the stuff that gets written about it.

I for one, do not discard the overwhelming scientific consensus that Global warming is mostly anthropogenic in nature, because that would be irresponsible (also given the potential consequences).

Quote
At this point it's all theory.

What is ALL a theory? The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? The fact that the CO2 levels are rising, and at an unprecedentedly rapid rate? The fact that there are no known other present causes that explain such a large part of the observed global warming trend?

Quote
To actually make changes in our economies at this point would be insane, but that doesn't seem to bother politicians who are trying to make hay with this stuff.

That's a whole different topic.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on October 27, 2017, 03:28:51 pm
The fact that there are no known other present causes that explain such a large part of the observed global warming trend?

What global warming trend is that, Bart? The globe hasn't warmed for at least the past decade. And if CO2 is the only possible explanation for warming, how do you explain Leif Erikson's travels to the North American Continent around 1000 AD?

The point I'm trying to make is that nobody actually has a clue.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 27, 2017, 03:54:21 pm
What global warming trend is that, Bart?

(https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Hemispheric_Temperature_Change/graph.png)

Quote
The globe hasn't warmed for at least the past decade. And if CO2 is the only possible explanation for warming, how do you explain Leif Erikson's travels to the North American Continent around 1000 AD?

CO2 is one of the major current causes of the current Global temperature rise, and it's anthropogenic.
The reason that the Southern hemisphere temperatures rise at a slower pace is due to the fact that there is more water mass there and it heats up slower than landmass does.

Quote
The point I'm trying to make is that nobody actually has a clue.

I see your point, but do not agree.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2017, 04:37:54 pm
Deja vu all over again.  Why do these posts seem so familiar?

So I'll say that the US pulled out of Paris because the Chinese don't have to do anything until 2030.
And you'll say that's because China is a growing economy.
And I'll say, but they're number 2 in the world in their economy and #1 in CO2 production.
And you'll say that that America's is bigger on a per capita basis.
And I'll say the earth doesn't care about per capita, that the country's full amount is what counts and you're letting the Chinese of the hook by not doing anything until 2030.
And you'll say that America is selfish.
And I'll say you're getting hoodwinked by China.
And then the Administrator will say it's getting personal and "poof" goes the thread.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on October 27, 2017, 04:42:12 pm
Afraid I'm not convinced, Bart. There are two things wrong with this if you're saying it indicts CO2 as a culprit.

First, I don't know what the source of the data is. All it says is "Hemispheric Temperate Change." Who says so, and on what basis? We don't even know what the thing purports to measure. There's no magnitude scale. It could be measuring degrees centigrade, degrees Fahrenheit, or tiny fractions of either, or neither. Maybe the whole thing shows an increase of 1/1000 degree over 120 years. I easily can cook up a graph that shows just the opposite and call it Hemispheric Cooling.

Secondly, if the chart tells me what you claim it does, and I'm not convinced it does, who's to say this isn't one of those long-term trends we saw in the 900's? The thing covers 120 years. To jump to a correlation with CO2 levels is quite a jump. But even if there were such a correlation, remember this basic fact about statistics: "Correlation is not causation." Everybody pushing the global warming "trend" seems to have forgotten that.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 27, 2017, 04:44:45 pm
Deja vu all over again.  Why do these posts seem so familiar?
Read the title and the first post I made.  The reason that some of these posts look familiar is that the old thread was vaporized because the discussion took a tangent.  I want this to focus of Science and Issues; I don't want to see the same stuff that was cluttering up the previous thread.  If that cannot be accomplished, I'll gladly shut this one down.  Going forward here's what I would like to see:

1) research findings and discussion of those and don't just say I don't believe it; we already know that this stuff is controversial on one level and just reposting stuff that you have said 100 times on the previous thread is not terribly productive
2) questions that pertain to the science so that someone who might know an answer will post it
3) issues related to climate change and it does not have to be just CO2; there are a lot of other things going on in terms of storms, drought, increased pestilence associated with warming, etc.
4) be civil

As I noted, this whole area affects photographers and offers opportunities; there was a great image of one of the large ice shelfs in the Antarctic in the Washington Post today; a photographer took that picture
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 27, 2017, 04:51:31 pm
First, I don't know what the source of the data is. All it says is "Hemispheric Temperate Change." Who says so, and on what basis? We don't even know what the thing purports to measure. There's no magnitude scale. It could be measuring degrees centigrade, degrees Fahrenheit, or tiny fractions of either, or neither. Maybe the whole thing shows an increase of 1/1000 degree over 120 years. I easily can cook up a graph that shows just the opposite and call it Hemispheric Cooling.
look at the y-axis, it is deviation in temperature in Celsius with 1880 as the start date.  I don't know where this particular data set is from but we have seen data from temperatures recorded here in Washington DC that shows a similar trend.

Quote
Secondly, if the chart tells me what you claim it does, and I'm not convinced it does, who's to say this isn't one of those long-term trends we saw in the 900's? The thing covers 120 years. To jump to a correlation with CO2 levels is quite a jump. But even if there were such a correlation, remember this basic fact about statistics: "Correlation is not causation." Everybody pushing the global warming "trend" seems to have forgotten that.
We have no way of knowing what the trend was in the 900s and North America was only occupied by indigenous peoples; the European migration did not begin until the 1600s.  I don't think it is fair to say that it is a jump to say that there is a correlation with CO2 levels as there clearly is linkage.  The question is whether and how meaningful this linkage is.  Clearly there are difficult decisions to be made regarding this information and one option is to wait and see if sea level changes continue to progress.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 27, 2017, 04:55:19 pm
History of CO2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg&feature=youtu.be). Longish lecture, sounds is not terrific.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Farmer on October 27, 2017, 05:03:48 pm
Everyone telling him to "shut-up" now because they think his words aren't politically correct

No one has told him to shut up.  I have, very simply and plainly, asked him to exercise the agreed moderation standard and cease using inflammatory language and ad hominem arguments.  He continues to refuse to do so.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Farmer on October 27, 2017, 05:26:46 pm

There is a need if the descriptions accurately fit the circumstances. Denial is a recognized psychological condition which is an appropriate description in specific situations.

Alarm is a very common experience in the life of many people, but mostly relating to events in the present or near future.
Alarm about the devastating effects of future climate conditions, if we don't reduce CO2 levels, is alarm. How else would you describe it?

If a person meets a tiger whilst trekking in the jungle, he would probably become alarmed. Are you suggesting that such a description of alarm would be an ad hominem attack? If so, you're not making any sense.

The only need for such descriptors, from either side, is to suggest that their arguments are less or wrong because of the individuals' state of mind.  It ignores evidence, it ignores logic, it casts emotional doubt rather than reasoned debate.  All you need to do is to not use the terms.  You don't actually need to refer to anyone in any way.  Just present the science, present the reasoned logic, present the evidence.

You started your participation in this thread by calling your opponents names.   You have also failed to moderate the first post in the thread which immediately pushed a political line.

A person meeting a tiger in the jungle is potentially alarmed - that doesn't make them alarmist.  The overwhelming evidence is that they have an apex predator, capable of killing them, nearby.  If their amygdala creates a match to the received data before the neocortex (and it receives information several milliseconds faster and processes more quickly), it will trigger the hypothalmic-pituitary-adrenal axis and can induce fight or flight as an emotional response based on previous experience stored in the hippocampus.  If there is no match, then the neocortex will provide higher function, and reason and logic will be used to determine the course of action.  Either response is valid and neither makes them an alarmist even if they become alarmed at the current situation.  What we can say is that the person who avoids the amygdala response to sensory stimulation sent from the thalamus may have a deeper and more thorough understanding of the situation depending upon their experience and ability to use the data.  What we can also say is that someone who is frequently in the presence of tigers or other apex predators in such situations will be more likely to have that better understanding because they can make sense of the data through that previous experience.  Furthermore, if there are a lot of people experienced with dealing with apex predators is that if they mostly come to the same conclusion then there's a very strong basis upon which to accept their advice as being right.  That becomes even higher if they've had a chance for other experienced people to review their understanding.  Even if they can't guarantee you that you're going to be the next meal because you're covered in blood and you're the slowest runner and the tiger looks ravenous, if they tell you to clean yourself up pronto so you no longer present such a tasty option, it would clearly be a good idea to listen to them rather than insist that you once heard a case of a blood-soaked explorer meting a ravenous tiger who ended up just licking him clean and then befriending him.

There's nothing wrong with the amygdala response - it doesn't warrant calling people names, but the emotional response based on limited or poor evidence in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary also doesn't warrant name calling just because they have a different view.

Just saying.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2017, 05:34:15 pm
Read the title and the first post I made.  The reason that some of these posts look familiar is that the old thread was vaporized because the discussion took a tangent.  I want this to focus of Science and Issues; I don't want to see the same stuff that was cluttering up the previous thread.  If that cannot be accomplished, I'll gladly shut this one down.  Going forward here's what I would like to see:

1) research findings and discussion of those and don't just say I don't believe it; we already know that this stuff is controversial on one level and just reposting stuff that you have said 100 times on the previous thread is not terribly productive
2) questions that pertain to the science so that someone who might know an answer will post it
3) issues related to climate change and it does not have to be just CO2; there are a lot of other things going on in terms of storms, drought, increased pestilence associated with warming, etc.
4) be civil

As I noted, this whole area affects photographers and offers opportunities; there was a great image of one of the large ice shelfs in the Antarctic in the Washington Post today; a photographer took that picture

Item 3 is why your list is biased and one of the reasons I feel the whole science is distorted.  You already made the assumption that there are only negatives to global warming.  You can't even see the possibility there are positive things that happen when the temperature goes up.  It seems you only want people to post things that support your beliefs.  So you're establishing the ground rules to fit your outlook.  That's "fake news".   You're better than that Alan G. I know that's not what you really want to do, is it?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 27, 2017, 06:04:40 pm
Item 3 is why your list is biased and one of the reasons I feel the whole science is distorted.  You already made the assumption that there are only negatives to global warming.  You can't even see the possibility there are positive things that happen when the temperature goes up.  It seems you only want people to post things that support your beliefs.  So you're establishing the ground rules to fit your outlook.  That's "fake news".   You're better than that Alan G. I know that's not what you really want to do, is it?
If you feel the science is distorted then find some links that prove that point.  I am not establishing any ground rules to fit any outlook.  I'm a scientist by training and that's what I look to for answers.  As Ray said on the previous thread (and found a number of links about it), CO2 may have a beneficial effect on plant life.  Perhaps this mitigates some problems associated with climate change but we don't know yet what the fractional contribution of higher levels of CO2 are particularly as compared to improvements in plant breeding.

Climate warming will open up some new regions to agriculture but even that is not the whole story.  Plants require sunlight to grow and the more northern regions that are today affected by early frosts also have a summer with very long days.  Can the plant breeders take advantage of this?  Here is something that is not a negative!!!

Again, I will note that I hope this new thread can serve as forum for the science, issues and thoughtful discussion accompanied by questions from all.  I will also say that I do not have the patience of Job and if things careen out of control we'll stop the thread. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on October 27, 2017, 07:05:48 pm
It's all very confusing. On one hand, we read that more CO2 is good for plant growth, but other sources indicate that the Amazon rainforest is losing its ability to soak up carbon dioxide from the air. Over the past 2 decades, trees in the Amazon have been dying at an increasing rate, rendering the massive jungle a weaker absorber, or “sink,” of CO2, which plants take up during photosynthesis.

The good thing is that after a century of constant decline, the number of wild tigers is on the rise.  According to the most recent data, around 3,890 tigers now exist in the wild, compared with 3,200 in 2010.

Quote
It is a known fact that tigers and other carnivorous contribute a lot to the natural habitat and ecosystems. The services these animals offer are protection from natural disasters and soil erosion, medicinal plant genetic diversity, carbon sequestration, and blooming of natural diversity. Thus, the measurements taken to protect tigers in their natural habitats will automatically lead to global benefits. Since tigers feed on mammalian herbivores such as chinkara, chital, and sambar in their natural habitats or reserve area, they keep the herbivore population in check and thus help to preserve the forests. Saving endangered tigers will offer immense ecological services in terms of carbon storage value as well.

http://www.triplepundit.com/podium/tiger-jungle-can-influence-humans-living-cities/

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/amazon-rainforest-ability-soak-carbon-dioxide-falling
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 27, 2017, 07:09:23 pm
...doesn't warrant name calling just because they have a different view.

Just saying.

Says the side with only three words in its political vocabulary: "racist, bigot, denier"

Just saying.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 27, 2017, 07:16:39 pm
look at the y-axis, it is deviation in temperature in Celsius with 1880 as the start date.  I don't know where this particular data set is from but we have seen data from temperatures recorded here in Washington DC that shows a similar trend.

The data/graph is from NASA: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Descriptions of the various dataset sources and methodology are all available at the above link, including lots of reference document links.

Also from that site, a list of climate model forcings (amongst which CO2): https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

Quote
We have no way of knowing what the trend was in the 900s and North America was only occupied by indigenous peoples; the European migration did not begin until the 1600s.  I don't think it is fair to say that it is a jump to say that there is a correlation with CO2 levels as there clearly is linkage.  The question is whether and how meaningful this linkage is.  Clearly there are difficult decisions to be made regarding this information and one option is to wait and see if sea level changes continue to progress.

The mechanisms that cause(d) Global warming are reasonably well understood, and reconstruction of the past is modelled if there are no actual observations available.

An excellent summary of the scientific understanding of the role of CO2 in global warming by Prof. Richard Somerville can be found here:
https://youtu.be/B4Q271UaNPo?t=447

And an up-to-date record of the CO2 levels, AKA the Keeling curve, at a reference location can be found here:
(https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png)
and here:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/

They have added a 1 minute infographic animation on their site that summarizes what the Keeling curve shows. That should offer those who are less versed in the subject an opportunity to quickly get up to speed.

Cheers,
Bart


P.S.  And adding to the previous information, here's some more that shows the relation between CO2 (and CH4) and temperature:
https://youtu.be/Ujf6EIGRUdw?t=2199  and at about 41:35 (https://youtu.be/Ujf6EIGRUdw?t=2495) the Radiative Forcings show a similar picture as already mentioned, CO2 being the major one that affects Global temperature.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Farmer on October 27, 2017, 08:36:26 pm
Says the side with only three words in its political vocabulary: "racist, bigot, denier"

Just saying.

No, says me, based on this thread - a thread in which you can easily see who is calling people names and making political statements and who isn't.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 27, 2017, 10:34:47 pm
No, says me, based on this thread - a thread in which you can easily see who is calling people names and making political statements and who isn't.

Well said, Phil.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on October 27, 2017, 10:47:58 pm
There's nothing wrong with the amygdala response -

Of course there isn't. Alarm is a natural human response to any perception of a threat, whether the threat is real or imagined. If a person has a fear of snakes, for example, or a phobia about snakes, which is technically called ophidiophobia or herpetophobia, they are more likely to misinterpret any perception of something that looks similar to a snake, such as a coil of rope on the ground.

Ascribing a name to people and groups of people who subscribe to and agree with a specific point of view on a specific issue or a general issue, is a necessary process of communication.

I'm a Caucasian, for example. If someone were to call me a Negro, that would be incorrect

If we didn't have technical terms for a phobia about snakes, would you object to naming an 'herpetophobiac' a 'snake alarmist'?  ;)

If you don't like the term 'alarmist' as it applies to a group of people who appear to believe there will be a catastrophic change in climate if we don't significantly reduce our CO2 emissions, then what name would you recommend?
 
Quote
..the emotional response based on limited or poor evidence in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary also doesn't warrant name calling just because they have a different view.

I'll repeat, everything requires a name in order for a discussion to take place. I consider myself to be a skeptic on the issue of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming). I have no problems being called a skeptic, and I can justify my skepticism in rational terms relating to the methodology of science.

I would object to being called a 'climate change denier' because I accept that climate is always changing to some degree, in one direction or another, for a multitude of reasons which are not always understood. The term denier is therefore incorrect and misleading.

The issue for me relates to the fundamental necessity for the application of the most sound and rigorous principles of the scientific method, before certainty about a particular theory can take place.

The climate of our planet does not lend itself to the application of these fundamental principles of repeated experimentation under controlled conditions, changing one variable at a time, observing the results in real time, and being able to devise experiments which could help falsify an existing theory if one is skeptical about its truth, which a good scientist always should be.

We are surrounded by products which have undergone such rigorous testing during the various stages of their development, whether cars, TVs, cameras, or pharmaceutical drugs. As the saying goes, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

For further clarification, I'm actually in favour of the development of different methods of producing energy. This is scientific progress. Our modern life styles are totally dependent on sources of energy. The more efficient and cheaper our energy supplies, the more prosperous we become (potentially). The more inefficient and expensive our energy supplies, the poorer we become, on average of course.

If producing energy from solar, wind, hydro, tidal power, and so on, becomes more efficient than getting power from the latest and cleanest coal-power technology, taking reliability of supply also in consideration, then that's reason enough to abandon all coal production.

However, during this process there needs to be sensible planning. Emotional alarm and mischaracterizations of CO2, as a pollutant for example, can lead to bad decisions, as has happened in Australia with our soaring energy prices.

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 27, 2017, 10:57:37 pm
... calling people names...

Which people? For ad hominem, you need a homo. Who is it in this case?

As for calling the referenced article's statement "alarmist" I agree it is a mistake. It is a mistake because it is an understatement, to be precise. It isn't just alarmist, it the mother of all alarmist statements.   Incredibly laughable, utterly ridiculous statement. "Seas are going to rise 1.3m (!?) if we don't kill coal!"?  It may or may not (rise that much), but to link the whole global warming to a single cause, like coal, is simply not to be taken seriously.

Keep peddling statements like that and no wonder people are not taking it seriously. And to start a "scientific" thread around such a bombastic, ludicrous statement?
Then immediately call PC police when Ray rightly called it out as "an example of alarmist news."? Where is homo in that Ray's statement?

Btw, don't bother reminding me that ad hominem might have a broader meaning, conceptual, not necessarily directed toward an identifiable individual, because, for the purpose of this forum, what owners do not want to see are ad hominem attacks on identifiable members of this forum, not newspaper concepts. For years, media and politicians are using terms like "deniers" and "sceptics" derogatively. And in the now-deleted thread, those words were numerous times used against Ray, Alan K., me, etc. Nobody bothered to ask perpetrators to "moderate" their language. But of course, now, a single use of one word ("alarmist"), provokes a cry for mommy, even if it was not directed toward any of the thread participants personally.

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 27, 2017, 11:01:10 pm
If you don't like the term 'alarmist' as it applies to a group of people who appear to believe there will be a catastrophic change in climate if we don't significantly reduce our CO2 emissions, then what name would you recommend?

I'm not really interested in name-calling, but how about "realists", also given the scientific consensus they base their opinions on?
 
Quote
The term denier is therefore incorrect and misleading.

Unless one denies plain scientific evidence ...

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 27, 2017, 11:06:42 pm
... Unless one denies plain scientific evidence ...

What evidence? There is absolutely none. What you keep showing are individual measurements of something (C02, temperature), which is indeed an acceptable evidence that at a certain point of time (recent time) the temperature was this or that. Combining those measurements into a theory is not evidence, just a conjecture.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on October 27, 2017, 11:45:04 pm
From the Ontario shooter's point of view, the unusually warm temperatures in September and October (warmest temperatures on record) messed up schedules of many fall photography outings and workshops. Normally, the fall colours peak in Ontario in the last September week, but this year the fall colour season has been delayed by almost a month.

 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Farmer on October 28, 2017, 12:27:22 am
If you don't like the term 'alarmist' as it applies to a group of people who appear to believe there will be a catastrophic change in climate if we don't significantly reduce our CO2 emissions, then what name would you recommend?

How about "some people".

I would object to being called a 'climate change denier' because I accept that climate is always changing to some degree, in one direction or another, for a multitude of reasons which are not always understood. The term denier is therefore incorrect and misleading.

As is "alarmists" which suggests there is no basis for concern, then there is overwhelming evidence to support those concerns.

But what you want is not the issue.  You've been appointed as a moderator and I've asked you to moderate.  You can either do so or not, but make it plain and simple which it is you intend to do.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Farmer on October 28, 2017, 12:44:33 am
Which people? For ad hominem, you need a homo. Who is it in this case?

My statement was clear, I asked Ray to moderate his comment.

Btw, don't bother reminding me that ad hominem might have a broader meaning, conceptual, not necessarily directed toward an identifiable individual, because, for the purpose of this forum, what owners do not want to see are ad hominem attacks on identifiable members of this forum, not newspaper concepts.

You understand that calling someone a name isn't an ad hominem argument, right?  It's been made clear that calling people names won't be tolerated.  Ad hominem arguments are just an extension of that by way of a logical fallacy, attempting to win an argument without reason or evidence but instead saying that someone is wrong because they are whatever it is you've labelled them.  It shows a lack of credible argument, a lack of understanding of logic, and cannot further reasoned debate.

For years, media and politicians are using terms like "deniers" and "sceptics" derogatively. And in the now-deleted thread, those words were numerous times used against Ray, Alan K., me, etc. Nobody bothered to ask perpetrators to "moderate" their language. But of course, now, a single use of one word ("alarmist"), provokes a cry for mommy, even if it was not directed toward any of the thread participants personally.

Whilst the premise of your argument lacks real evidence on several fronts, the main criticism I have here is that you have missed the entire point.  Ray was appointed as a moderator yet his very first post was inflammatory.  In every subsequent post following my request for him to moderate himself, he has essentially defended his right to call people names.  He's argued that it's a requirement to label people, in fact.  Yet his entire post could have been made without doing it.  Sure, it would have been much shorter because without the emotional appeal of calling his opponents an inflammatory name there was no other substance to his post, but that's by the by.

What was done before was before.  The rules have been clarified.  And, actually, I seem to recall you were not at all impressed when you thought I was calling you a name.  I immediately apologised because it wasn't my intent and you had the good graces to accept that and we moved on.  That's as it should have been (well, it would have been better if I had thought through the name-shortening and made the obvious realisation (in hindsight) that it could have been taken in a derogatory manner).

Ray could have easily said, "OK" and just stopped using the term.  I wasn't looking for an apology, I was looking for a discussion (as requested by the OP and in terms of the clarified rules for the forum) free from such things.  Instead, Ray continues to insist on his right to name and, as I said, has even called it necessary.  Yet no one on opposing him has had to use any term or label in the discussion here so far.  Only Ray, Alan K., and you have had to do so.

It does take more effort and it's not as thought I'm suggesting that I have never had robust conversations with people here and I have used labels at times, though I've always sought to provide supporting evidence and I have never dismissed their proposed arguments on the basis of the qualities I have attributed to them.  But, again, that was the last thread.  That's out of bounds now.  Except, it seems, if you're Ray as a moderator or someone who agrees with him.

Personally, I'm disappointed.  You are more reasonable and open minded that your last few posts here would suggest, but on this topic you just wave your hand in broad dismissal and refuse to engage in a reasoned manner.  I with it were otherwise.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 28, 2017, 07:48:32 am
From the Ontario shooter's point of view, the unusually warm temperatures in September and October (warmest temperatures on record) messed up schedules of many fall photography outings and workshops. Normally, the fall colours peak in Ontario in the last September week, but this year the fall colour season has been delayed by almost a month.

 
Great Documentary Photography; this is what we need!!!!!!
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 28, 2017, 07:51:07 am
From today's Washington Post:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/27/world-wine-production-just-hit-a-56-year-low-thats-not-even-the-worst-part/?utm_term=.543947737791   Still not clear whether climate change is having an impact here or not.  Interesting statement about winemaking perhaps moving to Quebec if the climate there warms sufficiently.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 28, 2017, 07:56:14 am
What evidence? There is absolutely none. What you keep showing are individual measurements of something (C02, temperature), which is indeed an acceptable evidence that at a certain point of time (recent time) the temperature was this or that.

Yet there are those who even deny the fact that global temperature is rising.

Quote
Combining those measurements into a theory is not evidence, just a conjecture.

Why do you call it a conjecture?

There is an abundant amount of research that links CO2 (a known greenhouse gas) to Temperature. In fact, it's impossible to explain the temperature changes without adding the contributions due to CO2 to the models. If you have a link to lots of good research that shows the opposite, I'm sure that Scientists would be interested.

While waiting for your scientific evidence, here's some science that shows/supports the connection between CO2 and temperature rise, and a simple explanation how we know the current rise is caused by human behavior:
A historical overview of the connection between Co2 and temperature, by Richard Alley
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g
It is Us!
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PrrTk6DqzE&t=13s

In addition to burning fossil fuel, there are other human caused contributing factors, like deforestation and other land use changes.

The "Greenhouse effect" is explained in simple terms here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS0So6lOE-8
What it doesn't mention is that rising temperatures due to CO2 also increase the amount of water vapor in the air, and water vapor is another even more potent greenhouse gas. But rising CO2 levels will stay in the atmosphere a lot longer, while watervapor eventually rains out when there is too much of it.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on October 28, 2017, 08:34:04 am
look at the y-axis, it is deviation in temperature in Celsius with 1880 as the start date.  I don't know where this particular data set is from but we have seen data from temperatures recorded here in Washington DC that shows a similar trend.

Fair enough, Alan, but when I looked at the chart there were no values on the Y axis. And you admit you have no idea where this particular data set is from. But you're convinced by similar stuff from Washington DC where the temperature is rising at a great rate because of political hot air. For a contrary view check https://conservativetribune.com/scientific-papers-global-warming.

Quote
We have no way of knowing what the trend was in the 900s and North America was only occupied by indigenous peoples; the European migration did not begin until the 1600s.  I don't think it is fair to say that it is a jump to say that there is a correlation with CO2 levels as there clearly is linkage.  The question is whether and how meaningful this linkage is.  Clearly there are difficult decisions to be made regarding this information and one option is to wait and see if sea level changes continue to progress.

No, we have no way of knowing what the "trend" was in the 900's, but we do know that Leif was able to farm in areas that now are too icy, so we know that there must have been a "trend" in order to get the temperatures to that level -- unless you assume the temperature suddenly jumped over night.

And I'd certainly agree that it would be wise to wait and see -- to wait until this panic passes, as have many similar politically-driven panics in the past.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 28, 2017, 08:36:07 am
Good podcast on the possibility of rising ocean levels and the impact on American cities:  http://www.npr.org/2017/10/24/559736126/climate-change-journalist-warns-mother-nature-is-playing-by-different-rules-now
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on October 28, 2017, 08:37:24 am
I'm not really interested in name-calling, but how about "realists", also given the scientific consensus they base their opinions on?
 
Unless one denies plain scientific evidence ...

Cheers,
Bart

I have no argument with climate change realists. I consider myself to be a realist. A realist understands that climate is always changing and that the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is never constant in any particular region during any period. Over intervals of just a few decades the frequency or intensity of a particular type of extreme weather event can fluctuate significantly.

There can be an upward trend over, say, a 20 year period, which can confirm in the minds of 'alarmists' (as opposed to realists  ;) ) that anthropogenic climate change is a serious threat. Then there can be a pause or a downward trend for a few years which tends to be dismissed by the alarmists and most news media, and is rarely mentioned because it's not attention-grabbing.

Australia is often described as the 'land of droughts and floods' (Oops! name-calling again  ;)  ).

The following research paper describes the history of flooding and droughts during the past 500 years in Australia and New Zealand, examining drought-sensitive tree-ring chronologies and corals.

What is revealing are the following comments from the researchers.

"Of the five most extreme single years of drought in the past 500 years (when averaged across all of eastern Australia), not one occurred after 1900.

In contrast, two of the five wettest years in our data took place after 1950 (2011 was the wettest year in the 513-year record). The 1700s were particularly dry with three of the five worst drought years, but also notably had the most prolonged wet period (1730-60)."


https://theconversation.com/500-years-of-drought-and-flood-trees-and-corals-reveal-australias-climate-history-51573
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/124002/pdf

Here's a link to some other research which uses Anarctic ice core data as proxy climate records for Eastern Australia, for the past 1,000 years.

http://acecrc.org.au/news/antarctic-ice-cores-reveal-risks-for-water-supply/
https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/20/1703/2016/hess-20-1703-2016.pdf

“The study showed that modern climate records, which are available for the past one hundred years at best, do not capture the full range of rainfall variability that has occurred,” Dr Tozer said.

“The wet and dry periods experienced since 1900 have been relatively mild when we look at the climate extremes of the past millennium.”

“Looking back over the past thousand years, we see that prolonged wet periods and droughts of five years or longer are a regular feature of the climate.”

“What this study shows is that existing water management plans likely underestimate the true risk of drought and flood due to the reliance on data and statistics obtained from only the relatively short instrumental period.”
 

In other words, if we’ve underestimated natural climate change and the severity of past floods and droughts which are not associated with human CO2 emissions— then today's computer models have been overestimating the influence of CO2.

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 28, 2017, 08:43:25 am
No, we have no way of knowing what the "trend" was in the 900's, but we do know that Leif was able to farm in areas that now are too icy, so we know that there must have been a "trend" in order to get the temperatures to that level -- unless you assume the temperature suddenly jumped over night.

And I'd certainly agree that it would be wise to wait and see -- to wait until this panic passes, as have many similar politically-driven panics in the past.
Russ, you are right about there being historical records about climate induced incidents.  My favorite is the Salem witchcraft hysteria which was more likely linked to ergot 'poisoning' from a very damp fall which caused fungal growth on the rye crop.  It certainly would be good if we had a longer trend of recorded temperatures than we have.

Climate chemistry is quite complex.  I remember back to my undergraduate days in the mid-1960s when I took a course in climate chemistry.  The case against chloro-fluorocarbon refrigerants was still some years away but the jury was already in regarding the interactions of ozone along with sulfur and nitrogen dioxides as regards to smog production.  Of course there was also the great London catastrophe in the early 1950s (and one earlier in Donora Pennsylvania) that were caused by peculiar weather coupled with coal burning for heat.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 28, 2017, 08:52:02 am
What is revealing are the following comments from the researchers.

"Of the five most extreme single years of drought in the past 500 years (when averaged across all of eastern Australia), not one occurred after 1900.

In contrast, two of the five wettest years in our data took place after 1950 (2011 was the wettest year in the 513-year record). The 1700s were particularly dry with three of the five worst drought years, but also notably had the most prolonged wet period (1730-60)."


https://theconversation.com/500-years-of-drought-and-flood-trees-and-corals-reveal-australias-climate-history-51573
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/124002/pdf

Thanks for posting these.  It's very interesting to read the reconstruction of the Australian climate history.  However, what we are seeing right now is endangerment of the coral reefs because of ocean acidification.  The general article that you link has this very interesting comment:

"You may have noticed that the Millennium Drought happened in a negative IPO phase. Our data show that there is a strong relationship between the phases of the IPO and drought - until around 1976. After that the relationship gets weaker. Why is a question for further research, but one possibility is human-caused climate change."

So there appears to be a recent anomaly in the linkage of the data.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Rob C on October 28, 2017, 09:24:13 am
Of course, I'm no scientist - just a photographer of sorts, but I don't think I really need any degree after my name to understand the basic fact that the more shit you and I pump into the atmosphere, the more difference it's going to make. We are not magically pumping and disappearing exactly the same volume of it every year, and that already pumped isn't going anywhere else. Even a photographer gets that. Doesn't he? Consequently, everything else seems to be whitewash and denial for whatever reason such people might have. It's usually for the purposes of making big bucks, but that hardly accounts for the point of view of the individuals...

But then lemmings are nothing new, and are indeed currently very popular: we got Brexit already; some of the fancy-dress kilts are fingering their sporrans and doing their best too, and Catalonia seems hell-bent on cutting its own throat just as Corsica wonders how to do it better, so roll on madness, the new in-thing.

Rob C
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 28, 2017, 09:46:10 am
Phil,

Your argument is becoming silly (there, I called your argument a name, report me to the moderator). According to you, in the future, we can not possibly use terms like the left, the right, liberals, conservatives, etc.!?

Once again, which people did Ray call names? Not Alan, not Bart, not you. He put a label, quite justifiably, on a school of thought (though using the term "thought" is quite charitable in this case). Just as we put a label on a school of thought (charitably) known as liberalism. Or conservatism.

Besides, Ray did provide logical refutation, quite lengthy, in the same post, of the very inflammatory statement in the OP. Were Ray's post just a single sentence: "That's an example of 'alarmist' news" (which it indeed is), than maybe you'd have a point. Otherwise, it is just an attempt at censorship. And you know what I think of censorship, white gloves or otherwise.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2017, 11:54:08 am
Positive news about global warming.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/carry-on-warming/
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on October 28, 2017, 12:41:31 pm
"You may have noticed that the Millennium Drought happened in a negative IPO phase. Our data show that there is a strong relationship between the phases of the IPO and drought - until around 1976. After that the relationship gets weaker. Why is a question for further research, but one possibility is human-caused climate change."

So there appears to be a recent anomaly in the linkage of the data.

True, Alan, but the data in the first research paper only goes back as far as 1500 AD, which is a date close to the beginning of the Little Ice Age. The anomaly, or the weaker relationship with the IPO phases, could be due the current, slight, global warming, whether or not such warming is caused by human emissions of CO2.

The second research paper I linked to, goes back a thousand years, close to the beginning of the Medieval Warm Period, and concludes that “The wet and dry periods experienced since 1900 have been relatively mild when we look at the climate extremes of the past millennium.”

There are many claims that the MWP was not a global event, but such claims are based upon a lack of evidence. Here is a research paper that uses reconstructions of tree ring data from the southern island of New Zealand, covering the past 1,100 years, which supports the global occurrence of the MWP.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002GeoRL..29n..12C

From the abstract (which is all I can find).

"The occurrence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) in the Southern Hemisphere is uncertain because of the paucity of well-dated, high-resolution paleo-temperature records covering the past 1,000 years. We describe a new tree-ring reconstruction of Austral summer temperatures from the South Island of New Zealand, covering the past 1,100 years. This record is the longest yet produced for New Zealand and shows clear evidence for persistent above-average temperatures within the interval commonly assigned to the MWP. Comparisons with selected temperature proxies from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres confirm that the MWP was highly variable in time and space. Regardless, the New Zealand temperature reconstruction supports the global occurrence of the MWP."

As regards the alarming bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef recently, it appears to be recovering well, despite current CO2 levels (or perhaps because of them  ;) ).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-29/coral-regeneration-raises-hopes-for-great-barrier-reef-recovery/9001518

"Optimism is rising among scientists that parts of the Great Barrier Reef that were severely bleached over the past two years are making a recovery.
The institute's Neil Cantin said they were surprised to find the coral had already started to reproduce."

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2017, 01:22:58 pm
The problem with much of the data is that humans don't live long enough.  So what they see as a trend is just a perturbation. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 28, 2017, 02:23:15 pm
As regards the alarming bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef recently, it appears to be recovering well, despite current CO2 levels (or perhaps because of them  ;) ).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-29/coral-regeneration-raises-hopes-for-great-barrier-reef-recovery/9001518

"Optimism is rising among scientists that parts of the Great Barrier Reef that were severely bleached over the past two years are making a recovery.
The institute's Neil Cantin said they were surprised to find the coral had already started to reproduce."

That is good news if the trend holds!!
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Farmer on October 28, 2017, 08:17:06 pm
Phil,

Your argument is becoming silly (there, I called your argument a name, report me to the moderator). According to you, in the future, we can not possibly use terms like the left, the right, liberals, conservatives, etc.!?

That's part of the point, Slobo.  You can call my argument silly.  I would then invite you to show why.  You've done that, already, to some degree, so that gives me a basis on which to consider and respond.  No personal names needed.  No summary, ad hominem dismissal from either side.  So easy!

So, no, according to me there's no problem using political labels to discuss political issues where those labels are considered neutral and accurate.  You didn't, for example, use "Libtards" but instead said Liberals.  Now, I know many people use "liberal" as a dirty word, but inherently it's not.

In this particular case, we were entreated to make it apolitical.  So use of political terms, or inflammatory terms, and then using those terms as an excuse to dismiss an argument is contrary to the intended guidelines.  As a moderator, Ray should have recognised that and returned the discussion to one based on science and reason, with no inflammatory political name-calling.

I trust you can see the distinctions.

Once again, which people did Ray call names? Not Alan, not Bart, not you. He put a label, quite justifiably, on a school of thought (though using the term "thought" is quite charitable in this case). Just as we put a label on a school of thought (charitably) known as liberalism. Or conservatism.

And here's part of the issue.  You've just confirmed those labels are inflammatory through your qualification of "charitable", but you leave the label for yourself free from such things.  There's no need for it.  You can disagree with a philosophy all you like (and honestly, I doubt you are so politically one-dimensional that a simple label accurately describes you anyway), without using derogatory terms or without classing the very name of the philosophy as being derogatory.  That's a weak argument.  I look at that and have to consider whether anything else you're saying is worth reading.  History tells me it usually is, so I have an advantage, but if I were a new participant I may not have that advantage.

Besides, Ray did provide logical refutation, quite lengthy, in the same post, of the very inflammatory statement in the OP. Were Ray's post just a single sentence: "That's an example of 'alarmist' news" (which it indeed is), than maybe you'd have a point. Otherwise, it is just an attempt at censorship. And you know what I think of censorship, white gloves or otherwise.

It's not censorship.  I didn't ask Ray to remove the post.  I asked him to abide by the guidelines, particularly as a moderator, and I've been pointing out that it's completely unnecessary for him to use such terms and names in order to be involved in this discussion.  Whilst I didn't rate his refutation quite as highly as you appear to, had it appeared without the inflammatory labelling, which was clearly designed to set an emotional expectation, then there would have been no issue.

You know that I am not shy about a robust discussion, and this can continue to be so, but what is the point in setting new guidelines and expectations when one of the appointed moderators simply ignores them and continues on as he always did?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 28, 2017, 09:25:46 pm
Ok, Phil, I am ready for a compromise. From now on, Ray et al should use:

“Some people (wink, wink) think...”

How about that? 😉
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on October 28, 2017, 09:56:51 pm
In this particular case, we were entreated to make it apolitical.  So use of political terms, or inflammatory terms, and then using those terms as an excuse to dismiss an argument is contrary to the intended guidelines.  As a moderator, Ray should have recognised that and returned the discussion to one based on science and reason, with no inflammatory political name-calling.

You seem to have entirely missed the point, Phil. The term 'alarmist' is not a derogatory or inflammatory term when used to describe a thought process, emotional state, or belief which appears to accurately fit the description of 'alarm'.

If you think the term 'climate change alarmist' is a mischaracterization of someone who is 'alarmed about climate change', then explain why. As Slobodan has tried to explain to you, I didn't describe you as an 'climate change alarmist'. For all I know, you might feel no alarm at all about the effects of rising CO2 levels. As a scientist you might be purely and theoretically interested in certain effects of rising CO2 levels in a completely neutral and dispassionate manner, with no feelings of alarm.

I think it is reasonable to suppose that there are many scientists working in particular disciplines related to climatology who are not alarmed at all about the possible catastrophic effects of rising CO2 levels, because they understand quite clearly in their own minds that there is no certainty about the issue.

However, I know from my own observations that alarm about some issue, whether snakes, spiders, the economy, the risk of cancer or heart disease, the risk of a future war, the future well-fare of our children in relation to a disastrous change in climate, and so on, is a very prevalent state of affairs. Alarm is alarm.

In a sense we are all alarmists, but not necessarily alarmist in relation to the same issues and not necessarily alarmed to the same degree. (Perhaps advanced Buddhist meditators are an exception  ;)  ).

I am also an alarmist. I'm alarmed about the failure of governments and administrations to put in place policies which address the real and more certain threat of repeated damage from extreme weather events, that they should know have occurred throughout the history of the region because they, as politicians, have access to all the available records of the Bureau of Meteorology and other government-funded organizations.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Farmer on October 28, 2017, 10:12:09 pm
Ok, Phil, I am ready for a compromise. From now on, Ray et al should use:

“Some people (wink, wink) think...”

How about that? 😉

So long as I can reply with "Say no more..." :-)

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Farmer on October 28, 2017, 10:17:43 pm
It's simple, Ray.  Because you then go on to dismiss their comments/research/findings/etc. because "they're alarmist".  That's an ad hominem.  Also, it's just your opinion.  It's not backed by any evidence, just you saying that because you don't believe the overwhelming evidence and body and opinion that anyone who does and who wants action soon is "alarmist".  Moreover, they would not describe themselves as such, and so it's inflammatory.

To take your suggestion that "we're all alarmists", as if to make the term acceptable, then what value is there in using it?  If every is the same, it doesn't provide any level of distinction.  Sorry, but I just don't believe you.  You used it for a reason - you believe (sincerely, I'm sure) that people who accept the weight of scientific opinion and evidence on the topic of anthropogenic climate change are wrong and you wish to paint them in a negative way so as to diminish their opinions and findings.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on October 29, 2017, 01:09:31 am
It's simple, Ray.  Because you then go on to dismiss their comments/research/findings/etc. because "they're alarmist". 

I'm not aware I have done that. Show me any comment I have made in which  I have dismissed any research based solely on the alarm factor. However, taking the alarm factor into consideration helps to explain, in my mind, certain false or exaggerated interpretations of certainty which do not conform with the best scientific practices as I understand them.

I always try to take into consideration all factors that I'm aware of, including psychological elements such as alarm and self interest. I use my nous. I've also explained more than once the fundamental basis of my position. I believe in the scientific method. I believe that certainty on any issue in science, or an acceptable degree of certainty for serious action to take place, must be based upon the application of the sound principles of the methodology of science.

These principles, as I understand them, consist of the ability to conduct repeated experiments under controlled conditions, in real time, or time when the results can be observed during a relatively short period within a human life.

In situations where the influencing factors are extremely numerous and complex, and when significant effects will take more than a lifetime to appear, the future outcome cannot be expressed with scientific certainty. Any high degree of certainty that is expressed about CAGW is not scientific. It's a matter of belief, and it is at least partially based upon emotional and biased factors.

Quote
That's an ad hominem.  Also, it's just your opinion.  It's not backed by any evidence, just you saying that because you don't believe the overwhelming evidence and body and opinion that anyone who does and who wants action soon is "alarmist".  Moreover, they would not describe themselves as such, and so it's inflammatory.

An opinion is an opinion whether based upon scientific research or not. A wrong opinion is still an opinion. All my views are based upon either personal direct evidence that I've experienced, or scientific research which makes sense to me. Did you not open the  links to the many research papers that I've posted, in this thread and the previous removed thread? I'm interested in the truth.

Quote
To take your suggestion that "we're all alarmists", as if to make the term acceptable, then what value is there in using it?
 
No value at all unless the term is linked to a specific, defined set of circumstances, issues, attitudes or thought processes. When I've used the term 'alarmist' in relation climate change, I'm referring to the condition of alarm about the potential catastrophic effects of climate change. I'm not referring to alarm about the possible presence of snakes in the grass.

I can see no rational reason to object to the use of the term 'alarm'. A state of alarm is a realty of the human condition. The capacity for alarm is probably necessary for human survival. I consider it a completely acceptable word. I have a fire alarm in my house. Don't you?

Quote
You used it for a reason - you believe (sincerely, I'm sure) that people who accept the weight of scientific opinion and evidence on the topic of anthropogenic climate change are wrong and you wish to paint them in a negative way so as to diminish their opinions and findings.

I think they are probably or likely or partially wrong because the 'overwhelming weight of evidence' that you keep mentioning is clearly not based upon the most sound and rigorous principles of the methodology of science which I've outlined.

This of course is not an ad hominem attack on the scientists in the field of climatology. It's not their fault that predictions of future climate scenarios based upon computer models, cannot be certain. It's not their fault that the enormous complexity of the influences on climate, and the long time scales involved, do not lend themselves to the rigorous processes of the scientific methodology at its most rigorous. Most of the scientists are probably doing their best in the circumstances. Okay?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on October 29, 2017, 01:21:50 am
Of course, I'm no scientist - just a photographer of sorts, but I don't think I really need any degree after my name to understand the basic fact that the more shit you and I pump into the atmosphere, the more difference it's going to make.

Rob,

Shit can be a very useful fertilizer. If you consider CO2 to be shit, you might be interested to learn that all humans breathe out lots of shit. Carbon dioxide is a waste product, so the body exhales it in order to get rid of it. Compared to the low levels of about 0.04 percent in inspired air, exhaled air contains a hundred times more CO2, at 4 percent content.

Did you know that? The air we breathe out, with every breath, contains a hundred times more CO2 than the air we breathe in.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that causing the extinction of the human race, or all mammals, would solve any problems. That would be ridiculous.  ;D

This process of exhaling CO2 as a waste product is a natural part of a natural cycle. Plants take in CO2 as an essential ingredient. We consume the plants, then exhale CO2 as a waste product in order to return it to the plants. Aren't we magnanimous!  ;)

Human-constructed coal-fired power plants also consume the remains of dead trees (turned into coal over millions of years), and release CO2 into the atmosphere so that more trees in the present time can flourish, due to increased atmospheric CO2 levels.
Aren't we wonderful! It's all a natural process.

However, toxic emissions due to inadequate emission controls, that affect human health; plastic bags, and other toxic waste products from our industrialization, are separate issues which should be addressed.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Farmer on October 29, 2017, 04:13:08 am
Ray - I understand.  No matter what, you will never change your opinion that everything you say and do is correct.  You won't abide by any consideration for guidelines put down by others and you will insist that your minority view is correct in the face of any amount of evidence (on any topic).

All you're prepared to do is to keep on insisting you are entirely right.  You have no capacity for moderation let alone being a moderator of a discussion.

Good luck.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on October 29, 2017, 05:27:28 am
Requirements for a competent moderator:
In my view, both Alan and Ray pass this test with flying colours.

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on October 29, 2017, 06:00:44 am
Requirements for a competent moderator:
  • Has the user contributed regularly over a period of time? Are they knowledgeable?
  • Do they have good grammar, spelling and syntax skills?
  • Does the user have the right personality? Are they even tempered, likable, and fair minded?
  • Do they have the time to commit to being a moderator?
In my view, both Alan and Ray pass this test with flying colours.

Thanks for your support, Les.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on October 29, 2017, 06:12:43 am
Ray - I understand.  No matter what, you will never change your opinion that everything you say and do is correct.  You won't abide by any consideration for guidelines put down by others and you will insist that your minority view is correct in the face of any amount of evidence (on any topic).

All you're prepared to do is to keep on insisting you are entirely right.  You have no capacity for moderation let alone being a moderator of a discussion.

Good luck.

That may be your opinion, Phil, and you have a right to it, but it doesn't accord with the facts about myself that I am aware of. I frequently change my opinion on all sorts of subjects, according to the new, or better, or more convincing, or more reliable evidence that I come across. I mentioned in the previous thread on this topic that I used to accept the alarm generated about the effects of human emissions of CO2, about 15 to 20 years ago, and I was puzzled that more positive action was not being taken by governments to reduce the potential threats of rising CO2 levels.

I remember having conversations with friends and raising issues such as 'Why doesn't the Australian government make funds available to develop electric cars, and have a moratorium on the production of petrol-driven cars?'

I remember being impressed when listening to interviews of famous scientists such as James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia Hypothesis, who then, 20 or 15 years ago, expressed great concern about the consequences of rising CO2 levels.

Of course, in those days I didn't have much general knowledge about climate issues. It wasn't a subject I had investigated. I was aware of broad issues and major events, such as the existence of the last Ice Age about 20,000 years ago, and the extinction of the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago, and I was aware that the climate in England during the time of Shakespeare was cooler than the present. (From Sonnet 18,  "Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May". Seems a bit late in the season for buds to appear. They usually begin to appear in March.  ;)  )

As a result of my genuine concern about the issue, and general curiosity, I began searching the internet for answers to questions which were never raised in the media or during interviews with famous scientists.

I discovered a new world of non-alarmist interpretations and interesting information on the history of past climate events, which seemed very relevant to me. So I changed my mind.

I was also surprised to discover just a few years ago, well after I had changed my mind, that James Lovelock had also changed his mind about the threats of rising CO2 levels. Here's an interview of Lovelock in the pro-AGW newspaper, the Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/30/james-lovelock-interview-by-end-of-century-robots-will-have-taken-over

"What has changed dramatically, however, is his position on climate change. He now says: “Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly.” But isn’t that exactly what he did last time we met? “I know,” he grins teasingly. “But I’ve grown up a bit since then.”

Lovelock now believes that “CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would. The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact,” he goes on breezily, “I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change. You’ve only got to look at Singapore. It’s two-and-a-half times higher than the worst-case scenario for climate change, and it’s one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.”


Good luck to you too, Phil.

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Rob C on October 29, 2017, 06:27:28 am
Rob,

Shit can be a very useful fertilizer. If you consider CO2 to be shit, you might be interested to learn that all humans breathe out lots of shit. Carbon dioxide is a waste product, so the body exhales it in order to get rid of it. Compared to the low levels of about 0.04 percent in inspired air, exhaled air contains a hundred times more CO2, at 4 percent content.

Did you know that? The air we breathe out, with every breath, contains a hundred times more CO2 than the air we breathe in.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that causing the extinction of the human race, or all mammals, would solve any problems. That would be ridiculous.  ;D

This process of exhaling CO2 as a waste product is a natural part of a natural cycle. Plants take in CO2 as an essential ingredient. We consume the plants, then exhale CO2 as a waste product in order to return it to the plants. Aren't we magnanimous!  ;)

Human-constructed coal-fired power plants also consume the remains of dead trees (turned into coal over millions of years), and release CO2 into the atmosphere so that more trees in the present time can flourish, due to increased atmospheric CO2 levels.
Aren't we wonderful! It's all a natural process.

However, toxic emissions due to inadequate emission controls, that affect human health; plastic bags, and other toxic waste products from our industrialization, are separate issues which should be addressed.

"Of course, I'm no scientist - just a photographer of sorts, but I don't think I really need any degree after my name to understand the basic fact that the more shit you and I pump into the atmosphere, the more difference it's going to make. We are not magically pumping and disappearing exactly the same volume of it every year, and that already pumped isn't going anywhere else. Even a photographer gets that. Doesn't he? Consequently, everything else seems to be whitewash and denial for whatever reason such people might have. It's usually for the purposes of making big bucks, but that hardly accounts for the point of view of the individuals..."

Ray, I thought it best to quote and include the whole of that paragraph so that it might make better sense than did your selected edit of it.

Your subsequent explanation/counter argument did nothing to disprove the logic of the above.

But then, as with the Trumpista threads, nothing changes minds that are in a cloosed loop! Even my own follows that divine path to revelation...

;-)

Rob
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on October 29, 2017, 10:13:12 am
"Of course, I'm no scientist - just a photographer of sorts, but I don't think I really need any degree after my name to understand the basic fact that the more shit you and I pump into the atmosphere, the more difference it's going to make. We are not magically pumping and disappearing exactly the same volume of it every year, and that already pumped isn't going anywhere else. Even a photographer gets that. Doesn't he? Consequently, everything else seems to be whitewash and denial for whatever reason such people might have. It's usually for the purposes of making big bucks, but that hardly accounts for the point of view of the individuals..."

Ray, I thought it best to quote and include the whole of that paragraph so that it might make better sense than did your selected edit of it.

Your subsequent explanation/counter argument did nothing to disprove the logic of the above.

But then, as with the Trumpista threads, nothing changes minds that are in a cloosed loop! Even my own follows that divine path to revelation...

;-)

Rob

Rob,
Sorry! I haven't always got the time to address every point someone makes in a post.

It's probably true that we are emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere than the plants are able to take up, and that's partly because of the significant deforestation that's been taking place for agricultural purposes and our failure to return the real 'shit' (human and animal excrement) back to the soil.

As you probably realised, I jokingly referred to CO2 as 'shit' because, from the perspective of the human body, it's a waste product. However, that waste product of CO2 is a clean and odourless gas. If you suffer from bad breath, it's not due to the increased CO2 you are exhaling.  ;)

Whilst we don't need any CO2 in the atmosphere for healthy breathing, the food we eat does need it, and from the perspective of plants, the more CO2 the better, up to a point. Therefore, from a perspective of concern about food supplies, the current elevated levels of CO2 are a boon for us humans. With no CO2 at all in the atmosphere we'd all soon die, together with all wildlife, and the planet would become a desert.

Imagine if we could cleverly devise the technology to transport massive amounts of CO2 into outer space within a short period of time, say a year, so that the current CO2 levels of 404 ppm were brought down to the claimed pre-industrial levels of around 285 ppm. Do you think that would be good?

There would probably be a massive food shortage because we wouldn't have the additional reserves of artificial fertilizers and water supplies in order to compensate for the reduced growth due to reduced CO2 levels.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Rob C on October 29, 2017, 11:16:20 am
Rob,
Sorry! I haven't always got the time to address every point someone makes in a post.

It's probably true that we are emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere than the plants are able to take up, and that's partly because of the significant deforestation that's been taking place for agricultural purposes and our failure to return the real 'shit' (human and animal excrement) back to the soil.

As you probably realised, I jokingly referred to CO2 as 'shit' because, from the perspective of the human body, it's a waste product. However, that waste product of CO2 is a clean and odourless gas. If you suffer from bad breath, it's not due to the increased CO2 you are exhaling.  ;)

Whilst we don't need any CO2 in the atmosphere for healthy breathing, the food we eat does need it, and from the perspective of plants, the more CO2 the better, up to a point. Therefore, from a perspective of concern about food supplies, the current elevated levels of CO2 are a boon for us humans. With no CO2 at all in the atmosphere we'd all soon die, together with all wildlife, and the planet would become a desert.

Imagine if we could cleverly devise the technology to transport massive amounts of CO2 into outer space within a short period of time, say a year, so that the current CO2 levels of 404 ppm were brought down to the claimed pre-industrial levels of around 285 ppm. Do you think that would be good?

There would probably be a massive food shortage because we wouldn't have the additional reserves of artificial fertilizers and water supplies in order to compensate for the reduced growth due to reduced CO2 levels.



I agree with parts of your proposition, but not all. The problem is this: population control, and that obviously more kindly achieved via birth control rather than via wars of attrition, is certainly in the better interests of this planet, but as few feel able to contribute to this idea - China leads the way here - we have to cut down on the gasses that we know we do overproduce and with harmful effects. The unfortunate result will be more famine and an ever more polluted Mediterranean. But if it means the ultimate survival of the species, war and not death from imagined "friendly" chemical weapons, which come to the same thing, I do believe I'd rather fight than fade away by poisoning myself and my family. Or as bad, wish upon them all the same Sun damage as I am experiencing.

Yes, we do have choices and the sand isn't a productive one.

Rob
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on October 29, 2017, 11:38:29 am
Calling someone stupid is an ad hominin attack. Calling them a skeptic, denier or alarmist are not. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Rob C on October 29, 2017, 01:51:41 pm
Calling someone stupid is an ad hominin attack. Calling them a skeptic, denier or alarmist are not.

That's just opinion; you can make anything offensive just in the way you choose to express it.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on October 29, 2017, 02:54:21 pm
That's just opinion; you can make anything offensive just in the way you choose to express it.
....or how you receive it. People are too sensitive today.  My concern is when one side tells the other to refrain from hyperbole and other linguistic methods to refute an argument as an excuse to silence the opposition by claiming other people's words "hurt" and are not within bounds.  I've been known to use that complaint myself to shut up my critics.  Of course, you'd be hard pressed to find those posts and the threads have gone "poof".  :)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Rob C on October 29, 2017, 03:15:16 pm
....or how you receive it.  People are too sensitive today.  My concern is when one side tells the other to refrain from hyperbole and other linguistic methods to refute an argument as an excuse to silence the opposition by claiming other people's words "hurt" and are not within bounds.  I've been known to use that complaint myself to shut up my critics.  Of course, you'd be hard pressed to find those posts and the threads have gone "poof".  :)


Yes, I wouldn't refuse you that: reception can often be poor...
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 29, 2017, 03:25:45 pm
This thread is moving towards a semantic discussion of the word 'alarm' or 'alarmist' and people are posting things way off topic.  I did not take much issue with Ray's post that has elicited such outpouring because 1) he's a fellow moderator (weak excuse maybe ;)) but more importantly 2) it is being used in a perceptual sense from his view point.  there is nothing wrong with that as it is an interpretation.  Contrast this to a 'physical alarm' that was posted in some subsequent posts (I think reacting to a lion or tiger; the same could be said about a fire alarm).

The reality is that there are uncertainties regarding aspects of climate change just as there are data that offer suggestions about what is happening.  Let's confine future discussion on this thread to those issues.  It should not be our job as moderators to have to continually drag folks back onto topic; if it evolves in that direction this experiment may have to end.  Let's now go out and take some pictures of climate change.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Farmer on October 29, 2017, 05:17:04 pm
Requirements for a competent moderator:
  • Has the user contributed regularly over a period of time? Are they knowledgeable?
  • Do they have good grammar, spelling and syntax skills?
  • Does the user have the right personality? Are they even tempered, likable, and fair minded?
  • Do they have the time to commit to being a moderator?
In my view, both Alan and Ray pass this test with flying colours.

Applying the site and forum guidelines without fear or favour.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Farmer on October 29, 2017, 05:20:16 pm
Calling someone stupid is an ad hominin attack. Calling them a skeptic, denier or alarmist are not.

Nope.  If you say they're wrong because they're stupid, then that's an ad hominem.  Just calling someone stupid is an insult.

Using any label and then on the strength of that label saying they are wrong, is an ad hominem.  Just labelling them depends on the label - it may be accurate and reasonable, it may be inaccurate and unreasonable.  It may be inflammatory it may be amusing.  There are many other options.  Any label which seeks to diminish the opinion of the person or group is inflammatory.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on October 29, 2017, 06:03:16 pm
Well,  I think all the arguments for man - caused global warming are silly even though the people saying them are rational and nice folks.   Slightly misinformed but otherwise  good people.   ( how's that for splitting the baby?)

Anyway,  trying to define alarmist is like trying to define artist.   We photographers seem to have even more arguments about the latter.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 29, 2017, 06:30:58 pm
This thread is moving towards a semantic discussion of the word 'alarm' or 'alarmist' and people are posting things way off topic... It should not be our job as moderators to have to continually drag folks back onto topic; if it evolves in that direction this experiment may have to end...

Some people (wink, wink, Phil) are close to getting a yellow card  ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Farmer on October 29, 2017, 07:09:21 pm
Some people (wink, wink, Phil) are close to getting a yellow card  ;)

Meh.  Apparently if you're a moderator you get a pass, and opinions without understanding are acceptable and worthwhile.  I've got no further interest.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on October 29, 2017, 07:20:14 pm
Facts without discernment have no value.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Farmer on October 29, 2017, 07:31:17 pm
Facts without discernment have no value.

And that's the problem.  Facts withstand scrutiny and testing and falsification.  Judgement of them doesn't change them.  Judgement of facts just leads to "alternative facts".
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on October 29, 2017, 08:39:27 pm
The extreme Herwart storm in northern Europe caused on Sunday among other damages a large freighter, Glory Amsterdam to run aground in North Sea in 25 ft waves.
The bulk carrier is 225m long with a crew of 22. No cargo on board, but 1,800 tons of heavy oil and 140 tons of Diesel in the fuel tanks.

http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2017-10/sturmtief-herwart-camper-ertrunken-deutsche-bahn-zugausfaelle

Quote
This is one more big drop in the bucket toward climate change attribution," said lead author James Stagge, a post-doc at Utah State University's Utah Water Research Lab. "There have been a lot of projections, but now that we're starting to see the projections and observations line up, it's not a question of 'is it happening?' It's a question of 'how much?' And 'what do we do?'" The spatial patterns observed by Stagge and his team match climate change projections for Europe that suggest decreases in drought frequency in the north and increases in drought frequency in the south. "Once you add in the temperature increases for all of Europe, you have all the hallmarks of climate change," Stagge said.

http://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-news/strong-winds-slam-central-europe-kill-5/news-story/6e70093df3ad5ac08188b96391465a5a
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on October 30, 2017, 01:14:45 am
And that's the problem.  Facts withstand scrutiny and testing and falsification.  Judgement of them doesn't change them.  Judgement of facts just leads to "alternative facts".

Good. I'm glad you've raised the issue of 'scrutiny, testing and falsification', Phil, because this is the basis of my skepticism regarding the 'hypothesis' that rising levels of that clear, clean and odourless trace gas called CO2, at the current rate, could have catastrophic consequences on the planet's climate.

How is it possible to devise an experiment that could either confirm or falsify such a hypothesis?
This is the issue that I would claim to be right about, that the fundamental requirements for certainty in science is that capacity for testing and falsification. Until that can occur, any theory remains a hypothesis, open to doubt.

To introduce an association with photography into the discussion, I'm reminded of that ancient Greek theory that we are able to see the objects that surround us because our eyes project a beam of light onto the objects. Even Plato accepted this theory, although Aristotle thought is was bunk.

However, the ancient Greeks hadn't really formulated a methodology of scientific inquiry, so this 'emission' theory of vision persisted for many centuries until an Islamic genius with the name Ibn al-Haytham (or Alhazen), who lived during the 11th century AD, devised a simple experiment using a dark chamber, known in latin as a 'camera obscura'.

"Legend says, one day he saw light shining through a tiny pinhole into his darkened room – projecting an image of the world outside onto the opposite wall. Ibn al-Haytham realized that he was seeing images of objects outside that were lit by the Sun. From repeated experiments he concluded that light rays travel in straight lines, and that vision is accomplished when these rays pass into our eyes.
Ibn al-Haytham confirmed his discovery by experimenting with his 'dark room' (calling it Albait Almuzlim)- translated into Latin as camera obscura, which simply means “dark room”.
After many additional experiments using special apparatus of lenses and mirrors which he built, he laid down his new ideas about light and vision in his seven volumes Book of Optics.
Ibn al-Haytham was born in the year 965 in Basra, and died in about 1040 in Cairo. He was one of the earliest scientists to study the characteristics of light and the mechanism/process of vision. He sought experimental proof of his theories and ideas."
http://www.ibnalhaytham.com/discover/who-was-ibn-al-haytham/

So how is this related to climate change?
For many centuries most people accepted the emission, or extramission theory of vision because brilliant minds such as Empedocles and Plato thought it was true. How could such people be wrong? They obviously must know more than I do.

A similar argument is made by those who accept the theory (or more correctly the hypothesis) that human emissions of CO2 will be catastrophic. How can a qualified scientist in the field of climatology, who knows more about climate than I do, be wrong on the issue?

The answer is, in the absence of experimental proof through controlled experiments, using the most rigorous of scientific methods, no-one can rationally claim that either group is right or wrong. I certainly don't claim that all climatologists supporting the CAGW hypothesis are wrong.

The issue for me is the unscientific degree of certainty expressed about the adverse effects of rising CO2 levels on climate and our future security.

By the way, whilst I was searching for background information on Ibn al-Haytham, I came across some rather shocking reports of research which showed that sometimes even college students still believe in the extramission theory of vision. Isn't that amazing.  :D I wonder what the average scientifically illiterate adult thinks.
http://people.auc.ca/brodbeck/4007/article7.pdf
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/extramission.htm

"The authors reviewed research about a profound misconception that is present among college students, namely, the belief that the process of vision includes emanations from the eyes, an idea that is consistent with the extramission theory of perception, which was originally professed by early Greek philosophers and which persisted in scholarly circles for centuries. The authors document the strength and breadth of this phenomenon and the abject failure of traditional educational techniques to overcome this belief, and they reveal that students are leaving psychology courses with a flawed understanding of one of the most studied processes in the history of psychology—visual perception. Some suggestions are offered for overcoming this misconception in traditional college classroom settings."

The attached image is of a sketch depicting Alhazen's experiment which falsifies the ancient Greek 'emission' and 'extramission' theories of vision. The beginnings of photography, by a Muslim as well.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 30, 2017, 07:11:34 am
... How can a qualified scientist in the field of climatology, who knows more about climate than I do, be wrong on the issue?...

English language - many people speak it, few well

Scientist - many people claim to be, few are
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 30, 2017, 07:13:03 am
Good. I'm glad you've raised the issue of 'scrutiny, testing and falsification', Phil, because this is the basis of my skepticism regarding the 'hypothesis' that rising levels of that clear, clean and odourless trace gas called CO2, at the current rate, could have catastrophic consequences on the planet's climate.

Okay, let's dissect that statement. Why do you put hypothesis between quotes? Why even call it a hypothesis, when the causes and the effects are demonstrable (and the heat-trapping properties of CO2 were known more than a century ago)? In science that's called an emerging truth, a probable outcome, when new evidence confirms cause and effect of earlier observations and repeated experiments give the same results.

Why do you call CO2 a "clear, clean and odourless trace gas"? It's not 'clear' at all wavelengths, in particular not for near InfraRed radiation. Don't know what you mean by clear, it's not a scientific term unless you qualify what you mean. Why call it Odorless? Are you trying to suggest that it's harmless? Yes, it's a trace gas, and a very important one despite its low concentration in the troposphere.

One might quibble about when to call effects of rising CO2 concentrations catastrophic, but science doesn't use those terms. Science uses a model that fits the observed effects (and the different models keep getting better), and uses that to anticipate what the future may look like (with a certain probablity). And many of their expectations are becoming reality, some exceeding the expectations, some staying within the range of probable expectations. Thus the models are tested and fine-tuned. Judgement calls are for politicians, and those impacted by the effects.

Quote
How is it possible to devise an experiment that could either confirm or falsify such a hypothesis?

You'd have to start with a hypothesis. Any proper hypothesis should be falsifiable if the experiment is set up correctly. When the experiment turns out to support the hypothesis, we have an emerging truth. When all (independently repeated) experiments fail to prove the hypothesis wrong, the emerging truth can be called a fact (with a high probability).

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 30, 2017, 07:29:12 am
... (and the different models keep getting better)...

Which simply means that the previous models, on which the panic and alarm are still based, were not so good. We are already witnessing scaling down of the magnitude of "catastrophic consequences," extending the time frame in which it might happen, and lowering the probability of it happening.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 30, 2017, 08:05:45 am
Which simply means that the previous models, on which the panic and alarm are still based, were not so good.

They may have had wider ranges of possible outcomes, and those ranges are getting more narrow. Both were correct, but they are becoming more correct.

Quote
We are already witnessing scaling down of the magnitude of "catastrophic consequences," extending the time frame in which it might happen, and lowering the probability of it happening.

Are we? With the same inputs? Or do we have new/additional inputs that make the models more accurate, and changes in human behavior (e.g. acid rain due to reduced emissions, and the hole in the ozone layer shrinking due to the reduction of chlorofluorocarbons CFC's, the USA switching from coal to natural gas utilities power generation that starts reducing the Carbon emission growth, etc.) lead to different outcomes since the inputs to the models have changed?

You have to be more specific if we are to have a meaningful discussion, assuming that's what you want?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 30, 2017, 08:11:19 am
Which simply means that the previous models, on which the panic and alarm are still based, were not so good. We are already witnessing scaling down of the magnitude of "catastrophic consequences," extending the time frame in which it might happen, and lowering the probability of it happening.
One of the problems as I have alluded to is that while we have a causative correlation (how's that for a cool alliteration?) we don't know the exact time table or magnitude of any adverse event.  This uncertainty has a parallel in my field of drug safety.  When a new drug is approved for widespread use the full safety profile is not known.  Clinical trials are routinely done on only a few thousand patients.  When the drug is marketed the company monitors all reports adverse events.  Very rare events which might be dramatic such as organ failure might not show up for months or even a year or two depending on the frequency of the event.  Despite the best research during development, one never has all the answers.  ONe of the reasons that we do very large clinical trials on childhood vaccines is to find these rare events before the vaccine goes into the market and millions of kids get the vaccine.  If there is a rare side effect with a 1 in 10,000 chance of occurring, 30,000 patients are needed in the clinical trial to have a reliable chance of detecting it.

The issue regarding climate change is whether policy makers should take precautions now in order to avoid a catastrophic event at some point in the future (Bladerunner 2049!) or keep a watchful eye at the changes that are going on.  Some things are easier to remediate than others.  When it became apparent that old coal fired power plants were contributing to 'acid rain' that was having a severe ecological impact on lakes and forests in the eastern US, the technology was modified to markedly reduce the sulfur and nitrogen oxides.  The 'clean power plant' regulations were an attempt to do the same thing on CO2.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on October 30, 2017, 09:55:36 am
No question about it: the world is coming to an end because we're all exhaling too much. Stop breathing you guys!
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on October 30, 2017, 10:01:30 am
Okay, let's dissect that statement. Why do you put hypothesis between quotes?

To highlight the term because in common language the terms hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably. In science there is a clear distinction which might be lost on people who have little understanding of the scientific method.

Quote
Why even call it a hypothesis, when the causes and the effects are demonstrable (and the heat-trapping properties of CO2 were known more than a century ago)? In science that's called an emerging truth, a probable outcome, when new evidence confirms cause and effect of earlier observations and repeated experiments give the same results.

The causes and effects on what precisely? The causes and effects of CO2 on increased plant growth, especially under water-stressed conditions, are not hypothetical. They can be demonstrated within a single growing season.

That CO2 is less transparent to the lower frequencies of heat radiated from the earth than it is to the incoming radiation from the sun can also be demonstrated. That's why CO2 is called a 'greenhouse' gas. Greenhouse gases are necessary for life to flourish. The total water vapour in the atmosphere has a far greater 'greenhouse' effect than the total CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere.

Quote
Why do you call CO2 a "clear, clean and odourless trace gas"? It's not 'clear' at all wavelengths, in particular not for near InfraRed radiation. Don't know what you mean by clear, it's not a scientific term unless you qualify what you mean. Why call it Odorless? Are you trying to suggest that it's harmless? Yes, it's a trace gas, and a very important one despite its low concentration in the troposphere.

I call it a clear, clean and odourless gas in order to make the distinction between CO2 and a pollutant. CO2 is clear to the eyesight, as opposed to the smog or haze that people sometimes see in cities. CO2 is also odourless, whereas certain pollutants such as Sulphur Dioxide have a very pungent or unpleasant odour. CO2 is also clean in the sense it has no adverse effects on human health, as a trace gas, as opposed to pollutants such as Hydrogen Chloride and Fluoride, various Sulphur and Nitrogen Oxides, Mercury, Lead, Arsenic and so on.

The real and actual pollutants from coal-fired power stations can be reduced to negligible levels using the latest technology, such as the Ultra-Supercritical power plants.

Quote
You'd have to start with a hypothesis. Any proper hypothesis should be falsifiable if the experiment is set up correctly. When the experiment turns out to support the hypothesis, we have an emerging truth. When all (independently repeated) experiments fail to prove the hypothesis wrong, the emerging truth can be called a fact (with a high probability).

And how would you set up experiments using accurate models of the Earth and its climate, with all its complexity, changing the levels of CO2 in the experiments to see what happens to the climate in your models, in 50 years time? It's not possible. The best we can do is rely upon inadequate and flawed computer models. The hypothesis must remain a hypothesis, for the present at least.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on October 30, 2017, 10:57:12 am
No question about it: the world is coming to an end because we're all exhaling too much. Stop breathing you guys!
Great hypothesis Russ, do you have any references where I can find more background on it?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on October 30, 2017, 11:37:47 am
We're covering the same ground that was covered in the last thread that went "poof". What's the point?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on October 30, 2017, 12:17:59 pm
Good question, Alan. As I'm sure you're aware, there is no point. It's just an opportunity for people to blow off steam (in a very scientific-sounding manner). The world is not coming to an end. It's not even going to flip end for end because of ice melt in the Arctic and ice buildup in the Antarctic. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, there's nothing unusual about our temperatures. In fact, they're lower than many earlier periods in the "planet's" history. CO2 makes plants grow and that's what lets us eat and stay alive. There's no real correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, and there's certainly no evidence of causation. CO2 levels have been much, much higher in the past, and have had a positive effect on growth and the general health of the earth. On top of all that we're still gradually recovering from the "little ice age that began in the 1700's. The "planet" has been warming at a rate of about .5C per century since then, and we're still in that trend.

The bottom line is that people talk a lot without knowing what they're talking about. But that's okay in The Coffee Corner. After all, if we're not out there shooting photographs we have to have something to do.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 30, 2017, 01:54:08 pm
Good question, Alan. As I'm sure you're aware, there is no point. It's just an opportunity for people to blow off steam (in a very scientific-sounding manner). The world is not coming to an end. It's not even going to flip end for end because of ice melt in the Arctic and ice buildup in the Antarctic. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, there's nothing unusual about our temperatures. In fact, they're lower than many earlier periods in the "planet's" history. CO2 makes plants grow and that's what lets us eat and stay alive. There's no real correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, and there's certainly no evidence of causation. CO2 levels have been much, much higher in the past, and have had a positive effect on growth and the general health of the earth. On top of all that we're still gradually recovering from the "little ice age that began in the 1700's. The "planet" has been warming at a rate of about .5C per century since then, and we're still in that trend.

The bottom line is that people talk a lot without knowing what they're talking about. But that's okay in The Coffee Corner. After all, if we're not out there shooting photographs we have to have something to do.

You seem awfully sure of yourself in that we are not experiencing anything new. Yet this seemingly is in conflict with the talk I provided a link for in reply No. 38.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on October 30, 2017, 04:34:38 pm
You seem awfully sure of yourself in that we are not experiencing anything new. Yet this seemingly is in conflict with the talk I provided a link for in reply No. 38.
Why would I want to watch a 24 minute video that you linked to? You didn't explain what it was about, didn't tell me how long it was, etc.   You expect me to spend 24 minutes of my life watching something because you linked to it.   you're not that important.   At least have the courtesy to tell me something about it.  Sum up its point.  Then i can decide. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on October 30, 2017, 04:40:36 pm
You seem awfully sure of yourself in that we are not experiencing anything new. Yet this seemingly is in conflict with the talk I provided a link for in reply No. 38.

Hi Robert, Maybe you missed this part: "The bottom line is that people talk a lot without knowing what they're talking about."
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Rob C on October 30, 2017, 04:43:08 pm
Why would I want to watch a 24 minute video that you linked to? You didn't explain what it was about, didn't tell me how long it was, etc.   You expect me to spend 24 minutes of my life watching something because you linked to it.   you're not that important.   At least have the courtesy to tell me something about it.  Sum up its point.  Then i can decide.

Now that is hotdamn rude.

Rob
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 30, 2017, 04:45:11 pm
Why would I want to watch a 24 minute video that you linked to? You didn't explain what it was about, didn't tell me how long it was, etc.   You expect me to spend 24 minutes of my life watching something because you linked to it.   you're not that important.   At least have the courtesy to tell me something about it.  Sum up its point.  Then i can decide.

I never claimed to be important. (In any case, my reply was to RSL's post, but I take your point.)

The purpose of this entire thread was to provide scientific information, of which that video is an example. I thought that one quick glance at the title was informative enough, but I apologize. In future, I'll try to remember to give a short indication of the subject matter if it's not self-evident.

However, you did state in a post above that this thread was devolving into a replay of the previous dead thread. This is true for some of the posts, and I wonder what their point is. If people are not interested in the proposed discussion, then why bother trying to devalue the thread.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Rob C on October 30, 2017, 05:12:40 pm
It's the rôle of characters to replay and replay themselves until the curtain falls one last time.

None of us can escape; it's just our rôles that are different. Even in photographs, we all end up making our same image over and over again, try as we might to be fresh. Can't be done: we are stuck with ourselves. It's part of what gives us all our signatures.

My friend Walter said, many years ago, that the era of the Internet had become a massive disappointment in that freedom to speak and to express had withered almost before it began. Too true; conversation can hardly make two returns of serve before it falls under attack from one direction or another. Eventually, I suppose we all give up and take up gardening (golf is now verboten).

;-)

Rob
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 30, 2017, 07:24:52 pm
The purpose of this entire thread was to provide scientific information, of which that video is an example. I thought that one quick glance at the title was informative enough, but I apologize. In future, I'll try to remember to give a short indication of the subject matter if it's not self-evident.

However, you did state in a post above that this thread was devolving into a replay of the previous dead thread. This is true for some of the posts, and I wonder what their point is. If people are not interested in the proposed discussion, then why bother trying to devalue the thread.

Indeed, the only thing repeating is the desire by some to not contribute to the thread's topic, and to complain it's not leading to anything new. Very strange attitude indeed. They do not even try to change that by introducing something new themselves ...

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on October 30, 2017, 07:29:19 pm
Good question, Alan. As I'm sure you're aware, there is no point. It's just an opportunity for people to blow off steam (in a very scientific-sounding manner).

I can't agree with that, Russ. There are serious issues here. Every year there are people in some regions of the planet who die from some extreme weather event such as a flood or hurricane, and many more who lose their homes.

The geological and proxy records reveal that such events have occurred in the past with similar frequency and intensity, even though CO2 levels might have been lower in the recent past.

Creating a scare about the dangers of an increase in such extreme weather events as a result of humanity's CO2 emissions, and spending huge sums of money on the uncertain outcome of reducing CO2 emissions, whilst not adequately tackling or adapting to the real problems of floods, droughts and storms, by building more dams, and/or ensuring that homes are built above the level of previous floods, and/or that homes are built to withstand the forces of previous hurricanes or cyclones, and so on, not only seems like very poor decision-making to me, but is also unethical.

The result of this scare about CO2 is that the general public, encouraged by biased reporting in the media, seem to accept that every major weather event that results in severe damage to property and/or loss of life, is another example of the result of anthropogenic climate change due to our CO2 emissions, and that the problem can be fixed if we reduce our CO2 emissions.

It can't. The problem can only be fixed by paying attention the record of past extreme weather events, making the rational deduction that such weather events will be repeated in the future, regardless of minuscule changes in CO2 levels, and taking practical steps to protect ourselves as outlined above. We have the technology to do that.

That's my message, and I don't think it's a load of waffle.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on October 30, 2017, 07:47:08 pm
I can't agree with that, Russ. There are serious issues here. Every year there are people in some regions of the planet who die from some extreme weather event such as a flood or hurricane, and many more who lose their homes.

So what else is new, Ray? When, exactly, do you think this wasn't going on?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 30, 2017, 08:00:22 pm
... Creating a scare about the dangers of an increase in such extreme weather events as a result of humanity's CO2 emissions, and spending huge sums of money on the uncertain outcome of reducing CO2 emissions,...

Creating the scare is a result of the prevailing anti-capitalist, anti-industrial society (unabomber, anyone?) sentiment prevailing on the left.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on October 30, 2017, 08:02:38 pm
So what else is new, Ray? When, exactly, do you think this wasn't going on?

Russ,
It's as a result of my own inquiries into the issue that I now have some understanding of the history of previous climate changes and extreme weather events. I get the impression that many members of the public are not aware of these facts. Some college students in America even believe that our eyes project some type of beam onto what we see in order to illuminate it, just like the ancient Greeks believed.  ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on October 30, 2017, 08:10:23 pm
Creating the scare is a result of the prevailing anti-capitalist, anti-industrial society (unabomber, anyone?) sentiment prevailing on the left.

Or perhaps as a result of the capitalist sentiment in the alternative energy industries!!
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 30, 2017, 08:18:38 pm
Or perhaps as a result of the capitalist sentiment in the alternative energy industries!!

Then they turned out to be pretty lousy capitalists, given the rate they are going bust. Throwing money into ideologically-pure projects is actually quite socialist.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 30, 2017, 08:41:01 pm

The geological and proxy records reveal that such events have occurred in the past with similar frequency and intensity, even though CO2 levels might have been lower in the recent past.
A lot of proxy records are by inference and there are no direct measurements that would argue that they are of similar frequency and intensity.  However, we do have on major event that hasn't been commented on so far and that was the volcanic explosion of Krakatoa in 1883 that was responsible for sever weather for several years afterwards:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa 

Quote
Creating a scare about the dangers of an increase in such extreme weather events as a result of humanity's CO2 emissions, and spending huge sums of money on the uncertain outcome of reducing CO2 emissions, whilst not adequately tackling or adapting to the real problems of floods, droughts and storms, by building more dams, and/or ensuring that homes are built above the level of previous floods, and/or that homes are built to withstand the forces of previous hurricanes or cyclones, and so on, not only seems like very poor decision-making to me, but is also unethical.

The result of this scare about CO2 is that the general public, encouraged by biased reporting in the media, seem to accept that every major weather event that results in severe damage to property and/or loss of life, is another example of the result of anthropogenic climate change due to our CO2 emissions, and that the problem can be fixed if we reduce our CO2 emissions.
I don't know of anyone who is not advocating the prophylactic measures that you discuss above.  There was a radio program just this afternoon that discussed what types of protection would need to be undertaken to protect the southern 1/3 of Manhattan should another Hurricane Sandy come along.  The costs are somewhat staggering but if one assumes that there would be four major storms in the next 100 years it would be worth the expense given the costs of repairing stuff after the storm.



Quote
It can't. The problem can only be fixed by paying attention the record of past extreme weather events, making the rational deduction that such weather events will be repeated in the future, regardless of minuscule changes in CO2 levels, and taking practical steps to protect ourselves as outlined above. We have the technology to do that.

That's my message, and I don't think it's a load of waffle.
Science has told us that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas (along with methane) and that increased levels of CO2 may be contributing to some of the increased warming and frequency of storms that is being observed.  I don't think there is any argument about this because of the linkage to the data.  Solving this problem will require a multi-factoral approach.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Farmer on October 30, 2017, 09:26:24 pm
CO2 doesn't increase temperature per se.  It reduces the dissipation of heat energy after it has been received - just as a greenhouse does.  Therefore, at the end of each cycle where there is an increase in CO2, the lower temperature of the cycle is not as low as it would have been had there been less CO2.  The next cycle of warming you add more energy as the previous, but it starts from a higher base point.  Rinse, repeat.  Eventually, despite seeing temps go up and down, the lows are not as low and the highs are higher.

That CO2 and other greenhouse gases have this effect, and that man-made contributions have increased CO2 are utterly undeniable. 

So, yes, there are natural cycles going on.  But they are not revolving in the same way as prior to anthropogenic change.  Yes, the planet will survive in the sense that evolution will deal with the changes.  Evolutionary change typically involves a lot of failures punctuated by a few successes.

We can either stop contributing to this change or not.  If we don't, the planet will change and unlike the fast evolving plants, insects, bacteria and so on with short life cycles and fast reproduction cycles, humans will get left behind or will have to engineer to compensate.  Either way, big changes.

If we do take action now, we can reduce the impact which will give us longer to engineer solutions and minimise the harm.

It's no more complex than that with one exception.  Some people don't like change, so despite the risk of massive change they won't undertake any now in the belief that they won't be around by the time the other changes are forced upon us.  Some people tell us the change could be good - but they won't be around long enough to ever have to deal with them.  That's selfish.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 30, 2017, 10:39:21 pm
So, what exactly is the change that you are advocating, Phil?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on October 30, 2017, 11:56:03 pm
There was an interesting article in 2016 Business Insider how the Dutch are protecting their coastline.
They don't look at it only as an expense, but also as a sound business investment and creation of recreational areas / parks.
It's an ongoing preventive activity which pays off, compared with the typical haphazard and more expensive Northamerican disaster fix and patch methods.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-dutch-engineers-are-protecting-coastal-cities-from-rising-seas-2016-5
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Farmer on October 31, 2017, 12:11:46 am
So, what exactly is the change that you are advocating, Phil?

I'm not advocating too many specific things as I'm not an expert in the field.  However, changes which limit, reduce, or remove CO2 creation from human activities is a good basis for making other decisions relating to industry, the economy as a whole, socially, and so on.  This a driver for change toward renewable energy sources (which solves other issues and provides other opportunities), among other things.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on October 31, 2017, 07:22:54 am
... However, we do have on major event that hasn't been commented on so far and that was the volcanic explosion of Krakatoa in 1883 that was responsible for sever weather for several years afterwards:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa 

Science has told us that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas (along with methane) and that increased levels of CO2 may be contributing to some of the increased warming and frequency of storms that is being observed.  I don't think there is any argument about this because of the linkage to the data.  Solving this problem will require a multi-factoral approach.
Since this is a photo forum, let me add something about that related to this thread.  As an admirer of Outdoor Photographer magazine when Galen Rowell. a major contributor, was alive, I remember reading his comments how Mount Pinatubo's eruption in the Philippines in 1991changed the sunrise and sunset pictures for years after the eruption.  It's eruption was the largest since Krakatoa and also dropped the world's temperature over a degree for a few years. The changes had to do with ash and Sulphur dioxide that caused a lot of acid rain as well.  While it inflicted lots of damage, especially nearby, the name Pinatubo is thought to mean ""fertile place where one can make crops grow".  It seems that much can be created out of destruction.  So it might be wise to examine the agricultural advantages of additional CO2 and global warming as well as the disadvantages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo#Global_environmental_effects
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 31, 2017, 07:27:26 am
This is just a more than gentle nudge at those posting on this thread.  If you cannot post on topic with a reference or point of discussion, the thread will be closed.  Please think about the language you use when considering a post so that it is not insulting.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on October 31, 2017, 08:20:49 am
Then they turned out to be pretty lousy capitalists, given the rate they are going bust. Throwing money into ideologically-pure projects is actually quite socialist.

Oh! my Gosh! That's terrible.  I think the problem is that solar panels are not considered to be sexy like stylish cars and cameras.

Perhaps the advertising industry could tackle this problem. Perhaps we should encourage photos of semi-clad ladies, casually lying on a solar panel roof, (preferably set in a nice garden roof), and gently caressing the panels with a look of amazement and excitement on their face.  ;D

Perhaps this is a great photographic opportunity for you, Slobodan.  ;D
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 31, 2017, 08:22:54 am
Since this is a photo forum, let me add something about that related to this thread.  As an admirer of Outdoor Photographer magazine when Galen Rowell. a major contributor, was alive, I remember reading his comments how Mount Pinatubo's eruption in the Philippines in 1991changed the sunrise and sunset pictures for years after the eruption.  It's eruption was the largest since Krakatoa and also dropped the world's temperature over a degree for a few years. The changes had to do with ash and Sulphur dioxide that caused a lot of acid rain as well.  While it inflicted lots of damage, especially nearby, the name Pinatubo is thought to mean ""fertile place where one can make crops grow".  It seems that much can be created out of destruction.  So it might be wise to examine the agricultural advantages of additional CO2 and global warming as well as the disadvantages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo#Global_environmental_effects
Volcanic eruptions can also accelerate melting of glaciers:  https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2017-10-25-arctic-sea-ice-volcanic-eruption-trigger-melting  It's an interesting conundrum in that it can cool global temperatures slightly but then also cause a rise in sea level.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on October 31, 2017, 10:21:51 am
Russ,
It's as a result of my own inquiries into the issue that I now have some understanding of the history of previous climate changes and extreme weather events. I get the impression that many members of the public are not aware of these facts. Some college students in America even believe that our eyes project some type of beam onto what we see in order to illuminate it, just like the ancient Greeks believed.  ;)

Ray, That's interesting, especially the part about our fragile and uninformed college students, but you didn't answer my question, which with reference to storms, hurricanes, people losing their homes, etc., was: "When, exactly, do you think this wasn't going on?"
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 03, 2017, 10:02:05 am
A summary of the impact of a 3C increase in global temperature and its impact on some major cities:  https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/03/miami-shanghai-3c-warming-cities-underwater 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 03, 2017, 10:29:05 am
A lot of scientists are now saying that the temperature is going up regardless of what we do or don't do so that we have to make plans for rising seas.   
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 03, 2017, 12:33:11 pm
A lot of scientists are now saying that the temperature is going up regardless of what we do or don't do so that we have to make plans for rising seas.
That is probably true.  CO2 mitigation might slow things down but as has been noted requires a will to do so that may not be present.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 03, 2017, 08:45:44 pm
WASHINGTON — Directly contradicting much of the Trump administration’s position on climate change, 13 federal agencies unveiled an exhaustive scientific report on Friday that says humans are the dominant cause of the global temperature rise that has created the warmest period in the history of civilization.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/climate/us-climate-report.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

How much longer can we ignore the science?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 04, 2017, 12:29:51 am
..l I'm reminded of that ancient Greek theory that we are able to see the objects that surround us because our eyes project a beam of light onto the objects. Even Plato accepted this theory, although Aristotle thought is was bunk.
...
For many centuries most people accepted the emission, or extramission theory of vision because brilliant minds such as Empedocles and Plato thought it was true. How could such people be wrong? They obviously must know more than I do.

... sometimes even college students still believe in the extramission theory of vision... students, namely, the belief that the process of vision includes emanations from the eyes, an idea that is consistent with the extramission theory of perception, which was originally professed by early Greek philosophers and which persisted in scholarly circles for centuries....

Indeed, how could all those great minds be wrong ?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 04, 2017, 08:27:41 am
A lot of scientists are now saying that the temperature is going up regardless of what we do or don't do so that we have to make plans for rising seas.

Always hard to discuss such things without a link to a report that supports your interpretation of the claim. It obviously does make a difference how fast the temperature is going to rise, and we can influence that by reducing the CO2 emissions.

As the latest version of a US government climate report (https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf) confirms, and its conclusions are also largely similar to those of the last IPCC report (just a bit more up to date and based on a denser sampling of observations), Climate change is mostly caused by human activity. If humans cause it, then humans can try to mitigate it. But inaction will not improve the situation. The point being, that if we do not take action, we may reach tipping points that are irreversible sooner rather than later. Also, the cost of countering the unwanted effects will grow higher if we postpone action longer, to the point that it becomes impossible to finance it.

US government climate report: Climate change is real and our fault
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/us-government-climate-report-climate-change-is-real-and-our-fault/

Politics (which will be moderated) aside, the report itself offers a lot of useful info to inject further discussions with some more factual information, even if the report is obviously somewhat USA centric, and has yet to be fully finalized.

Cheers,
Bart


P.S. As always, and because it is mentioned in the above-linked report, it's important to understand some basic scientific jargon:
Confidence in the validity of a finding based on the type, amount, quality, strength, and consistency of evidence (such as mechanistic understanding, theory, data, models, and expert judgment); the skill, range, and consistency of model projections; and the degree of agreement within the body of literature.
Likelihood, or probability of an effect or impact occurring, is based on measures of uncertainty expressed probabilistically (based  on the degree of understanding or knowledge, e.g., resulting from evaluating statistical analyses of observations or model results or on expert judgment).

So Confidence levels deal with data quality and consensus about it, Likelihood is about probability. Since the data quality is improving in recent times, the models keep getting better in predicting the outcome of different scenarios. The hardest part to predict is how human behavior will change to cope with the mostly unwanted consequences.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on November 04, 2017, 09:04:06 am
I don't know of anyone who is not advocating the prophylactic measures that you discuss above. There was a radio program just this afternoon that discussed what types of protection would need to be undertaken to protect the southern 1/3 of Manhattan should another Hurricane Sandy come along.  The costs are somewhat staggering but if one assumes that there would be four major storms in the next 100 years it would be worth the expense given the costs of repairing stuff after the storm.

Really! Then how come such prophylactic measures are not already in place? Certainly in the US and Australia there are instrumental records going back 150-200 years, and anecdotal and proxy records going back much further, that show the effects of massive storms in the past.

If so many people have been advocating protective measures during this time, we've done a lousy job in implementing such measures.
I suspect what's happening is that such concerns about protective measures only occur immediately after a devastating storm, but those in power realize that the problems are too difficult and expensive to address, and that addressing them would also affect economic expansion in the area because the practical measures that would be necessary would be an advertisement to other potential investors that the city or town is in a major 'risk area'.

With the help of the media, the real and actual risk of future devastation from extreme weather events is diminished by always blaming the latest event on AGW and describing it as the worst storm or flood in living memory, or since records began, or the worst in a hundred years.

After 20 or 30 years have passed with no major storm, people tend to forget about the past events. New people move into the area and get approval to build homes which would have been devastated if they'd been built in a similar location 30 years ago

After another 10 years or so, another major flood or hurricane occurs, which is actually the 4th or 5th or 6th worst in the past 2 hundred years, but which is described as the worst ever, and so the facade continues.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 04, 2017, 10:14:08 am
Katrina laughed at the billions and billions spent on levies and pumps over decades to protect New Orleans.  Protecting New York City's 500 miles of coastline is a madman's or Dutch businessman's dream.  As someone who was born and raised in the Bronx, the only Borough that is contiguous with the rest of the United States mainland, the rest of the 5 boroughs, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island are all out Islands. Good luck with protecting them from rising seas and storms.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 06, 2017, 07:29:18 am
One bit of good news, the Ozone hole is shrinking in the Antarctic region in part due to warmer temperatures:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/health-science/earths-ozone-hole-is-shrinking-heres-why/2017/11/03/0ed1dbb4-c08b-11e7-9294-705f80164f6e_video.html?utm_term=.59df23b80770   This will help reduce skin cancers in Australia since UV radiation will be less
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 06, 2017, 08:03:03 am
One bit of good news, the Ozone hole is shrinking in the Antarctic region in part due to warmer temperatures:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/health-science/earths-ozone-hole-is-shrinking-heres-why/2017/11/03/0ed1dbb4-c08b-11e7-9294-705f80164f6e_video.html?utm_term=.59df23b80770   This will help reduce skin cancers in Australia since UV radiation will be less

Which goes to show that humans can make a difference in rectifying what went wrong, if addressed soon enough. The reduced emission of the now-banned chlorofluorocarbons as cooling agent in refrigerators and airconditioners, does make a difference.

I wonder what the COP23 climate change summit in Bonn, Germany (from 6-17 November 2017) will bring in additional concrete steps.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/05/the-cop23-climate-change-summit-in-bonn-and-why-it-matters

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2017, 09:32:42 am
Will China and India be excused from having to meet the new steps?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 06, 2017, 09:43:40 am
Will China and India be excused from having to meet the new steps?
No, only the US (the second largest emitter of CO2) has excused himself.

Let me apologise for this post to the moderators, this thread was supposed to be about science and issues and not about politics. My post doesn't meet that criteria, but neither does Alan's and I thought his question better be answered then left hanging. Maybe it's even better to delete both posts to keep the discussion on topic.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2017, 10:09:51 am
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/11/03/a-warming-planet-is-helping-shrink-the-ozone-hole-to-smallest-since-1988/amp/

See chart at bottom of linked page. Why did the ozone area be reduced in 2002 by roughly 50%? Are their other factors involved beside temperature and clouroflourocarbons?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2017, 10:24:48 am
No, only the US (the second largest emitter of CO2) has excused himself.

Let me apologise for this post to the moderators, this thread was supposed to be about science and issues and not about politics. My post doesn't meet that criteria, but neither does Alan's and I thought his question better be answered then left hanging. Maybe it's even better to delete both posts to keep the discussion on topic.
Who's exempt or isn't complying are "issues" that effect the science and outcomes.   Excusing China and India until 2030 for political and economic reasons will substantially effect the science and timeline to reduce CO2 in the world. Also,  how do you know China will meet the new requirements?   They haven't yet been announced or negotiated.   It seems you're an apologist for China.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 06, 2017, 10:35:23 am
No, only the US (the second largest emitter of CO2) has excused himself.

Let me apologise for this post to the moderators, this thread was supposed to be about science and issues and not about politics. My post doesn't meet that criteria, but neither does Alan's and I thought his question better be answered then left hanging. Maybe it's even better to delete both posts to keep the discussion on topic.
I look at this as an issue that is ripe for "civil" discussion.  Political decisions weigh heavy on how climate change might be addressed.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 06, 2017, 11:16:08 am
It seems you're an apologist for China.
Can't stop pointing fingers and resort to ad hominem attacks Alan? There's really no place for that in this thread.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 06, 2017, 11:20:10 am
Excusing China and India until 2030 for political and economic reasons will substantially effect the science and timeline to reduce CO2 in the world. Also,  how do you know China will meet the new requirements?   They haven't yet been announced or negotiated.   
China is taking actions, shutting down many old inefficient power stations that they wouldn't do if they hadn't signed up to the Paris agreement. There was also a graph in the "poofed" thread which showed China CO2 emissions are at a plateau and projected to go down. So I think you crying wolf over China is not based on facts or performance.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2017, 11:47:15 am
China is taking actions, shutting down many old inefficient power stations that they wouldn't do if they hadn't signed up to the Paris agreement. There was also a graph in the "poofed" thread which showed China CO2 emissions are at a plateau and projected to go down. So I think you crying wolf over China is not based on facts or performance.
China is shutting down inefficient plants because they're inefficient and also very polluting.  Communists have to breathe too.  America is uipgrading its plants as well.  Many coal fired are now cleaner natural gas. 

There are no plateaus.  China will be producing more not less CO2.  Why do you think they wanted to be excluded from any requirements until 2030? 

The fact is there are a billion remaining Chinese who want to live like the rest of the 400 million Chinese who've already made it to middle class.  China's going to produce something like 24 million vehicles a year, way more than anyone else.  Boeing has forecast that Chinese airlines will buy 7,240 commercial aircraft worth $1.1 trillion between now and 2036. ... For wide-body planes, Boeing forecasts China will require 1,670 new airplanes over the same time period.  Think of all that JP4 jet fuel getting burned up.  Boeing estimates that 100 million Chinese will fly for the first time per year for the next few years.  Multiply that for refrigerators, toilets, air conditioners, bigger houses, gasoline, heating fuels, manufacturing processes for things these billion people will buy, and you'll realize there's no way the Chinese can hold back the CO2 tide. And when 2030 comes rolling around, they'll demand an extension and the rest of the world will swallow it.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on November 06, 2017, 12:00:09 pm
I am a geologist, and I have a good understanding of long term trends, and of data that underpins them. What interests me the most in this discussion are the data measurements and observations. For instance, in Portugal (my home country), 2017 is turning out to be a very harsh year in terms of climate: every successive month previous records of high temperatures are beaten. This was also observed during large parts of 2016.

With the devastating and deadly fires that took place in June and October, people are paying more attention to "climate change". To me, it is obvious that the climate is changing: we just had the warmest October since there are records, with temperatures hovering around 30 Celsius... rainfall has been increasingly scarce too, many water levels in reservoirs are at a historical low.

Mankind should be preparing today to cope and to mitigate against these changes. Let the scientists gather the data and do their work, without political influences to cater for personal or partidarian agendas.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 06, 2017, 12:10:14 pm
There are no plateaus. 
The graph (from a report you linked to) clearly showed the plateau. Find it again and you'll see for yourself
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2017, 12:10:48 pm
I am a geologist, and I have a good understanding of long term trends, and of data that underpins them. What interests me the most in this discussion are the data measurements and observations. For instance, in Portugal (my home country), 2017 is turning out to be a very harsh year in terms of climate: every successive month previous records of high temperatures are beaten. This was also observed during large parts of 2016.

With the devastating and deadly fires that took place in June and October, people are paying more attention to "climate change". To me, it is obvious that the climate is changing: we just had the warmest October since there are records, with temperatures hovering around 30 Celsius... rainfall has been increasingly scarce too, many water levels in reservoirs are at a historical low.

Mankind should be preparing today to cope and to mitigate against these changes. Let the scientists gather the data and do their work, without political influences to cater for personal or partidarian agendas.
It requires policy decisions "politics" to get things done. Those are based on personal and national priorities.  Scientists can't act on their own.  You may feel that reducing CO2 is important.  Others may feel that spending money to reduce malaria is more important or having a job to feed their family.  Politicians follow their voters in a democratic society. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2017, 02:55:30 pm
The graph (from a report you linked to) clearly showed the plateau. Find it again and you'll see for yourself
There are no plateaus.  If China was reducing the CO2, they wouldn't have objected to meeting any Paris standards until 2030.  The fact is China is increasing their CO2 production by leaps and bounds.  5 years ago they produced 27% of the world's CO2 against America's 17%.  In 2016,  China was up to 30% while America's went down to 14%. 

As an aside, you;re always pointing to per capita.  Another per unit statistic is that America produces half the CO2 per dollar of GDP than does China.  So we're twice as carbon clean as they are in manufacturing.  Our processes are way better in the area of pollution of the air and water. 

The main point is that without China and India, the Paris accord will never reach their goals.  It's just adding a burden to every other country in the world including yours.  Trump said that he would consider getting back into the accord if China's requirements were changed.  That's economic fairness in my mind something you ought to support as well if you want to really reduce Co2. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 06, 2017, 04:42:13 pm
There are no plateaus.  If China was reducing the CO2, they wouldn't have objected to meeting any Paris standards until 2030.  The fact is China is increasing their CO2 production by leaps and bounds.  5 years ago they produced 27% of the world's CO2 against America's 17%.  In 2016,  China was up to 30% while America's went down to 14%. 
Just find the report and you'll see. You brought it to us the first time, but after we pointed out it debunked the China argument you "can't find" it. What a coïncidence ;)
As an aside, you;re always pointing to per capita.  Another per unit statistic is that America produces half the CO2 per dollar of GDP than does China.  So we're twice as carbon clean as they are in manufacturing.  Our processes are way better in the area of pollution of the air and water.
This was debunked in the poofed thread as well, higher wages doesn't give you any excuse to emit more CO2 
The main point is that without China and India, the Paris accord will never reach their goals.  It's just adding a burden to every other country in the world including yours.  Trump said that he would consider getting back into the accord if China's requirements were changed.  That's economic fairness in my mind something you ought to support as well if you want to really reduce Co2.
If everybody meets what they pledged the goals will be reached. At this moment there is only one country backing away from their pledges.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 06, 2017, 09:52:17 pm
China won't be allowed to advance on the backs of Americans.  If you're willing to accept it for your countrymen, well that's your business.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 07, 2017, 02:37:49 am
China won't be allowed to advance on the backs of Americans.  If you're willing to accept it for your countrymen, well that's your business.
It seems you're out of arguments and spreading more FUD isn't giving your case any credibility.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 07, 2017, 06:25:49 am
China won't be allowed to advance on the backs of Americans.

Alan,

You seem to struggle with a couple of facts, the main ones being a misconception of what a "fair deal" is, and what the Paris agreement is about.

Let's try and solve these issues.
1. Fair comparisons
To simplify, let's look at the USA and China (together producing 44% of worldwide CO2 emissions), and for the moment forget the rest (the remaining 56% of worldwide CO2 emissions). Afterall, the USA and China are the world's largest polluting countries in the world (but they are also pretty large countries anyway). We could also include India if needed, but it has quite a different industrial dynamic going on.

China has approx. 1,409,517,397 inhabitants, and the USA some 324,459,463, as per UN estimates for 1 July 2017. To be fair, one could expect them to pollute by roughly equal amounts on a per Capita basis although China has many more Coal powered utility plants. Yet, despite their 4.3x larger polulation with mouths to feed and energy consumption to satisfy, they only are responsible for 2.1x more CO2 emissions than the USA. China produced in 2015 (latest numbers I have) some 10,641,789 kt of CO2, versus 5,172,338 kt for the USA.

So, the average US citizen produces (through consumption of goods and energy) twice as much CO2 per capita. And to add some perspective, the European Union with some 510,284,430 inhabitants, produces some 3,469,671 kt of CO2, even less per capita than both.

2. The Paris Climate agreement
There appears to be a huge misunderstanding about the Paris Climate agreement, especially in the USA, and the fact that some countries (like China) have projected to grow their emissions before they (can) start reducing them.

The Paris Climate agreement is a worldwide agreement (except for Syria, and the USA is pulling out) that aimed at limiting the global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius. This was agreed, and deemed achievable (but not easy), after adding all projected emissions and economic development estimates, which obviously differ for already industrialized countries (like the USA and most of the EU) versus growing economies and populations (like China, India, and the African counties to name a few).

The only real commitments made were for each country to submit their "Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) (http://unfccc.int/focus/indc_portal/items/8766.php)", so that other countries could monitor the progress towards the common goal. The Conference of the Parties (COP) invited all Parties to communicate to the secretariat their INDCs well in advance of COP 21 (by the first quarter of 2015 by those Parties ready to do so) in a manner that facilitates the clarity, transparency and understanding of the INDC.

So much for the non-existing bad deal that the USA wants to pull out of.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on November 07, 2017, 09:52:21 am
And of course this discussion is all about "science"; we're staying strictly away from politics.  8) 8) 8) ;D ;D ;D ;) ;) ;) ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 07, 2017, 10:43:16 am
And of course this discussion is all about "science"; we're staying strictly away from politics.  8) 8) 8) ;D ;D ;D ;) ;) ;) ::) ::) ::)

The moderator himself approved discussing political points, since in his mind they are issues:

I look at this as an issue that is ripe for "civil" discussion.  Political decisions weigh heavy on how climate change might be addressed.

I was sceptical at first, but it livened up the thread a little ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 07, 2017, 10:47:09 am
And of course this discussion is all about "science"; we're staying strictly away from politics.  8) 8) 8) ;D ;D ;D ;) ;) ;) ::) ::) ::)

In the main it has been. Now and then some contributors stray a bit, only to have others later complain about that very thing, as you just did. The moderators have requested a couple of times already to narrow the focus to discussion topics backed by researched findings. That's not that hard to do. Yet now and then some chime in with their unbacked opinions that such science doesn't exist.

I have to ask, are some people deliberately trying to send the thread off-topic as an excuse to end the discussion? Repeatedly offering the opinion that no valid climate science exists serves no purpose and violates the stated aim of this thread.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 07, 2017, 11:05:05 am
In the main it has been. Now and then some contributors stray a bit, only to have others later complain about that very thing, as you just did. The moderators have requested a couple of times already to narrow the focus to discussion topics backed by researched findings. That's not that hard to do. Yet now and then some chime in with their unbacked opinions that such science doesn't exist.

I have to ask, are some people deliberately trying to send the thread off-topic as an excuse to end the discussion? Repeatedly offering the opinion that no valid climate science exists serves no purpose and violates the stated aim of this thread.
Robert, as I mentioned in my post #141 I have no problem if the moderators would delete all posts that are political and don't deal with science (or the lack thereof). However Alan G in post #144 said politics are covered under the "issues" flag in the title as politics determine the policy decisions being taken to respond to the science (or lack thereof).

I would be in favour of keeping it strictly scientific, however if the denyer side of the discussion start making political arguments I feel I have the right to present the other side. I'm not trying to derail or stop the discussion and believe I reacted in accordance with the latest guidance from one of the moderators of this discussion.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 07, 2017, 11:25:16 am
Robert, as I mentioned in my post #141 I have no problem if the moderators would delete all posts that are political and don't deal with science (or the lack thereof). However Alan G in post #144 said politics are covered under the "issues" flag in the title as politics determine the policy decisions being taken to respond to the science (or lack thereof).

I would be in favour of keeping it strictly scientific, however if the denyer side of the discussion start making political arguments I feel I have the right to present the other side. I'm not trying to derail or stop the discussion and believe I reacted in accordance with the latest guidance from one of the moderators of this discussion.

That's fair. I was just balking at having to read (I guess I don't really have to) another post by someone who denigrates the study of climate, offering only his personal opinion to that effect, which is an unconvincing argument at best. We've heard that many times before, it doesn't advance the discussion, and I questioned its purpose. And to the extent that what I wrote was itself off-topic, I apologize.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 07, 2017, 12:13:26 pm
Alan,

You seem to struggle with a couple of facts, the main ones being a misconception of what a "fair deal" is, and what the Paris agreement is about.

Let's try and solve these issues.
1. Fair comparisons
To simplify, let's look at the USA and China (together producing 44% of worldwide CO2 emissions), and for the moment forget the rest (the remaining 56% of worldwide CO2 emissions). Afterall, the USA and China are the world's largest polluting countries in the world (but they are also pretty large countries anyway). We could also include India if needed, but it has quite a different industrial dynamic going on.

China has approx. 1,409,517,397 inhabitants, and the USA some 324,459,463, as per UN estimates for 1 July 2017. To be fair, one could expect them to pollute by roughly equal amounts on a per Capita basis although China has many more Coal powered utility plants. Yet, despite their 4.3x larger polulation with mouths to feed and energy consumption to satisfy, they only are responsible for 2.1x more CO2 emissions than the USA. China produced in 2015 (latest numbers I have) some 10,641,789 kt of CO2, versus 5,172,338 kt for the USA.

So, the average US citizen produces (through consumption of goods and energy) twice as much CO2 per capita. And to add some perspective, the European Union with some 510,284,430 inhabitants, produces some 3,469,671 kt of CO2, even less per capita than both.

2. The Paris Climate agreement
There appears to be a huge misunderstanding about the Paris Climate agreement, especially in the USA, and the fact that some countries (like China) have projected to grow their emissions before they (can) start reducing them.

The Paris Climate agreement is a worldwide agreement (except for Syria, and the USA is pulling out) that aimed at limiting the global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius. This was agreed, and deemed achievable (but not easy), after adding all projected emissions and economic development estimates, which obviously differ for already industrialized countries (like the USA and most of the EU) versus growing economies and populations (like China, India, and the African counties to name a few).

The only real commitments made were for each country to submit their "Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) (http://unfccc.int/focus/indc_portal/items/8766.php)", so that other countries could monitor the progress towards the common goal. The Conference of the Parties (COP) invited all Parties to communicate to the secretariat their INDCs well in advance of COP 21 (by the first quarter of 2015 by those Parties ready to do so) in a manner that facilitates the clarity, transparency and understanding of the INDC.

So much for the non-existing bad deal that the USA wants to pull out of.

Cheers,
Bart
China is a mature economy.  They are number two in the world, soon to be #1.  They aren't some back woods country with no impact on the world.  Currently grown to 30% of the world's CO2 and growing to a greater amount in the near future means they are a major, in fact THE major producer of CO2 becoming larger by leaps and bounds.  To give them a pass so they can continue to pollute in increasing amounts is short-sighted.  It's going to make reaching the Paris goals more and more impossible to meet, with or without America.  Americans see themselves as being punished for our success and are watching as a Communist dictatorship is trying to take over the world using their economic power.  With Xi taking full command over China, you should be as concerned as they are stealing your industry as well.  They will be a threat to European industry as well.  Already are.  America ha made a decision regarding what we will do and I support that stand.  If others want to foolishly support the Chinese, well that's up to you.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 07, 2017, 12:50:35 pm
Currently grown to 30% of the world's CO2 and growing to a greater amount in the near future means they are a major, in fact THE major producer of CO2 becoming larger by leaps and bounds. 
According to a study you referenced in the poofed thread China's CO2 emissions are at a plateau, I'm sorry I can't find the reference anymore and I hope you still can. It's the one that also showed Europe (as a combination of countries) going up marginally and the US going down marginally. You found it the first time ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 07, 2017, 02:20:06 pm
According to a study you referenced in the poofed thread China's CO2 emissions are at a plateau, I'm sorry I can't find the reference anymore and I hope you still can. It's the one that also showed Europe (as a combination of countries) going up marginally and the US going down marginally. You found it the first time ;)
I can't find the poofed article. But regardless, there are 1 billion more Chinese who want to be middle class. The CO2 production in China has to go up in the future as it's been going up over the last few years.  That's why they insisted on a pass until 2030.  They wouldn't need it if CO2 was going down. Xi wants to maintain his power.   It will only be done if the economy expands to allow the rest of the Chinese become middle class.   That means more CO2. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 07, 2017, 05:10:15 pm
(http://www.climatechangenews.com/files/2017/03/238eb46742db30303bcd33fe9ce65f3d-1.png)

I found the graph, it shows the Chinese emissions of CO2 has remained constant in 2013, 2014 and 2015.

Nobody can predict the future, but all the talk of Chinese CO2 emissions skyrocketing at least hasn't happened for these 3 years, so while it might still go up in the future it's by far not as dramatic as some people want you to believe (in their quest to defend the "bad" deal the US got in Paris ;) )
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 07, 2017, 05:26:38 pm
(http://www.climatechangenews.com/files/2017/03/238eb46742db30303bcd33fe9ce65f3d-1.png)

I found the graph, it shows the Chinese emissions of CO2 has remained constant in 2013, 2014 and 2015.

Nobody can predict the future, but all the talk of Chinese CO2 emissions skyrocketing at least hasn't happened for these 3 years, so while it might still go up in the future it's by far not as dramatic as some people want you to believe (in their quest to defend the "bad" deal the US got in Paris ;) )
Pieter:  It did go down, but it's a rather minor blip.  Maybe it was effected by the economy.  By the way, who provides these statistics?  The host countries?  How come the EU is going up (+1.4%) while America's is going down (-2.6%)? Are you guys cheating on the Paris accord?  :)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 07, 2017, 06:01:55 pm
...however if the denyer side of the discussion start making political arguments ...

Then they need to be brainwashed. Or so says CA governor: "World needs ‘brain washing’ on climate change"

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article182789821.html
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on November 07, 2017, 07:46:43 pm
I also have no objection to the political and economic aspects of climate change being discussed, as long as they are discussed in a civil manner. After all, politics and economics are related to everything we do. To exclude politics and economics from the discussion would be to limit the understanding of the issue.

I'm reminded here of that notorious slogan used by Bill Clinton during his election campaign, "It's the economy, stupid."

When comparing the CO2 emissions 'per capita', between China and the rest of the world, there are different approaches which should be clearly defined. The most obvious approach is to  divide the total CO2 emissions within the borders of a country, by the total population. But this approach shows only a part of the problem.
For example, Australia exports far more coal than it burns within its own country. Should the total CO2 emissions from all the coal that Australia digs up and exports, be included in the 'per capita' emissions for the average Australian?

Likewise, most of China's CO2 emissions in recent years have resulted from the production of goods which are exported to the rest of the world. The CO2 emissions associated with the production of such goods should therefore be more fairly attributed to the populations that consume the goods.

Sweden has a very low 'per capita' emissions of CO2 within its borders, but that figure increases significantly when one includes the CO2 emissions associated with Sweden's imports from the EU, China and elsewhere.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 07, 2017, 11:52:43 pm
That's a good point Ray. I'm reminded of the fact that China intends to build 800 Coal Fired power plants in the next 10 years in countries outside of China. Should the CO2 that will be produced in those countries be counted against China?  How does the Paris Accord handle this?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 08, 2017, 02:26:15 am
Then they need to be brainwashed. Or so says CA governor: "World needs ‘brain washing’ on climate change"

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article182789821.html
Aren't you (and others) trying to "brainwash" the opposite side as well with your posts.

For me these are "pot and kettle" type arguments that lead nowhere  :P
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 08, 2017, 02:29:49 am
That's a good point Ray. I'm reminded of the fact that China intends to build 800 Coal Fired power plants in the next 10 years in countries outside of China. Should the CO2 that will be produced in those countries be counted against China?  How does the Paris Accord handle this?
These are counted against the countries that they are built in. But since these countries are also part of the Paris accords (I don't think many of these are built in Syria or the US) they still fall under the emission pledges the countries made in Paris.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 08, 2017, 02:38:14 am
I also have no objection to the political and economic aspects of climate change being discussed, as long as they are discussed in a civil manner. After all, politics and economics are related to everything we do. To exclude politics and economics from the discussion would be to limit the understanding of the issue.

I'm reminded here of that notorious slogan used by Bill Clinton during his election campaign, "It's the economy, stupid."

When comparing the CO2 emissions 'per capita', between China and the rest of the world, there are different approaches which should be clearly defined. The most obvious approach is to  divide the total CO2 emissions within the borders of a country, by the total population. But this approach shows only a part of the problem.
For example, Australia exports far more coal than it burns within its own country. Should the total CO2 emissions from all the coal that Australia digs up and exports, be included in the 'per capita' emissions for the average Australian?

Likewise, most of China's CO2 emissions in recent years have resulted from the production of goods which are exported to the rest of the world. The CO2 emissions associated with the production of such goods should therefore be more fairly attributed to the populations that consume the goods.

Sweden has a very low 'per capita' emissions of CO2 within its borders, but that figure increases significantly when one includes the CO2 emissions associated with Sweden's imports from the EU, China and elsewhere.
Good point Ray but it becomes awfully complicated that way. I think it's best to just stick with the country borders and the emission within. They burn the fuel and get the (economic) benefits from that, but also get the burden of dealing with the corrosponding emissions.

Given your example of CO2 from Australian coal, should all the CO2 from burning middle east oil be attributed to the countries that pumped the oil out of the ground?
I think it would be better to lay the burden of those emissions with the countries who burn that coal/oil. They can do something about it, make it more efficient or switch to other fuel sources. Nobody is obliged to buy that coal/oil, if there are no more customers the countries will have to stop producing them.
 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 08, 2017, 05:17:42 am
Good point Ray but it becomes awfully complicated that way. I think it's best to just stick with the country borders and the emission within. They burn the fuel and get the (economic) benefits from that, but also get the burden of dealing with the corresponding emissions.

I agree, it's also relatively straightforward to calculate the emissions as they are produced, instead of as stored fuel (like in strategic reserves).

But it's all about economics as well. Even with overwhelming scientific proof, different choices will be made based on short-term economics. That's why companies (like in the USA and elsewhere) switch their investments away from coal-powered utility plants in favor of Natural gas. They still produce CO2, but less (which will benefit the investors when Carbon taxes are introduced).

Also, since renewable energy production volumes are rising, the cost is coming down significantly, which makes them also a viable economic alternative.

Cost of wind keeps dropping, and there’s little coal, nuclear can do to stop it
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/11/economics-working-against-coal-as-cost-of-wind-solar-power-drops/

Some people complain about the cost of renewable energy, but that's not based on a fair pricing of fossil fuel (which is cheap to harvest but expensive in consequences). What's also forgotten is that there are lots of (job) opportunities involved in new energy (R&D, material science, preservation, production, and storage). In a little over a decade from now, new buildings in my country are supposed to be energy neutral, i.e. the produce as much energy as they use. Existing buildings will be improved to lower their need for energy (isolation, re-use of heat/cold, and if possible generating energy).

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 08, 2017, 05:31:08 am
... But it's all about economics as well...

Hallelujah!

Let me repeat it: "it is all about economics." It always has been and will be. It has nothing to do with global warming. Producing things cheaper has been the drive behind economics since the dawn of mankind. Nothing to do with global warming. That's why all this harping about it is so ridiculous. No one will sacrifice economic progress for the sake of some brainwashing theories. In return, the economic progress will take care of the "problem" by doing things cheaper, more efficient, less poluting, and less dependent on finite resources and primitive regimes.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 08, 2017, 06:50:48 am
Hallelujah!

Let me repeat it: "it is all about economics."

Not only! Unless you want to monetize health, food security, mass migration, war, human suffering, etc., without accounting for the longer term effects. It's as much about psychology (e.g. cognitive dissonance), people avoiding long-term larger benefits for short-term gains that will cost more in the longer term.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 08, 2017, 09:47:12 am
Good article in the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/business/climate-carbon-renewables.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Feduardo-porter&action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection) by Eduardo Porter on the need to keep nuclear power in the equation.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 08, 2017, 10:52:40 am
Good article in the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/business/climate-carbon-renewables.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Feduardo-porter&action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection) by Eduardo Porter on the need to keep nuclear power in the equation.
Interesting article, Alan.  People are afraid of nuclear, especially since the Japan disaster and the high cost to build plants.  But I agree, it's a great alternative to carbon.  Maybe we can build them in the ocean and run back an extension cord.

The article is also interesting as it covers how carbon totals for the world hasn't really reduced despite the implementation of so much renewable alternatives.  The Paris goals won't be met.  Note that America is reducing its carbon footprint even though we've "pulled out" of Paris.  We're down 2.6% while the EU is up 1.4%.  See the graph on my post #165.  We're replacing our coal fired plants with natural gas which are cleaner and produces less CO2.   Some of the other problems are that carbon fueled plants have to be maintained because wind and solar are not always available.  The cost of electricity still has to cover their operating costs even though they produce less electricity. 

Extra jobs created for renewable installations sound good on the surface.  It is, for the workers.  They have jobs.  But the rest of us are paying in higher electricity costs as their wages are added to the cost to produce each KWH of electricity.  Wages are lower with carbon workers as fewer workers are needed.   So even the argument about more jobs is specious. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 08, 2017, 11:14:19 am
Pieter:  It did go down, but it's a rather minor blip.  Maybe it was effected by the economy.  By the way, who provides these statistics?  The host countries?  How come the EU is going up (+1.4%) while America's is going down (-2.6%)? Are you guys cheating on the Paris accord?  :)
The Paris accord was made in 2016, so all these data are from before. So this graph tells nothing about who is cheating and who is not. No need to raise FUD or conspiracy theories on that yet.  :P

Also I think long term trends as well as clear trend-breaks are more interesting then just focus on a small blip from 2014 to 2015.

What I see there is that the trend of Europe as well as the US is going down and that the very strong upward trend in China has stopped for 3 years in a row. All three are good signs and we can only hope they are sustained. By now the 2016 points should be available, but I haven't found them yet.

The graph comes from "The Carbon Project" I guess they have to base themselves on national reporting.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 08, 2017, 11:25:42 am
Just found something on 2016 emissions, US and China are down, Europe is stable, the world as a whole stable.

IEA report on 2016 emissions (https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/march/iea-finds-co2-emissions-flat-for-third-straight-year-even-as-global-economy-grew.html)

I think this provides a nice summary:
Quote
In 2016, renewables supplied more than half the global electricity demand growth, with hydro accounting for half of that share. The overall increase in the world’s nuclear net capacity last year was the highest since 1993, with new reactors coming online in China, the United States, South Korea, India, Russia and Pakistan. Coal demand fell worldwide but the drop was particularly sharp in the United States, where demand was down 11% in 2016. For the first time, electricity generation from natural gas was higher than from coal last year in the United States.

With the appropriate policies, and large amounts of shale reserves, natural gas production in the United States could keep growing strongly in the years to come. This could have three main consequences: it could boost domestic manufacturing, supply more competitive gas to Asia through to LNG exports, and provide alternative gas supplies to Europe. US and natural gas prospects will be explored in details in the next World Energy Outlook 2017.

In China, emissions fell by 1% last year, as coal demand declined while the economy expanded by 6.7%. There were several reasons for this trend: an increasing share of renewables, nuclear and natural gas in the power sector, but also a switch from coal to gas in the industrial and buildings sector that was driven in large part by government policies combatting air pollution.

Three remarks I'd see:
- The China plateau has sustained/improved another year
- I wonder what effects of Trump's Coal region support will show in 2017 and later
- Europe needs to get off it's butt and move back on the downward trend


Full report here (warning 166 page pdf) (https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/CO2EmissionsfromFuelCombustion_Highlights_2016.pdf)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 08, 2017, 11:50:34 am
The report also stated: "While the pause in emissions growth is positive news to improve air pollution, it is not enough to put the world on a path to keep global temperatures from rising above 2°C. In order to take full advantage of the potential of technology improvements and market forces, consistent, transparent and predictable policies are needed worldwide." 

Also, I don't necessarily believe China's self-reporting figures as they lie a lot to make themselves look good.  Frankly, I think most countries are going to just let natural economic forces take over in this area.  It's hard for leaders to tell their people that they have to spend more to reach some arbitrary reduction especially since there are no enforcement penalties in the Paris Accord.  Good will only goes so far. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 08, 2017, 12:03:38 pm
Also, I don't necessarily believe China's self-reporting figures as they lie a lot to make themselves look good. 
Well, there's a lot of governments I don't believe what they say either, but for CO2 emissions I think the IEA has some checks and balances and does consistencty checks to make sure the numbers are not far off.
So unless you come with some hard evidence I won't believe the FUD you're trying to spread.


Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 08, 2017, 12:31:19 pm
What's fud?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 08, 2017, 01:04:10 pm
Google is your friend, first item on the list explains it:  FUD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 08, 2017, 04:40:18 pm
Google is your friend, first item on the list explains it:  FUD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt)

OK now I understand. FUD is like climate change science.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 08, 2017, 04:41:57 pm
OK now I understand. FUD is like climate change science.
No, blaming everything on the Chinese is FUD  :P
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 08, 2017, 04:55:48 pm
Interesting report on the Chinese about CO2 production peaking.  The last point below raises flags regarding Paris's long term hopes.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/03/31/chinese-co2-emissions-really-peaked/

"Key messages:
-Chinese carbon dioxide emissions grew unexpectedly rapidly during the 2000s, and the growth unexpectedly stopped after 2010. The recent slowdown is mainly driven by economic factors, driving a slowdown in energy-intensive production and hence coal consumption.
-Energy efficiency has improved, but this is only returning to longer term declines after a slowdown in the 2000s.
-Non-fossil energy sources and concerns about air pollution contributed to the recent slowdown, but unlikely played a dominant role.
-Although it looks like China may have reached a plateau in coal consumption and carbon dioxide emissions, significant caution is needed predicting China’s future.
-To keep global average temperatures below 2C above preindustrial levels would require Chinese emissions to drop as fast as they went up. This is unlikely, and whatever the causes of the changes in China, they are nowhere near consistent with the overarching ambitions of the Paris Agreement.

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 09, 2017, 02:48:38 am
Alan, I saw that as well, and I agree, we need to be cautious with the China outlooks, and not only China. If in the US coal gets a lot cheaper it will again displace gas and emissions will go up again.

But I don't understand the last point. The Paris accords looked at all countries predictions in CO2 emissions and emission reduction in several scenario's. None of these scenario's had China dropping as fast as they went up since the early 2000's and they still concluded that a max temperature rise of 2 degrees was possible. So I don't understand what has changed that this would no longer be the case. Maybe someone who understands the Paris accords better can chime in.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 09, 2017, 11:11:20 am
What it says is China bamboozled Paris.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 09, 2017, 12:11:38 pm
What it says is China bamboozled Paris.
Stop spreading FUD, this is a serious discussion.
If you don't have anything to contribute pls. don't do it here, there's enough other places on the internet where you can troll to your hearts' content.

Let me briefly explain my question again:
- China never promised/pledged to reduce their emissions as fast as it rose, to the contrary, they said it would still rise (allthough the actual data show a plateau)
- The Paris accords projected the collective emissions to allow the temperature rise to remain below 2 degrees
- This article now claims the Chinese need to drop as fast as they rose or otherwise the 2 degrees cannot be met

So my question is what new insights does the article Alan linked to use to come to that conclusion, or are they wrong? The article doesn't give any insight to how they got to this conclusion.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on November 09, 2017, 03:49:43 pm
And this is the discussion thread for which we have two extra moderators to keep it from capsizing?

 ;) ;) :-* :-* ;D ;D

Glub glub.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 09, 2017, 04:11:33 pm
And this is the discussion thread for which we have two extra moderators to keep it from capsizing?

 ;) ;) :-* :-* ;D ;D

Glub glub.

That's not helpful.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 10, 2017, 12:54:35 pm
Stop spreading FUD, this is a serious discussion.
If you don't have anything to contribute pls. don't do it here, there's enough other places on the internet where you can troll to your hearts' content.

Let me briefly explain my question again:
- China never promised/pledged to reduce their emissions as fast as it rose, to the contrary, they said it would still rise (allthough the actual data show a plateau)
- The Paris accords projected the collective emissions to allow the temperature rise to remain below 2 degrees
- This article now claims the Chinese need to drop as fast as they rose or otherwise the 2 degrees cannot be met

So my question is what new insights does the article Alan linked to use to come to that conclusion, or are they wrong? The article doesn't give any insight to how they got to this conclusion.
There is nothing wrong with this post and the questions that are posed are reasonable.  I find that Russ's comment above "Glub, glub" not to be helpful at all.  Again, let me remind everyone that we are looking for useful contributions to the discussion.  Think before you post as to whether your comment brings something new to the discussion or raises some useful questions to talk about.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 10, 2017, 01:46:17 pm
Excellent, Alan.  Precisely what you'd want a moderator to do.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 10, 2017, 02:16:00 pm
You can't get too picky as to what people say. You'll destroy the openness and variety of inputs. We're not some fifth grade science class and .have to stick to the subject or else. People come from different backgrounds and different countries and have different viewpoints and want to share them. As long as it's not too very insulting, it should be fair game. Otherwise you'll lose the spontaneity of the thread and you might as well just shut it down.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 10, 2017, 02:54:23 pm
Sometime earlier in this thread (and I can't find where right now) there was mention of the money spent on protecting New Orleans from hurricanes and floods. I believe that this occurred at the time some posts appeared about rising sea levels and the threat to coastal cities. I recently watched this documentary film about the flooding in New Orleans after Katrina (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVS6pZBQ9c4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVS6pZBQ9c4)). It's long at 1 hr 38 min, but moves well. I bring it up because there seems to be a belief that an inordinate amount of money was spent on the protections and they didn't do much good. What emerges instead from the doc is that the protection was badly designed and that there was a lot of CYA afterwards. It also shows yet another case where the people who knew something were not listened to and how they were ostracized as a result of speaking out.

It's not directly related to the topics in this thread but is an interesting side issue, since we will be making changes to our environment in the coming century and it might be a good idea to re-visit the mistakes of the past.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 10, 2017, 03:59:26 pm
How many times have the alarmists demanded things be done and nothing was done but then nothing happened. You won't read about those instances because there is no story there. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 10, 2017, 04:15:37 pm
How many times have the alarmists demanded things be done and nothing was done but then nothing happened. You won't read about those instances because there is no story there.

I'm not sure what you're referring to but the levees in New Orleans were badly designed on top of sandy soil. Nothing bad happened for years, and then one day something bad happened. All predictable.

Your remark reminds me a bit about the criticism of all the hoopla surrounding the millennium bug, by people who sounded disappointed that no planes crashed and that none of their bank accounts were zeroed out, hinting that it was all nonsense. The reason nothing went wrong is because thousands of programmers all over the world spent several years fixing the software defects.

Sea levels are rising. There are good ways to plan for this and bad ways. Climate changes all the time, and the more we understand about the hows and whys and the mechanisms involved, the better off we'll be. I don't understand why this is controversial. Advances in other fields are not treated this way.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 10, 2017, 04:20:20 pm
Sometime earlier in this thread (and I can't find where right now) there was mention of the money spent on protecting New Orleans from hurricanes and floods. I believe that this occurred at the time some posts appeared about rising sea levels and the threat to coastal cities. I recently watched this documentary film about the flooding in New Orleans after Katrina (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVS6pZBQ9c4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVS6pZBQ9c4)). It's long at 1 hr 38 min, but moves well. I bring it up because there seems to be a belief that an inordinate amount of money was spent on the protections and they didn't do much good. What emerges instead from the doc is that the protection was badly designed and that there was a lot of CYA afterwards. It also shows yet another case where the people who knew something were not listened to and how they were ostracized as a result of speaking out.

It's not directly related to the topics in this thread but is an interesting side issue, since we will be making changes to our environment in the coming century and it might be a good idea to re-visit the mistakes of the past.
This will be close to Alan Klein's heart.  The US taxpayers have spent over $12B to rebuild the flood control system in New Orleans following the devastation resulting from Hurricane Katrina. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 10, 2017, 08:06:24 pm
How many times have the alarmists demanded things be done and nothing was done but then nothing happened.

I give up.  How many?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on November 10, 2017, 10:14:35 pm
Sometimes is not so much the alarmists, as the overly idealistic and gullible enthusiasts (i.e. advocating hybrid and autonomous cars).

Quote
translated from the latest issue of Spiegel in Germany
Anyone who arrives as a minister or a top bureaucrat in Berlin these days with his company car should have an E on his license plate, E for Elektro. This is considered environmentally friendly, chic and modern. Above all, it will not be so embarrassing if environmental organizations, as they do almost every year, ask about the fleet consumption of the ministry fleet. That's why so-called plug-in hybrids, which have both a combustion engine and an electric motor, are particularly popular in Berlin. They are tall, comfortable and yet economical. At least on the paper. But apparently the top officials from the federal ministries, who are chauffeured in it, grow increasingly frustrated with their new company cars with hybrid drive. Their drivers complain, according to the SPIEGEL, that the cars cover only very short distances electrically, instead of meeting the ranges specified by the factory.

But then, when the internal combustion engine starts, the consumption is exorbitantly high, especially since the cars are heavier because of the electric motors. Because of smaller tanks, the chauffeurs would constantly refuel, it is said. Two State Secretaries from the Federal Ministry of Finance and Transportation now complained to the manufacturer BMW about their company car model 740e iPerformance.

The irritation in the federal government is also so great because the plug-in hybrids had been included in the electromobility promotion, which ensures the customers an environmental bonus of 3000 euros. The subsidy does not seem to be really justified in terms of true CO2 emissions. To enjoy electric privilege, the plug-in hybrids must emit less than 50 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer. In the calculation of these values in the approval tests, components that the electric motor drives at predominantly low speeds and those which the internal combustion engine takes over are included. The rating is chosen favorable for ideal electric operation, that is seldom achievable in normal driving behavior, thus the fueld consumption show lower than it should.

Full article in original form:
http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/berlin-ministerien-beschweren-sich-ueber-hybrid-dienstwagen-a-1177341.html


Another related article titled "Consumer Lies" points out that the new cars according to one study use on average 42% more fuel than stated by the manufacturer.

Quote
Many car owners despair that their car constantly consumed more than promised in the prospectus - even during an intentionally fuel-saving driving mode. The extent to which CO2 and fuel values are far removed from reality has once again been investigated by the environmental organization International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT). The result of their study published on Monday: On average, the consumption of new cars in Europe is 42 percent higher than indicated by the manufacturers.
http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/wltp-wie-die-verbrauchs-luege-beendet-werden-soll-a-1176194.html
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 10, 2017, 10:25:22 pm
...The reason nothing went wrong is because thousands of programmers all over the world spent several years fixing the software defects...

Proof?

I sincerely doubt it, however. If that were the case, then the message would have been: "Guys, nothing to worry about, we spent the last several years fixing it, so nothing is going to happen." Instead, there was a palpable sense of panic around the world right up to the midnight.

Which reminds me of the climate panic. When nothing will happen, the Roberts and Barts of the world would surely claim that's thanks to the Paris agreement  and their valiant efforts ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on November 10, 2017, 10:46:19 pm
Quote
Instead, there was a palpable sense of panic around the world right up to the midnight.

Very true. On that night, most DP managers just closed their eyes and prayed for best. In reality, the problem was not as big as originally painted.

Firstly, most date formats and date calculation routines had been located and fixed either manually or automatically in time. Also, many outdated systems were totally replaced with the new generation of programs, rather than trying to fix the old code. 
Secondly, some of the incorrect date calculations which slipped through, were rather minor and not affecting greatly the production or office activities.
And lastly, even the more serious problems which were not detected in time, were identified and corrected very quickly.

As I pointed out in my previous post "Worrisome State of Software", the current state of software quality and number of bugs in prematurely released programs by all kinds of companies could be now much worse and worrisome than in year 2000.
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=120996.0 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 10, 2017, 11:29:25 pm
Proof?

I sincerely doubt it, however. If that were the case, then the message would have been: "Guys, nothing to worry about, we spent the last several years fixing it, so nothing is going to happen." Instead, there was a palpable sense of panic around the world right up to the midnight.

Which reminds me of the climate panic. When nothing will happen, the Roberts and Barts of the world would surely claim that's thanks to the Paris agreement  and their valiant efforts ;)

This is off-topic, for which I apologize, but you sincerely doubt what, that there was no date bug to fix? What proof could I possibly provide you that you'd believe? Many of my former colleagues in software development did exactly this work and many companies hired consultants to vette and repair legacy computer systems. Do you actually believe that they all fell prey to fake alarmists?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 10, 2017, 11:37:40 pm
I'm not sure what you're referring to but the levees in New Orleans were badly designed on top of sandy soil. Nothing bad happened for years, and then one day something bad happened. All predictable.

Your remark reminds me a bit about the criticism of all the hoopla surrounding the millennium bug, by people who sounded disappointed that no planes crashed and that none of their bank accounts were zeroed out, hinting that it was all nonsense. The reason nothing went wrong is because thousands of programmers all over the world spent several years fixing the software defects.

Sea levels are rising. There are good ways to plan for this and bad ways. Climate changes all the time, and the more we understand about the hows and whys and the mechanisms involved, the better off we'll be. I don't understand why this is controversial. Advances in other fields are not treated this way.

My point had nothing to do with New Orleans.  I was referring to the times alarmists predicted catastrophe that never happened.  So I was commenting on your point about alarmists when they are wrong.  But all the times they are wrong raises questions about their other alarms that haven't yet happened. How do we know its not just another case of the incorrect predictions 3-4 decades ago for an new Ice Age or mass starvation in the world when the population increased to 7 billion.  Neither of these two things occurred despite the alarms.  So arguing that because predictions in New Orleans turned out right does not mean predictions are right in other instances.  Hindsight is always 20/20. We have to be discerning though beforehand regarding alarmists.

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 10, 2017, 11:54:33 pm
This will be close to Alan Klein's heart.  The US taxpayers have spent over $12B to rebuild the flood control system in New Orleans following the devastation resulting from Hurricane Katrina. 
No one should believe the government is going to protect him.  Ever.  That's madness.  The government assured everyone that the Army Corp of Engineers' decades long construction of levees, dikes, and pumps protected New Orleans before Katrina.  Tell that to the people there who drowned.   Yet people moved back into a flood plane. Does anyone really believe the city is protected now because they spent $12 billion dollars?   

And now we have Paris telling us that through a system where no one is legally mandated to meet requirements and that have no penalties, they're going to get all the nations of the world to agree with a hand shake to do things over the next 60 years to change the climate of the earth.  Maybe we should hire the environmental designers who worked on the VW diesel engines.  We couldn't save New Orleans but we're going to save the world.  What hubris. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 11, 2017, 03:24:41 am
Proof?

I sincerely doubt it, however. If that were the case, then the message would have been: "Guys, nothing to worry about, we spent the last several years fixing it, so nothing is going to happen." Instead, there was a palpable sense of panic around the world right up to the midnight.


At that time I was responsible for a large petrochemical complex. We had several process control systems with thousands of programs.

We spent about 2 years and tested every single one of them for the millenium bug. About 25% had the problem and we fixed it, about half of those bugs would have caused a serious upset or plant shutdown, the other half would have had limited concequences.  The other 75% was OK.

We made sure we had extra staff on site at the actual moment in case we had missed something, but fortunately everything went OK without any problem.

Contrary to your story there was no panic, just a well planned and executed approach with enough safeguards to make sure we could deal with anything unexpected. I'm sure there were many other companies and organisations in the same situation.

Maybe the media hyped some excitement (but there was no panic anywhere as far as I can tell) but that's all.

I'm sure that's not enough proof for you (since it doesn't corroborate your story) but for people who were in the business at that time it was more than enough proof that doing nothing would have caused a serious problem and fixing it in an organized fashion was the right thing to do.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 11, 2017, 03:27:16 am
You can't get too picky as to what people say.
Yes we can  ;)
If people spread FUD or lies they should be called out on it. Nothing wrong with that.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 11, 2017, 03:28:21 am
How many times have the alarmists demanded things be done and nothing was done but then nothing happened. You won't read about those instances because there is no story there.
Tell us, examples and references go a long way.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 11, 2017, 03:40:41 am
Which reminds me of the climate panic. When nothing will happen, the Roberts and Barts of the world would surely claim that's thanks to the Paris agreement  and their valiant efforts ;)
Already working on your defense now Slobodan?  It's still pretty early in the game so it might be better to wait a bit  :P
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Farmer on November 11, 2017, 05:46:46 am
Contrary to your story there was no panic, just a well planned and executed approach with enough safeguards to make sure we could deal with anything unexpected. I'm sure there were many other companies and organisations in the same situation.

At the time I was in banking - international trade finance, specifically.  Being part of a multi-national banking group, and being in Australia, we were the focus of the years of preparation that went into making sure it wouldn't be a problem for the bank.  Being a bank, there was also involvement in the programs and updates and changes and tests and so on that went with the entire financial industry here.  I wasn't an IT person then, but lots of our (and my) staff were involved in testing and checking and so on.  Some were even working right up to the stroke of midnight and a little beyond to make sure everything was fine and be available if it wasn't (to help the IT folks check and test and what not). 

The time and money involved was massive.

If nothing had been done, it would have been a huge problem.

Funnily enough (perhaps not quite the right term, but run with it), there were scare mongers.  Some of them even tried to get us to finance them with a "fix" they had invented.  It was all a scam designed to play into the FUD and make them rich.  They made up all sorts of scientific sounding terms and nonsense and peddled it to various financiers.  Most of them just turned them down because they just didn't understand what was being peddled at them enough to give them the confidence to get into it but they didn't actually understand what it was, but when it came across my desk I realised what it was because, even then, I was a computer geek (I just happened to be a banker by profession).  Anyway, a mate of mine had a mate who was in the fraud squad.  They didn't enjoy their new millennium so much.

The point is that all sorts of people will believe all sorts of things, but what you really need to do is rely on someone who actually knows what they're talking about instead of those who say what you want to hear.  I was the guy who knew what he was talking about in that case.  In terms of climate change, I'm listening to the folks who know what they're talking about, and who happen to be in the vast majority.  If they change their views because of new evidence, I'll keep listening and change, too, but it's foolhardy to not listen to them just because you don't like what they're saying or you think you know more than they do when you don't.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2017, 06:35:45 am
Tell us, examples and references go a long way.
I had given two examples.  The Ice Age prediction and global food problem causing starvation due to the population explosion.  Both catastrophes predicted decades ago that didn't happen.  I remember all the articles and news casts and fear concerning these issues.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2017, 06:58:59 am
We've focused a lot on China the worse Co2 producer at 30% not complying until 2030.  But India might be worse.  Although currently the third largest CO2 producer at 7%, they are suppose to triple it by 2030 way surpassing the US.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/india-triple-co2-emissions-new-climate-commitment/
 Both India and China still have huge commitments to coal fired plants while the US is phasing them out favoring natural gas. 

Does anyone really expect India to make their commitments? While not exactly CO2, pollution is pretty close.
http://www.dnaindia.com/delhi/report-us-flight-to-delhi-cancelled-due-to-poor-air-quality-2559286



Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2017, 07:15:26 am
The were some comments how over 200,000 new jobs exist now in the US regarding renewable energy.  It appears that LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) will create 452,000 jobs by 2040 and add $73 billion to its economy.  China and other Asian countries will be big buyers.  The point is that by burning "cleaner" fuels will reduce CO2 and other pollutants with or without Paris.  Even though America has "dropped out" of Paris, it will continue to be a leader in clean energy production and use. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2017, 07:17:11 am
Here's article covering last post.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/u-s-become-major-lng-exporter/
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 11, 2017, 09:29:55 am
Proof?

I sincerely doubt it, however. If that were the case, then the message would have been: "Guys, nothing to worry about, we spent the last several years fixing it, so nothing is going to happen." Instead, there was a palpable sense of panic around the world right up to the midnight.

Which reminds me of the climate panic. When nothing will happen, the Roberts and Barts of the world would surely claim that's thanks to the Paris agreement  and their valiant efforts ;)
I'll add to Pieter's comments as well.  I was working in at the pharmaceutical industry trade association and we established a special committee of IT professionals to address Y2K problems.  A significant number of process control computers were running WinOS as well as some specialized OS and there was real concern about what the impact of January 1, 2000 might be.  Nobody could afford to have systems go haywire particularly in QA/QC divisions which would have shut down the manufacturing lines.  There was a multi-million dollar investment across the pharma industry to work on this issue in advance of 1/1/2000 to make sure nothing bad was going to happen.  Nothing bad did happen and maybe the investment was a waste of money but at the time the concerns were real.

I think there is a direct application to climate change here.  There is a huge unknown in terms of CO2 impact and there are a variety of options on the table from do nothing to do a lot.  We know that there is a correlation between temperature increases and atmospheric CO2 increases.  The big question is what to do in light of existing data.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 11, 2017, 09:34:17 am
No one should believe the government is going to protect him.  Ever.  That's madness.  The government assured everyone that the Army Corp of Engineers' decades long construction of levees, dikes, and pumps protected New Orleans before Katrina.  Tell that to the people there who drowned.   Yet people moved back into a flood plane. Does anyone really believe the city is protected now because they spent $12 billion dollars?   
Anyone who believes they are 100% safe is a fool.  The whole flood control and flood insurance program is broken and as long as the government keeps stepping in to protect people after a flood disaster things won't change.  There has been talk about having the private insurance industry come back in and insure folks but I'm not sure that will happen.  I'm a shareholder in Berkshire Hathaway who have a large insurance and re-insurance operation.  The re-insurance operation lost a tone of money because of the hurricanes this summer. 

Quote
And now we have Paris telling us that through a system where no one is legally mandated to meet requirements and that have no penalties, they're going to get all the nations of the world to agree with a hand shake to do things over the next 60 years to change the climate of the earth.  Maybe we should hire the environmental designers who worked on the VW diesel engines.  We couldn't save New Orleans but we're going to save the world.  What hubris.
As I've said on several occasions, we have a database that implicates CO2 with global warming.  Some may argue that it's imperfect but the data is what it is.  the policy decision is what to do about it.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 11, 2017, 10:22:37 am
The point is that all sorts of people will believe all sorts of things, but what you really need to do is rely on someone who actually knows what they're talking about instead of those who say what you want to hear.  I was the guy who knew what he was talking about in that case.  In terms of climate change, I'm listening to the folks who know what they're talking about, and who happen to be in the vast majority.  If they change their views because of new evidence, I'll keep listening and change, too, but it's foolhardy to not listen to them just because you don't like what they're saying or you think you know more than they do when you don't.

I agree, that's the point.

Blog posts or even some newspaper/magazine/etc. reporters may not fully understand the scientific research they report about. So it always helps to add references to their source material, links to the actual papers they report on. It often reveals that they quoted things out of context, left out the nuances, or totally missed the point.

Scientific knowledge and understanding makes progress, so it's silly to blame outdated insights when better (or the same but more accurate) insights are available, it's even sillier to blame science when its warnings are proven correct.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 11, 2017, 10:24:49 am
Even though America has "dropped out" of Paris, it will continue to be a leader in clean energy production and use.

Burning natural gas is not clean. It's cleaner than coal, but that's setting a pretty low target to beat.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Christopher Sanderson on November 11, 2017, 10:25:59 am
Hot News from the Antarctic Underground (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/hot-news-from-the-antarctic-underground)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 11, 2017, 10:33:56 am
... Scientific knowledge and understanding makes progress...

And the progress so far confirms the skeptics: it is not warming as fast as predicted, the "catastrophic" consequences are steadily moving further and further into the future, with less and less likelihood of happening. Which, of course, our three musketeers (Bart, Pieter, Robert) will attribute to the heroic efforts of the mankind so far  ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 11, 2017, 11:21:02 am
Hot News from the Antarctic Underground (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/hot-news-from-the-antarctic-underground)
Very interesting and this could be one of the reasons that even slight increases in global temperatures might amplify breakage of ice shelves in the Antarctic.  Maybe photographers should plan their expeditions sooner rather than later.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 11, 2017, 11:21:54 am
And the progress so far confirms the skeptics: it is not warming as fast as predicted, the "catastrophic" consequences are steadily moving further and further into the future, with less and less likelihood of happening. Which, of course, our three musketeers (Bart, Pieter, Robert) will attribute to the heroic efforts of the mankind so far  ;)

I can only assume that this kind of comment, sarcastically and incorrectly attributing intentions to me and others, is an attempt to annoy people. I don't see the purpose. If you truly believe that this discussion is a complete waste of time, then surely it's not worth your time to attempt to ridicule it.

I also wanted to address an issue that Alan raised, the incorrect prediction of an ice age that didn't occur. This has come up a few times, both here and in the deleted thread. I have only a vague memory of it, but I remember the entire discussion as a kind of  "meme" that hit the airwaves, was debunked, and then largely forgotten. I don't think it serves any purpose to attribute much importance to it as an example of anything, since it was pretty obviously not important. To be sure, the chattering day-time TV "personalities" made have had some fun talking about it for 15 minutes, but using that as an example of "alarm" is beside the point. Using it as an example of scientists "gone bad" is equally without merit. I could list dozens of examples of things scientists got right, but you know them as well as me. Because some people made some bad predictions about a thing 40 years ago is no reason not to believe predictions people make now about something else. Not all predictions that people make now will all turn out to be completely correct either, and so what?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 11, 2017, 11:25:59 am
And the progress so far confirms the skeptics: it is not warming as fast as predicted, ...

Source?

It's hard to debate something without a link to a report about that something ...

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 11, 2017, 11:31:38 am
I think, Bart, that the link was posted either by me, Alan, or Ray in the now-deleted original thread.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 11, 2017, 12:07:10 pm
Burning natural gas is not clean. It's cleaner than coal, but that's setting a pretty low target to beat.

Cheers,
Bart
On top of that the use of shale gas is driven by the cost of gas vs. the cost of coal.
With Trump's support for the coal industry this might turn on a dime and easily switch back to coal and higher emissions.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 11, 2017, 12:10:28 pm
And the progress so far confirms the skeptics: it is not warming as fast as predicted, the "catastrophic" consequences are steadily moving further and further into the future, with less and less likelihood of happening. Which, of course, our three musketeers (Bart, Pieter, Robert) will attribute to the heroic efforts of the mankind so far  ;)
Wrong assumption, but I know you can't let any opportunity to ridicule your opponents unused, but we know who it is coming from  :P

Getting more accurate models is not caused by any heroic effort of musketeers or mankind in general, but simply by scientists who keep working on it.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 11, 2017, 12:11:39 pm
I think, Bart, that the link was posted either by me, Alan, or Ray in the now-deleted original thread.

So, no source that can be used as basis to discuss the assertion. I see.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 11, 2017, 12:20:50 pm
So, no source that can be used as basis to discuss the assertion. I see.

Blame the moderators, Bart, not me :)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2017, 12:22:42 pm
I can only assume that this kind of comment, sarcastically and incorrectly attributing intentions to me and others, is an attempt to annoy people. I don't see the purpose. If you truly believe that this discussion is a complete waste of time, then surely it's not worth your time to attempt to ridicule it.

I also wanted to address an issue that Alan raised, the incorrect prediction of an ice age that didn't occur. This has come up a few times, both here and in the deleted thread. I have only a vague memory of it, but I remember the entire discussion as a kind of  "meme" that hit the airwaves, was debunked, and then largely forgotten. I don't think it serves any purpose to attribute much importance to it as an example of anything, since it was pretty obviously not important. To be sure, the chattering day-time TV "personalities" made have had some fun talking about it for 15 minutes, but using that as an example of "alarm" is beside the point. Using it as an example of scientists "gone bad" is equally without merit. I could list dozens of examples of things scientists got right, but you know them as well as me. Because some people made some bad predictions about a thing 40 years ago is no reason not to believe predictions people make now about something else. Not all predictions that people make now will all turn out to be completely correct either, and so what?
Bob, You posted that people ignored the problems scientists were telling us that New Orleans were facing.  And then the flood happened.  Therefore we shouldn't ignore the scientists.  My point using the examples of the Ice Age and over-population predictions was that before things happen, it's hard to predict which prediction which come out true or false.   Scientists have made many mistakes.   We can't guarantee that because the scientists were right about New Orleans, they are right about all their other predictions.  You seem to agree with that point.  So we're really not at odds over it.  So I'm just saying that climate change predictions could be wrong or not as bad as predicted or even if happening might not only be the cause of man.

My own feeling is that it is happening and that at least some of the blame is man's.  But my main concern is two-fold.  One, how much the earth and man and the environment will benefit is not discussed for the most part.  Media, governments, industry and scientists are putting their thumbs of the scale of full and complete knowledge.  They're playing up the disaster side without giving equal billing to the advantage side.  After all, the earth has never been so bountiful in the last 12000 years since the last ice age reversed.  While there are danger areas such as higher seas, the advantages of a warmer climate have produced better conditions today and otherwise out weigh the negatives claimed.

Secondly, resources have to be used to make any changes even assuming we can change the climate.  No one seems to have come up with a comparison study of how much resources and how they should be spent vs. what advantages if those resources are spent in other areas (ie. cancer research, destruction of malarial mosquitoes, etc.) Anyone who has run a home or business knows that resources are finite. We all sit down and allocate those resources to different things.  Better health insurance vs. vacations. vs, types of food, vs eating in restaurants.  Etc.  We don't seem to be doing that in the climate change discussion, at least in an honest way.  To watch rich people get $10,000 government rebates so they can buy a $100,000 Tesla electric car cheaper, for example, does not seem like a fair thing to do especially when you're trying to convince ordinary people driving 7 year old cars needing new tires that they should give more of their money to climate change projects.   The whole discussion seems tainted.  Many people feel climate change supporters have their hands in their wallets. 

Until those issues are fairly addressed, you're going to have "deniers".
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 11, 2017, 12:23:22 pm
... Getting more accurate models is not caused by any heroic effort of musketeers or mankind in general, but simply by scientists who keep working on it.

Right, but the Global War(ming)mongering has been based on the old, less accurate models.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2017, 12:31:37 pm
So, no source that can be used as basis to discuss the assertion. I see.

Cheers,
Bart
Most sources we link too are not vetted. They're just news articles repeating assertion of others and written in ways that slant the news about the subject to our point of view.   We ignore the links that support the other side's viewpoints.  Let's at least be honest about that.  We're all defense lawyers advocating for our clients that they're not murders, maybe just not understood at the worse.  Of course the prosecutor sees only malice in the defendant as he insists on the death penalty or life in prison.  Neither side wants to give an inch.   :)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 11, 2017, 12:44:56 pm
Right, but the Global War(ming)mongering has been based on the old, less accurate models.
Haven't seen the earth is cooling yet, the increase is still continueing but apparently at a slightly lower pace.

But I agree with Ray (and some others parotting him), we should not close our eyes for the positive effects this might have, but I also believe we shouldn't close our eyes for trying to mitigate the negatives.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 11, 2017, 12:47:54 pm
Right, but the Global War(ming)mongering has been based on the old, less accurate models.

Less accurate, or (as asserted) wrong?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 11, 2017, 12:56:05 pm
Here's an example of what was mentioned in the media, and what was actually written by the scientists:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17mKIKGEF5E&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=37

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2017, 12:57:50 pm
Haven't seen the earth is cooling yet, the increase is still continueing but apparently at a slightly lower pace.

But I agree with Ray (and some others parotting him), we should not close our eyes for the positive effects this might have, but I also believe we shouldn't close our eyes for trying to mitigate the negatives.

I agree.  Full and complete disclosure for both the positive and negative results and costs to change them. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2017, 01:10:23 pm
Here's an example of what was mentioned in the media, and what was actually written by the scientists:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17mKIKGEF5E&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=37

Cheers,
Bart
So both sides are putting their thumbs on the scale to predict results that meet their biases.    Even the conclusion arrived at in your link is biased and was selected  to fit your bias.  That was my point earlier. 

One thing that caught my attention was the moderator said that if all countries signed up in Paris "aggressively" follow their promises, it will all turn out OK.  Does anyone really think that countries will "aggressively" follow their promises for the next 50 years?  Or will they adjust to fit their political and economic conditions when the going gets tough economically?   What's going to happen when thing go south and we have another recession?  Are the people who will then be clamoring for doctors and food rather than paying more for things do to Paris promises going to be willing to spend more on non-essential things that can't see currently? 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 11, 2017, 02:56:45 pm
One thing that caught my attention was the moderator said that if all countries signed up in Paris "aggressively" follow their promises, it will all turn out OK.  Does anyone really think that countries will "aggressively" follow their promises for the next 50 years?   
Obviously time will tell, but my expectation is that there are sufficient reporting requirements in the accord that if countries will not meet their targetted emissions sufficient shaming and political pressure will mount to get them back on track. But as always, I'm an optimist ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 11, 2017, 04:07:28 pm
Obviously time will tell, but my expectation is that there are sufficient reporting requirements in the accord that if countries will not meet their targetted emissions sufficient shaming and political pressure will mount to get them back on track. But as always, I'm an optimist ;)

We'll Trump is shameless so that won't work here.   In any case,  it requires Congress to pass regulations and funding for any Paris requirements. That's not going to happen especially if economic conditions get worse.  I can't imagine Xi doing anything to slow down China's growth. 

Over 50% of the CO2 produced in the world today comes from China India and America. With the first two not having to do anything by 2030, and America in effect pulled out of Paris totally, I don't see how you're going to reduce CO2.  Of course the marketplace will demand a certain amount of clean energy that will happen regardless of Paris. I think that's where the best hope is.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 11, 2017, 05:19:01 pm
Over 50% of the CO2 produced in the world today comes from China India and America. With the first two not having to do anything by 2030,
How many times have we debunked this silly argument you keep telling here that India and China have to do nothing by 2030. It's simply not true, And China is currently even overachieving vs. what they told in Paris. And don't come back that they are lying or cheating (the other silly argument you keep spreading here), the IEA and others will be able to do consistency checks based on other data and they'll be called out on that. Xi is not going to let that happen now that he is trying to fill the gap that Donald left for him.

You keep saying China bamboozled the world, but my only conclusion is that you are bamboozling the facts because you simply cannot admit China is doing something better then you thought.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 11, 2017, 06:47:26 pm
... China is currently even overachieving vs. what they told in Paris...

A weaseling way of saying that every year they are actually polluting more and more, just less than they told in Paris.

India and China as "overachievers": "New Delhi’s ‘gas chamber’ smog is so bad that United Airlines has stopped flying there"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/11/11/new-delhis-gas-chamber-smog-is-so-bad-that-united-airlines-has-stopped-flying-there/?utm_term=.d2510beec080
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 11, 2017, 10:08:25 pm
A weaseling way of saying that every year they are actually polluting more and more, just less than they told in Paris.

Weaseling?????

Sure, they also(!) have a long way to go, but are you suggesting that e.g. the USA (or the European Union for that matter) can sit on their fat behinds???? That seems to be, as far as the contributions to this thread go, the M.O. (blame others so we can hide behind inaction).

As a matter of fact, since all are contributing to the increasing Carbon budget overflow, we all need to actively reduce emissions! Sooner also means less costly!

One of the (multiple) objectives of the Paris Climate Agreement 2015 is to create a fund that allows developing countries (without the required financial means) to skip short term Coal based energy solutions and use renewable energy as much as possible. When the USA announced to withdraw from the agreement, the government of my country achieved a global "crowdfunding effort" to fill in the budgetary void that the USA created.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 12, 2017, 03:23:56 am
A weaseling way of saying that every year they are actually polluting more and more, just less than they told in Paris.

India and China as "overachievers": "New Delhi’s ‘gas chamber’ smog is so bad that United Airlines has stopped flying there"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/11/11/new-delhis-gas-chamber-smog-is-so-bad-that-united-airlines-has-stopped-flying-there/?utm_term=.d2510beec080
The only person who is weaseling here is you, the first thing you say is incorrect and the second off topic.
Yes, smog in India is bad, and they better do something about it, but that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread which is about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on November 12, 2017, 06:24:01 am
Yes, smog is bad, but unfortunately there is plenty of other pollution which gets ignored because of all the noise about CO2.

Caroline Power, photographer who specialises in underwater photography, has captured the damage being done to the planet's oceans with a shocking “sea of plastic and styrofoam” image taken near a tranquil Caribbean island. She said witnessing the plastic blanket of forks, bottles and rubbish between the islands Roatan and Cayos Cochinos, off the coast of Honduras, was “devastating”.

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2017/10/26/22499028_10155101847253861_6973542954797692233_o_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqqVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.jpg?imwidth=1400)
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/26/shocking-photo-shows-caribbean-sea-choked-death-human-waste/
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 12, 2017, 08:25:36 am
A weaseling way of saying that every year they are actually polluting more and more, just less than they told in Paris.

India and China as "overachievers": "New Delhi’s ‘gas chamber’ smog is so bad that United Airlines has stopped flying there"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/11/11/new-delhis-gas-chamber-smog-is-so-bad-that-united-airlines-has-stopped-flying-there/?utm_term=.d2510beec080
And of course the same thing happened in the steel making area of Pennsylvania back in the 1940s and London in the 1950s.  Some of this is a result of local weather patterns and the geography of the area.  We know why this happens and how to correct it (reduce coal burning power plants).  You only have to look at the major investments that China is making in renewable energy to note that they recognize there is a problem with continued burning of coal.  Do we know what the % of coal generated energy will be in 2, 5 or 10 years in that country?  Of course not but I think the fact that they are now the leader in solar panel manufacturing portends where the country is headed.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 12, 2017, 08:27:19 am
Yes, smog is bad, but unfortunately there is plenty of other pollution which gets ignored because of all the noise about CO2.

Caroline Power, photographer who specialises in underwater photography, has captured the damage being done to the planet's oceans with a shocking “sea of plastic and styrofoam” image taken near a tranquil Caribbean island. She said witnessing the plastic blanket of forks, bottles and rubbish between the islands Roatan and Cayos Cochinos, off the coast of Honduras, was “devastating”.

Yes, it's a huge problem which is also already finding its way into our food chain (as micro-plastic in animals and plants that we eat), and also a great example that inaction will only make matters (exponentially) worse. That is, unless one actively starts to do something (innovative) to tackle the issue. At a fraction of the cost of earlier proposed systems, a young Dutch inventor, Boyan Slat, started thinking and this is what he came up with:

THE OCEAN CLEANUP - The Beginning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IjaZ2g-21E

And this is the current situation after some croud-funding for the prototypes and research, and attracting venture capital:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du5d5PUrH0I

If only CO2 was so easy to get under control ...
Unfortunately, in addition to innovations, CO2 reduction probably also requires a lot of changes in human behavior, which is hard to achieve without the right financial stimulus (read: Carbon tax).

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 12, 2017, 08:36:57 am
And of course the same thing happened in the steel making area of Pennsylvania back in the 1940s and London in the 1950s.  Some of this is a result of local weather patterns and the geography of the area.  We know why this happens and how to correct it (reduce coal burning power plants).  You only have to look at the major investments that China is making in renewable energy to note that they recognize there is a problem with continued burning of coal.  Do we know what the % of coal generated energy will be in 2, 5 or 10 years in that country?  Of course not but I think the fact that they are now the leader in solar panel manufacturing portends where the country is headed.

Yes, and China is also investing in more hydropower and nuclear power plants, and they have accumulated know-how and built an industry that exports to the rest of the world. I'm also curious about the prospects of Geo-thermal power generation, once it gets a bit more affordable, or when the traditional sources get more expensive.

Inaction is no solution, getting off one's but and doing something is.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 12, 2017, 08:58:11 am
... CO2 reduction probably also requires a lot of changes in human behavior, which is hard to achieve without the right financial stimulus (read: Carbon tax).

You lost me at "tax."
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 12, 2017, 09:04:33 am
... they are now the leader in solar panel manufacturing...

Ah, yes.. solar panels. I remember it. Back in the 70s and 80s, in my "backward" home country, we already had them on (some of) our roofs. So, 40 years later, just when they are approaching early retirement, we still see them as young athletes, getting ready to break a new world record at the next Olympic Games?

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 12, 2017, 09:10:10 am
You lost me at "tax."

Sure, but doing nothing will be more expensive ...

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 12, 2017, 09:18:46 am
Hot News from the Antarctic Underground (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/hot-news-from-the-antarctic-underground)

In the article, it says:

Quote
At the end of the last ice age around 11,000 years ago, the ice sheet went through a period of rapid, sustained ice loss when changes in global weather patterns and rising sea levels pushed warm water closer to the ice sheet -- just as is happening today

What caused the global warming then?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 12, 2017, 10:02:42 am
Weaseling?????

Sure, they also(!) have a long way to go, but are you suggesting that e.g. the USA (or the European Union for that matter) can sit on their fat behinds???? That seems to be, as far as the contributions to this thread go, the M.O. (blame others so we can hide behind inaction).

As a matter of fact, since all are contributing to the increasing Carbon budget overflow, we all need to actively reduce emissions! Sooner also means less costly!

One of the (multiple) objectives of the Paris Climate Agreement 2015 is to create a fund that allows developing countries (without the required financial means) to skip short term Coal based energy solutions and use renewable energy as much as possible. When the USA announced to withdraw from the agreement, the government of my country achieved a global "crowdfunding effort" to fill in the budgetary void that the USA created.

Cheers,
Bart

China is building 700 of the 1500 coal fired plants planned over the next ten years in 62 nations around the world many which don't burn coal at all today.  Most of the 700 by size of coal used will be in China.  The 1500 overall will add 43% to coal fired plants currently on line in the world and make Paris reduction goals in CO2 impossible.  So much for allowing China to do nothing until 2030. 
(article re-posted from the NYT) https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/03/forget-paris-1600-new-coal-power-plants-built-around-the-world/
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 12, 2017, 10:13:03 am
What caused the global warming then?

Well, obviously not people driving in their Humvees.

There are two main causes that have been identified that end Ice-ages:

1. Volcanic eruptions and weathering that adds CO2 into the atmosphere.
see https://youtu.be/OJ6Z04VJDco?t=339 with a clear explanation of how that worked out on "snowball earth"

2. Changes in solar radiation, mostly due to changes in the earth's orbital patterns:
Everything you need to know about Earth's orbit and climate change
https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/everything-you-need-to-know-about-earths-orbit-and-climate-cha

QUOTE: Given all of this, we might imagine a "perfect orbital storm" for global warming: when Earth's orbit is at its highest eccentricity, Earth's axial obliquity is at its highest degree, and the Northern Hemisphere is in perihelion at summer solstice.

But that's not what we see today. Instead, Earth's Northern Hemisphere currently experiences its summer in aphelion, the planet's obliquity is currently in the decreasing phase of its cycle, and Earth's orbit is fairly near its lowest phase of eccentricity. In other words, the current position of the Earth's orbit should result in cooler temperatures, but instead the average temperature of the planet is on the rise.


So, when we should be experiencing a cooling from reduced solar radiation, and we are at the same time pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere which predictably traps heat, the conclusion becomes pretty obvious. The current global temperature rise is forced by CO2 emissions, just like it was in the past, but from different CO2 sources.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 12, 2017, 10:19:04 am
How many times have we debunked this silly argument you keep telling here that India and China have to do nothing by 2030. It's simply not true, And China is currently even overachieving vs. what they told in Paris. And don't come back that they are lying or cheating (the other silly argument you keep spreading here), the IEA and others will be able to do consistency checks based on other data and they'll be called out on that. Xi is not going to let that happen now that he is trying to fill the gap that Donald left for him.

You keep saying China bamboozled the world, but my only conclusion is that you are bamboozling the facts because you simply cannot admit China is doing something better then you thought.

See my last post as to what China's is doing.  At least, they're reducing CO2 currently.(down -.07%)  So is the US. (down -2.6%)  Meanwhile the EU is increasing the amount of CO2 by +1.4%.  It seems it's Europe that needs to get to work instead of criticizing America. Regarding India, it increased +5.2%.  The smog discussed in other's posts is just representative of how India will never get control of their pollution or CO2 production.  Does anyone think otherwise? 
(http://www.climatechangenews.com/files/2017/03/238eb46742db30303bcd33fe9ce65f3d-1.png)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 12, 2017, 10:40:55 am
Global CO2 emission update for 2016.  The US produced the biggest decline (-3%).   America's CO2 emission was at their lowest since 1992 during a period the economy grew by 80%.  Who needs Paris? Europe was stable.  You guys got to get to work.    Maybe you ought to buy our natural gas.  We're building a lot of LNG (liquid natural gas) plants soon so we can ship overseas. 

"Global emissions from the energy sector stood at 32.1 gigatonnes last year, the same as the previous two years, while the global economy grew 3.1%, according to estimates from the IEA. Carbon dioxide emissions declined in the United States and China, the world’s two-largest energy users and emitters, and were stable in Europe, offsetting increases in most of the rest of the world.

The biggest drop came from the United States, where carbon dioxide emissions fell 3%, or 160 million tonnes, while the economy grew by 1.6%. The decline was driven by a surge in shale gas supplies and more attractive renewable power that displaced coal. Emissions in the United States last year were at their lowest level since 1992, a period during which the economy grew by 80%."


https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/march/iea-finds-co2-emissions-flat-for-third-straight-year-even-as-global-economy-grew.html
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 12, 2017, 12:58:34 pm
See my last post as to what China's is doing.  At least, they're reducing CO2 currently.(down -.07%)  So is the US. (down -2.6%)  Meanwhile the EU is increasing the amount of CO2 by +1.4%.  It seems it's Europe that needs to get to work instead of criticizing America. Regarding India, it increased +5.2%.  The smog discussed in other's posts is just representative of how India will never get control of their pollution or CO2 production.  Does anyone think otherwise? 
(http://www.climatechangenews.com/files/2017/03/238eb46742db30303bcd33fe9ce65f3d-1.png)
See my post 177 for my response to the same points you tried to make earlier. Repeating yourself doesn't make you look any better. Looking at 1 year changes is pointless in these matters, looking at long term trends is what makes sense. And there I see the US going down (good), but both in total as well as per capita much above Europe (not so good). Yes Europe needs to get going and get back on the downward trend, but overall we're doing much better then the US. And just for the record (since you're accusing me of that) I have not critisized America anywhere in this thread, so don't cry before you're being beaten, whining doesn't help anybody ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 12, 2017, 01:01:19 pm
Global CO2 emission update for 2016.  The US produced the biggest decline (-3%).   America's CO2 emission was at their lowest since 1992 during a period the economy grew by 80%.  Who needs Paris? Europe was stable.  You guys got to get to work.    Maybe you ought to buy our natural gas.  We're building a lot of LNG (liquid natural gas) plants soon so we can ship overseas. 

"Global emissions from the energy sector stood at 32.1 gigatonnes last year, the same as the previous two years, while the global economy grew 3.1%, according to estimates from the IEA. Carbon dioxide emissions declined in the United States and China, the world’s two-largest energy users and emitters, and were stable in Europe, offsetting increases in most of the rest of the world.

The biggest drop came from the United States, where carbon dioxide emissions fell 3%, or 160 million tonnes, while the economy grew by 1.6%. The decline was driven by a surge in shale gas supplies and more attractive renewable power that displaced coal. Emissions in the United States last year were at their lowest level since 1992, a period during which the economy grew by 80%."


https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/march/iea-finds-co2-emissions-flat-for-third-straight-year-even-as-global-economy-grew.html

That's good, I just hope that Donald's quest to support the coal industry doesn't make the US switch back to coal fired powerplants, because then your CO2 emissions will go back up as fast as they went down now. We won't see this effect until 2018+, so let's be cautious before declaring victory.

Btw, I already linked to that article in my post # 178 (4 pages back and 4 days ago)  ;D
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 12, 2017, 03:57:01 pm
See my post 177 for my response to the same points you tried to make earlier. Repeating yourself doesn't make you look any better. Looking at 1 year changes is pointless in these matters, looking at long term trends is what makes sense. And there I see the US going down (good), but both in total as well as per capita much above Europe (not so good). Yes Europe needs to get going and get back on the downward trend, but overall we're doing much better then the US. And just for the record (since you're accusing me of that) I have not critisized America anywhere in this thread, so don't cry before you're being beaten, whining doesn't help anybody ;)
Americans drive more because of suburbia and have bigger homes to heat and cool.  We also like bigger cars that use more gas which is a lot cheaper than Europe.    We're looking into buying a 2018 SUV that burns more gas than our current sedan.  Much bigger than we need in space, there's only two of us.  But my wife decided that she now wants to sit up higher that you get in an SUV.  Go figure.  You want me to argue with her? :)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 12, 2017, 04:36:23 pm
Americans drive more because of suburbia and have bigger homes to heat and cool.  We also like bigger cars that use more gas which is a lot cheaper than Europe.    We're looking into buying a 2018 SUV that burns more gas than our current sedan.  Much bigger than we need in space, there's only two of us.  But my wife decided that she now wants to sit up higher that you get in an SUV.  Go figure.  You want me to argue with her? :)
Take a look at the Honda HR-V which is what I drive.  I had a couple of CR-V which is their traditional SUV model.  The HR-V is smaller byt one sits up fairly high.  It also gets phenomenal gas mileage and if you want you can get all wheel drive (which cuts down on gas mileage by about 4%).  I maybe get gas every third week for the suburban driving that I do.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on November 12, 2017, 06:38:07 pm
Americans drive more because of suburbia and have bigger homes to heat and cool.  We also like bigger cars that use more gas which is a lot cheaper than Europe.    We're looking into buying a 2018 SUV that burns more gas than our current sedan.  Much bigger than we need in space, there's only two of us.  But my wife decided that she now wants to sit up higher that you get in an SUV.  Go figure.  You want me to argue with her? :)

That's a serious conundrum. To save the marriage or environment? Tell her that's your sedan is a very reasonable compromise between the big SUV and the Maserati you set your eyes on.  In the meantime, the global winds carry most of the air pollution from the eastern USA across the ocean to Europe. No wonder that the European readers get annoyed.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 12, 2017, 10:03:02 pm
I just wanted to comment on something Alan (Klein) said (and maybe others) about pointing out the beneficial effects of global warming. I presume that this is meant as a way to present "both" sides of an argument, in much the same way that reporters are supposed to provide a "balanced" view. I have a fundamental problem with that concept. When we teach our children that stealing is bad, should we be also be providing reasons why it might be good too? We need a more sophisticated understanding of "balance", I think.

The point of view that human activity is perturbing the climate in a way that may have runaway consequences is what is being studied (aside from the more basic need to understand the evolution of the earth's climate anyway, which is something we should probably do even if humans were having no measurable impact). Even if more rapid than normal (other than natural cycles) heating means that some areas now under snow might end up being good farmland, that may be temporary, since if we keep heating the place even more, then pretty soon (measured in centuries) those new farms may themselves eventually become dustbowls. Then what?

But there are people who are doing exactly what Alan is suggesting. The Netherlands is making long-term plans to deal with rising sea levels. So is the US military. Others are probably thinking about the infrastructure changes that will be needed if the current southern US becomes a dust bowl and North Dakota becomes warm enough to grow papayas. I'm sure someone somewhere is thinking about these things. But that has nothing to do with determining what effect humans are having on the climate, which is the topic under discussion. In fact, the people making plans in North Dakota need to know about climate change too. There aren't two sides to the "argument". In that sense, they're both on the same side.

Also, I did not bring up the issue of New Orleans and Katrina as an example of what happens when we don't listen to the correct expert advice. I only brought it up in the context of planning for rising sea levels, something which is going to affect a lot of coastal cities, it appears.

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 13, 2017, 01:16:04 am
Rather insulting straw man argument,  Robert, calling my point stealing.   Why not address what I said.  That we should have an analysis of where limited government  funds should be spent.   How much for reducing CO2 vs. cancer research and prevention of malaria or other important activities?     Many expenditures have value.   We needd to have discussions how much to allocate and what percentages to each as resources are finite.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on November 13, 2017, 05:22:49 am
For the last three years the global CO2 emissions stayed relatively stable, but in 2017 they shot up again. The main culprits are China and India.

Quote
For a while it looked as if the world might be turning the corner.  But after a three-year stall in their growth, human-caused carbon-dioxide emissions have not, in fact, peaked, an international team of scientists announced this morning. 
In 2017, global emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels and industry will once again rise by 2 percent, the scientists project, to a record 37 billion metric tons. Those emissions had increased by only a quarter of a percent from 2014 to 2016. Changes in land use, such as deforestation, will add around 4 billion metric tons of CO2 in 2017, bringing the global emissions total to an estimated 41 billion metric tons.

"What's driving, really, the global trend is this pick-up in China," says Corinne Le Quéré of the University of East Anglia, and the lead author of one of several new emissions studies released today. An unexpected rise in coal-burning in China—due in part to a summer drought that diminished the country’s rivers and its generation of hydropower—was the biggest contributor to the global surge in emissions.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/11/climate-change-carbon-emissions-rising-environment/

 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 13, 2017, 07:22:31 am
... When we teach our children that stealing is bad, should we be also be providing reasons why it might be good too?...

So, Monsieur d'Artagnan, in addition to the governor of CA wanting us brainwashed, you want us treated as children too?  ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 13, 2017, 08:25:19 am
For the last three years the global CO2 emissions stayed relatively stable, but in 2017 they shot up again. The main culprits are China and India.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/11/climate-change-carbon-emissions-rising-environment/

 

India and China poor who don't use much carbon will continue to increase the CO2 emitted in the world as they pull out of poverty.  That's why the 2030 date Paris gave them to do nothing.  So even if America and Europe continue to reduce, it will be like shoveling sh!t against the tide.  CO2 will continue to go up.  The statistics in those countries are daunting.

India has 360 million poor based on a income of over 50 cents a day or so.  Of course, if 50 cents isn't enough to live on, the poor may total 750 million.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-17455646

China is growing faster than India. Looking at middle class as a metric, between 2009 and 2030, the country will add 850 million to its middle class.  All those people wanting cars or scooters and refrigerators and air conditioners that use energy.  So what will be their CO2 production in 2030 with 850 million more people having the money to buy and use more stuff that creates CO2?  This Australian article thinks it's wonderful for Australians as they'll sell a lot more stuff to China making Australia richer.  Will Australia be upset that China isn't abiding by Paris?  Will Mercedes in Germany be upset? Or will everyone in the world be delighted how China's good fortune is making them richer as well?  Paris will be forgotten.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-killer-fact-about-the-chinese-middle-class-20170726-gxj1z7.html
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on November 13, 2017, 08:53:39 am
Yes, smog in India is bad, and they better do something about it, but that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread which is about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

Actually, I personally think it has a lot to do with greenhouse gas emissions and the 'scare' about climate change.

Let's consider what we know (that is what sensible people know) with a high degree of certainty, that merits serious action and planning be taken in order to prevent further harm to a significant percentage of the population in many countries.

Emissions from the burning of fossils fuels, such as coal, oil and gas, and also forest burn-off, or Slash and Burn practices for agriculture purposes in many undeveloped countries, such as Indonesia, Northern Thailand, Myanmar, South America and so on, can cause serious health problems.

There's no doubt about that. This can be verified medically and scientifically, without reliance on computer models. The health consequences of these emissions of various Sulphates and Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, traces of heavy metals such as Mercury and Lead, and in particular, small particles of carbon, have been known for many years.

As countries in the West developed industrially, the populations in the cities and urban areas frequently became exposed to soot, smog and haze, but as a result of an awareness of the health consequences, such countries gradually reduced the problem through government regulation of emission controls on power stations and vehicles.

What I find revealing is that, despite this medical knowledge and certainty about the health consequences of the burning of fossil fuels without adequate emission controls, that has been known in developed countries for many decades, undeveloped countries such as China and India seem to have ignored, or at least downplayed such knowledge in the interests of economic development.

So, I'll repeat that notorious election slogan from Bill Clinton, which I find very relevant. "It's the economy, stupid."  ;)

And I admit I can sympathize with this attitude. Is it better for a population to languish in poverty, and sometimes starvation, and suffer the effects of untreated diseases due to a lack of hospitals and a general lack of economic development, but have a relatively clean atmosphere with little pollution from fossil fuels?

Or is it better to give priority to economic development and deal later with the air pollution problem, as we did in the West (and are still doing of course), and as China is currently doing?

As I see it, there are two basic approaches to dealing with air pollution. One is to develop better ways of burning fossil fuels that have better emission controls. The other is to develop alternative and renewable sources of energy which don't have any direct emissions.

Smart countries like China and Japan are combining both approaches. The following article addresses the issue quite comprehensively.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2017/05/15/432141/everything-think-know-coal-china-wrong/

"Beijing’s solution is to move full speed ahead with renewables while simultaneously investing in what may become the most efficient, least polluting coal fleet the world has ever seen."[/b]

I've attached a graph from the article showing the massive decline in the number of polluting 'Subcritical' coal-fired power plants during the past couple of decades in China, and the significant increase in the much-less-polluting Supercritical and Ultra-supercritical coal-fired plants.

For the benefit of those who don't have the time to read the article, the following quote describes the terms, Subcritical, Supercritical and Ultra-supercritical.

"Subcritical: In these conventional power plants, coal is ignited to boil water, the water creates steam, and the steam rotates a turbine to generate electricity.3 The term “subcritical” indicates that internal steam pressure and temperature do not exceed the critical point of water—705 degrees Fahrenheit and 3,208 pounds per square inch.

Supercritical: These plants use high-tech materials to achieve internal steam temperatures in the 1,000–1,050 degrees Fahrenheit range and internal pressure levels that are higher than the critical point of water, thus spinning the turbines much faster and generating more electricity with less coal.

Ultra-supercritical: These plants use additional technology innovations to bring temperatures to more than 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit and pressure levels to more than 5,000 pounds per square inch, thus further improving efficiency."


However, these modern, low-polluting, Ultra-Supercritical power plants still emit CO2, although at a reduced level. If CO2 were a pollutant, this would be a problem. However, I think the Chinese are smart enough to understand that it's not CO2 which is causing smog in their cities and which affects their health.
The Chinese also have the historical records which show that their civilization flourished during warm periods in the past. Could it be a mere coincidence that they are now beginning to flourish again during the current warm period?  ;)

The scare about 'catastrophic climate change' due to CO2 emissions, is a psychological and political ploy which is used to encourage and motivate societies to pay more attention to the harmful effects of the 'real' pollution from fossil fuels.

We don't want a continuous repetition of undeveloped societies, like China and India, struggling to develop their economies by burning fossil fuels as cheaply as possible, without regard to the polluting emissions. There has to be a better way.

China is showing that better way. Countries such as Australia that accept the dubious claim that CO2 is a pollutant and refuse to build new, Ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plants, are at risk of falling behind economically. Rising energy prices, static wage growth, and unaffordable housing for young people, are current problems in Australia that are due, at least in part, to the uneconomic shift towards more expensive and less reliable renewable sources of energy. It's very sad to see such incompetence in my own country.



Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 13, 2017, 12:08:40 pm
You want me to argue with her? :)
Yes of course, the argueing might be tough, but making up afterwards can be rewarding ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 13, 2017, 12:11:32 pm
That's why the 2030 date Paris gave them to do nothing. 
Not true  :P
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 13, 2017, 12:30:29 pm
Rather insulting straw man argument,  Robert, calling my point stealing.   Why not address what I said.  That we should have an analysis of where limited government  funds should be spent.   How much for reducing CO2 vs. cancer research and prevention of malaria or other important activities?     Many expenditures have value.   We needd to have discussions how much to allocate and what percentages to each as resources are finite.

You lost me. I was not insulting you by calling your point stealing. I used cute hyperbole to express my problem with the notion of "balance" in the context. My comment was not even directed at you, other than to mention that you were the one who most recently mentioned the subject. You're sensitive.

And I did not address those other issues because they were not what I was addressing.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: KLaban on November 13, 2017, 01:13:12 pm
https://mahb.stanford.edu/recentnews/world-scientists-warning-humanity-second-notice/ (https://mahb.stanford.edu/recentnews/world-scientists-warning-humanity-second-notice/)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 13, 2017, 01:23:44 pm
For the last three years the global CO2 emissions stayed relatively stable, but in 2017 they shot up again. The main culprits are China and India.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/11/climate-change-carbon-emissions-rising-environment/
Interesting, but 2017 isn't over yet so I'd rather wait for the more consistent numbers published by the IEA after the fact (and after sufficient consistency checks) before drawing firm conclusions.

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 13, 2017, 02:26:11 pm
You lost me. I was not insulting you by calling your point stealing. I used cute hyperbole to express my problem with the notion of "balance" in the context. My comment was not even directed at you, other than to mention that you were the one who most recently mentioned the subject. You're sensitive.

And I did not address those other issues because they were not what I was addressing.
Ok.  No problem. Posts are often misunderstood.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on November 13, 2017, 02:34:01 pm
Interesting, but 2017 isn't over yet so I'd rather wait for the more consistent numbers published by the IEA after the fact (and after sufficient consistency checks) before drawing firm conclusions.

If anything, the official numbers will be higher by year end. And the real numbers will be higher yet.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 13, 2017, 02:41:05 pm
If anything, the official numbers will be higher by year end. And the real numbers will be higher yet.
Source?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on November 13, 2017, 04:08:51 pm
Just my gut feeling and historical records. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 13, 2017, 05:38:06 pm
Interesting, but 2017 isn't over yet so I'd rather wait for the more consistent numbers published by the IEA after the fact (and after sufficient consistency checks) before drawing firm conclusions.


Of course the numbers are growing. They're not going to reverse in the final six weeks of the year. China asked for nothing to happen until 2030. Why would China ask for that date if they expected the CO2 numbers to go down?  They bamboozled Paris.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 13, 2017, 06:07:39 pm
Of course the numbers are growing. They're not going to reverse in the final six weeks of the year. China asked for nothing to happen until 2030. Why would China ask for that date if they expected the CO2 numbers to go down?  They bamboozled Paris.
I think discussions of whether they bamboozled Paris or what India has or has not done are counter productive at this point.  Both countries have developing economies and huge population bases so it's expected as industrialization moves forward energy consumption will increase.  The issue for both countries is how to manage this in the best possible manner given not only the global environment but their own local environments as relates to air pollution. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 14, 2017, 02:50:30 am
They bamboozled Paris.
Not true  :P

Sorry Alan G, remove the post if you think that's better, but then pls. also remove the kind of trolling statements that are far besides the truth and are also not helpful and even in the most positive light based on a total lack of understanding (or willingness to understand).
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on November 14, 2017, 05:22:39 am
I think discussions of whether they bamboozled Paris or what India has or has not done are counter productive at this point.  Both countries have developing economies and huge population bases so it's expected as industrialization moves forward energy consumption will increase.  The issue for both countries is how to manage this in the best possible manner given not only the global environment but their own local environments as relates to air pollution.

I agree, Alan. The thread is beginning to degenerate into tittle tattle. Let's concentrate on the serious issues that affect us all.

Hope the issue is not too profound for mere photographers.  ;D
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 14, 2017, 07:59:08 am
Increased chances of major hurricanes because of warmer sea temperatures:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/11/13/climate-change-upped-the-odds-of-harveys-extreme-rains-study-finds/?utm_term=.f1bd09e2cf44

US future energy prospects:  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/business/energy-environment/us-shale-renewables.html?_r=0
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 14, 2017, 10:23:50 am
Politics and economics have everything to do with climate change proposals and Paris.  Trump pulled out because his supporters wanted him too.  China and India fought for their 2030 extension also for political and economic reasons.  You can't discuss this issue intelligently without including politics, policy and economics.    Trying to "shut me up" and calling me a troll  is just another way of silencing the opposition.  I'm sorry if the word "bamboozle" upsets you.  I didn't realize you were so sensitive.   How about if I said that China, the biggest CO2 polluter,  pulled the wool over everyone's eyes in Paris and got away with murder?  This is exactly why deniers and skeptics are who we are.  They sense that people are putting their thumbs on the scale to force policy decisions.  Trying to silence my opinion is a political act. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on November 14, 2017, 10:24:46 am
Just read an article from a Portuguese climate scientist and researcher, that basically predicts for the XXI century in Portugal:

1. Rise of temperature of about 6C in the interior, and of about 4C in the coastal regions.

2. No more Spring.

3. Reduction of rainfall by 30% to 70% (more severe in the South).

4. More numerous, and longer lasting, heat waves. Today, heat waves last about 5 days. In the future, they will be more numerous, and last about 22 days.

This has a profound impact in how people think and manage resources and livelihood. Currently, Portugal has just came out of the driest October ever on record (only 30% of the rainfall amount), plus being 3C above average temperature for the month. 70% of the country is in severe drought, with one large city being supplied with water by auto tanks.

The future is dire, regardless of political sides or discussions:(
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 14, 2017, 10:27:43 am
OK.  I got it off my chest. 

Now here's a question I have because I just learned that my electric rate in New Jersey for the next two years has been re-negotiated by my town.  It will go down about 10%.  We can select from various electric suppliers.  The law allows this to keep up competition and prices lower.  Do others have this capability or are you stuck with one supplier?  (Part of the cost of about 30% is always by one supplier since it's their physical wires that carry the load.  You can select though who furnishes the electricity itself.  That's the part that's competitive.)

So, for the next two years starting in 2018, it is going down  $.013 per KWH to $0.126 from $0.139 per KWH (0.12 Euros. AUS$0.18,CAN$0.18).  That includes all sales taxes.  We don't have VAT taxes.

Here's my electricity last 12 months.    9509kwh or 792kwh per month.  9509kwh divided by 2100 square foot home size= 4.5kwh per square foot (.418kw per square meter) per year.  Note that this doesn't include heating as I heat with natural gas.  I'll provide those numbers at another time.  So my electricity is used for lights, TV's etc.  and 4 tons of air conditioning and the HVAC blower. 

Curious what others are paying and where you're located by comparison.  Are rates changing in your locale?

I figure that the cost of energy here is going down a lot due to shale and natural gas so electric production is just cheaper than it was.  That's a guess; I haven't researched it.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 14, 2017, 10:32:53 am
Trying to silence my opinion is a political act.
Nobody is trying to silence your opinion, people who disagree with you (like me) just point out where it is plain wrong. Repeating the same wrong points doesn't make them more true, to the contrary I would say.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 14, 2017, 10:39:26 am
Nobody is trying to silence your opinion, people who disagree with you (like me) just point out where it is plain wrong. Repeating the same wrong points doesn't make them more true, to the contrary I would say.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me.  It when they call my statements "trolling" or "not part of the discussion" that they are trying to silence people who disagree with their point on policy and important issues regarding climate change.  Also, everyone here repeats themselves, endlessly.  We're up to 15 pages.  Who remembers how many in the "poofed" thread?  :)   
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 14, 2017, 10:57:24 am
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me.  It when they call my statements "trolling" or "not part of the discussion" that they are trying to silence people who disagree with their point on policy and important issues regarding climate change.  Also, everyone here repeats themselves, endlessly.  We're up to 15 pages.  Who remembers how many in the "poofed" thread?  :)   
Well Allan, saying it once is fine, saying the same things many times over and continue to repeat them without any additional insights is trolling.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on November 14, 2017, 11:50:59 am
Benjamin Von Wong, a viral photographer turned environmentalist, has released a new project to raise awareness about “toxic laundry” that is full of plastic.
An estimated 94% of American tap water contains invisible plastic fibers, and Von Wong felt compelled to do something about it. “By 2025, the world’s synthetic fiber production will double – so too will the amount of microfibers in our water supply,” says Von Wong.

https://petapixel.com/2017/11/14/photo-shoot-raises-awareness-toxic-laundry-water/
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 14, 2017, 01:15:28 pm
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me.  It when they call my statements "trolling" or "not part of the discussion" that they are trying to silence people who disagree with their point on policy and important issues regarding climate change.  Also, everyone here repeats themselves, endlessly.  We're up to 15 pages.  Who remembers how many in the "poofed" thread?  :)   
Points have been made so let's move on from this particular discussion.  We all know that India and China were granted relief and there is not much more to discuss at this point.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 14, 2017, 01:18:34 pm
OK.  I got it off my chest. 

Now here's a question I have because I just learned that my electric rate in New Jersey for the next two years has been re-negotiated by my town.  It will go down about 10%.  We can select from various electric suppliers.  The law allows this to keep up competition and prices lower.  Do others have this capability or are you stuck with one supplier?  (Part of the cost of about 30% is always by one supplier since it's their physical wires that carry the load.  You can select though who furnishes the electricity itself.  That's the part that's competitive.)

So, for the next two years starting in 2018, it is going down  $.013 per KWH to $0.126 from $0.139 per KWH (0.12 Euros. AUS$0.18,CAN$0.18).  That includes all sales taxes.  We don't have VAT taxes.

Here's my electricity last 12 months.    9509kwh or 792kwh per month.  9509kwh divided by 2100 square foot home size= 4.5kwh per square foot (.418kw per square meter) per year.  Note that this doesn't include heating as I heat with natural gas.  I'll provide those numbers at another time.  So my electricity is used for lights, TV's etc.  and 4 tons of air conditioning and the HVAC blower. 

Curious what others are paying and where you're located by comparison.  Are rates changing in your locale?

I figure that the cost of energy here is going down a lot due to shale and natural gas so electric production is just cheaper than it was.  That's a guess; I haven't researched it.
We have been able to buy both gas and electricity from multiple providers from a number of years where I live in Maryland.  Unfortunately, our local electric company was bought out by a big energy conglomerate and now wants a rate increase as they have some nuclear plants that are costing them a lot of money to run.  The old company had no nuclear plants.  My gas bill went down last winter (a combination of warmer weather and a more efficient new furnace).
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 14, 2017, 09:55:12 pm
We have been able to buy both gas and electricity from multiple providers from a number of years where I live in Maryland.  Unfortunately, our local electric company was bought out by a big energy conglomerate and now wants a rate increase as they have some nuclear plants that are costing them a lot of money to run.  The old company had no nuclear plants.  My gas bill went down last winter (a combination of warmer weather and a more efficient new furnace).

I've never understood the deregulation of electricity and gas. There are only so many generation sites for electricity, only so many pipelines for gas. I never thought there was a problem with them being utilities. Breaking up the delivery "suppliers" seems like the creation of needless middlemen to me. I always assume that the mergers and acquisitions industry were the ones pushing for this, must have been a gold mine for them. On the other hand, I did see how Ontario Hydro got way too big and fat for the province's good. During the transition there were a lot of near criminals using the confusion in consumers' minds to sell them things like long-term supply contracts and other things, at a time when there was no way to determined who was legit and who wasn't. So my assumption was that the powers that be wanted it that way to skim some cash off the top. Most everyone I know feels the same. We may be wrong of course.

Our natural gas bills went down in the last few years and my home heating bills are nearly half what they used to be, but I noticed that the winters have been a little milder too. I cannot accurately parse out the effects but my gut feel is that lower gas prices accounts for most of the savings. Our home was built in 1990 and does not benefit from the insulation design improvements since then.

Our electricity bill has gone up over time, to be more or less double what it was 15 years ago when we moved here, but it has plateau'ed over the last 3-4 years. There has been a lot of criticism of electricity charges in Ontario lately but I have not experienced anything bad.

Because I travel in rural areas a lot for pleasure, I have begun to see more and more homes off the grid. They seem to be able to generate enough electricity through various means to meet their needs. Here in Eastern Ontario we have vast solar farms installed on marginal farming land and one thing we have noticed is that we've had fewer power failures over the years, but that may be due to grid improvements. Also, I believe that it is finally permitted in Ontario to sell privately generated electricity into the grid, but I may be wrong about that and it's still under discussion. I imagine that there are technical hurdles to iron out for widespread use of this (cutely called reversing meters) technology. There are a few houses in my neighbourhood that have covered their roofs with solar panels, but I've never spoken to those home owners.

A lot of homes in rural communities around here use heat pumps. There they can be relatively easily installed because it's easy to dig a large wide trough in a field. There were some test homes in urban areas that installed heat pumps based on deep narrow vertical digs (rather than shallow wide ones) in the driveway, for example. I believe that technologically, they worked out ok, but the cost of the initial dig required specialized equipment and manpower that was not cheap, for individual consumers anyway. I've wondered if anyone ever looked into such heat pumps being shared by several homes, such as in a row house or townhouse construction. In this climate (Canada) people might feel nervous having only a heat pump, and might want a separate system (electric baseboards) to serve as backup.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 14, 2017, 10:56:12 pm
Something for Pieter:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29239194

"China's per capita carbon emissions overtake EU's"

Quote
But in an interesting development, China's emissions per head of population exceeding those of the European Union for the first time... "They are still nowhere near the US or Australia, but the fact that they have surpassed the EU will be quite surprising to a lot of people."

They totally bamboozled Paris ;)

Now, something completely different (for Pieter's obsession with per capita): the US is only 11th in the world, overtaken even by the hypocrite Dutch ;)

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 15, 2017, 02:35:08 am
Ah, yes.. solar panels. I remember it. Back in the 70s and 80s, in my "backward" home country, we already had them on (some of) our roofs. So, 40 years later, just when they are approaching early retirement, we still see them as young athletes, getting ready to break a new world record at the next Olympic Games?
So you judge technology on how it performed 40 years ago? And you call your old country "backwards"? Amazing  :o
Solar Panels today (in $/Watt) have improved a factor of more than 250 in the last 40 years  :P
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 15, 2017, 02:40:22 am
Something for Pieter:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29239194

"China's per capita carbon emissions overtake EU's"

They totally bamboozled Paris ;)
It's clear China's emissions need to go down and the indications for 2017 are not good. And it's old news, the data from 2015 already indicate that they were higher per capita then the EU (China 7.7 and the European Union 6.9) and since your table only goes to 2013 you didn't notice that. How does it feel, living in the past? Also China and the EU are still so much below the US that it feels like a hypocrite black pot critisizing a shiny kettle ;). And no, they didn't bamboozle Paris, but you know that (judging by the emoticon you put behind it)  ;D

Now, something completely different (for Pieter's obsession with per capita): the US is only 11th in the world, overtaken even by the hypocrite Dutch ;)

It seems you are so obsessed with how things worked in the past that apparently you haven't noticed that St Maarten and Curacao are no longer part of the Country "Netherlands"  ::)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on November 15, 2017, 05:08:18 am
Just read an article from a Portuguese climate scientist and researcher, that basically predicts for the XXI century in Portugal:

1. Rise of temperature of about 6C in the interior, and of about 4C in the coastal regions.

2. No more Spring.

3. Reduction of rainfall by 30% to 70% (more severe in the South).

4. More numerous, and longer lasting, heat waves. Today, heat waves last about 5 days. In the future, they will be more numerous, and last about 22 days.

This has a profound impact in how people think and manage resources and livelihood. Currently, Portugal has just came out of the driest October ever on record (only 30% of the rainfall amount), plus being 3C above average temperature for the month. 70% of the country is in severe drought, with one large city being supplied with water by auto tanks.

The future is dire, regardless of political sides or discussions:(

There are always record temperatures, record rain fall,  record droughts, and so on, within a specific period of time in a specific location.
If you extend the period of time, and/or change the location, the date of the highest record also changes.

When one makes claims of 'the driest October ever on record', without mentioning the period of time in which the records are compared, then alarm bells about the unscientific nature of the 'attempt to create alarm' should be ringing.

Developing new technology to produce clean energy which doesn't emit noxious chemicals and particulate carbon that are known to be harmful to human health, is very sensible. The only criticism I would have is with regard to the efficiency of such a transformation of our energy supplies.

If CO2 is demonized in order to encourage the transition, so be it. If in 30 years time, the scientific opinion about the harmful effect of CO2 on climate, were to change, and, say, the climate began to cool despite the high levels of CO2, then we could claim that no major harm has been done with regard to the problem of toxic emissions. We would not only have a network of clean energy supplies, but we would have the reserves of fossil fuels still in the ground, which could still be used to meet an incrreasing demand for reliable energy, to recharge the hundreds of millions of electric vehicles manufactured cheaply by China, for example.  ;D

However, I see a major problem with issues such as flood mitigation, access to water during conditions of drought, and the general protection of citizens from extreme weather events, sea level rises, and the sinking of cities and islands which is often more significant than sea level rise. For example, parts of Bangkok are sinking at a greater rate than the sea is rising.

In order to fix these problems, we need massive amounts of cheap energy, as well as sensible planning. Those who are promoting the transition to alternative energy supplies, such as Al Gore, often mention the benefits of new jobs that are created, which is good for the economy. That's fine, but those new jobs are not addressing the problems of the vulnerability of many cities around the world to the 'natural' extreme weather events that are a part of the historical record.

I see a conflict of interest here. The more expensive energy from 'C02-clean' power, makes it more difficult to tackle the expensive projects that are required to protect societies from extreme weather events, such as building flood-mitigation dams, re-organizing urban run-off, elevating homes above previous flood levels, strengthening houses to resist hurricanes in areas subject to hurricanes, and building levees where appropriate, and so on.

Also, the association in the media, of extreme weather events with increasing CO2 levels, tends to create the false impression in the mind of the general public that reducing atmospheric emissions of CO2 will protect them from the continuation of such extreme weather events. It won't.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on November 15, 2017, 05:39:29 am
There are always record temperatures, record rain fall,  record droughts, and so on, within a specific period of time in a specific location.
If you extend the period of time, and/or change the location, the date of the highest record also changes.

When one makes claims of 'the driest October ever on record', without mentioning the period of time in which the records are compared, then alarm bells about the unscientific nature of the 'attempt to create alarm' should be ringing.


In Portugal, we have been recording data since the 1800's. Neither myself, nor the author of the article, were "attempting to create unscientific alarm". FYI, in 2016 we already had the warmest Summer, again repeated in 2017. In 2017, the summer temperatures extended into autumn, abnormally high.

Some data here:

Historical records: http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/index.cfm?page=country_historical_climate&ThisRegion=Africa&ThisCcode=PRT

Projections: http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/index.cfm?page=country_future_climate&ThisRegion=Africa&ThisCcode=PRT

According to the projections, the Median temp will rise about 2.5C in January. to about 5C in July. Regardless of the cause (nature, human, or combination of both), this is not good, and we need to mitigate and prepare for the changes it will cause.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 15, 2017, 06:32:53 am
There are always record temperatures, record rain fall,  record droughts, and so on, within a specific period of time in a specific location.
If you extend the period of time, and/or change the location, the date of the highest record also changes.

When one makes claims of 'the driest October ever on record', without mentioning the period of time in which the records are compared, then alarm bells about the unscientific nature of the 'attempt to create alarm' should be ringing.

In general, the most reliable data are reported since official records were systematically recorded. For many countries that means approx. since 1900 or thereabouts. Attached, the collected information on a global basis that show the deviation versus the annual global mean, which shows that temperatures have been rising since then (source (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/)). So the record highs are also mostly in recent years.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 15, 2017, 06:46:49 am
OK.  I got it off my chest. 

Now here's a question I have because I just learned that my electric rate in New Jersey for the next two years has been re-negotiated by my town.  It will go down about 10%.  We can select from various electric suppliers.  The law allows this to keep up competition and prices lower.  Do others have this capability or are you stuck with one supplier?  (Part of the cost of about 30% is always by one supplier since it's their physical wires that carry the load.  You can select though who furnishes the electricity itself.  That's the part that's competitive.)

So, for the next two years starting in 2018, it is going down  $.013 per KWH to $0.126 from $0.139 per KWH (0.12 Euros. AUS$0.18,CAN$0.18).  That includes all sales taxes.  We don't have VAT taxes.

Here's my electricity last 12 months.    9509kwh or 792kwh per month.  9509kwh divided by 2100 square foot home size= 4.5kwh per square foot (.418kw per square meter) per year.  Note that this doesn't include heating as I heat with natural gas.  I'll provide those numbers at another time.  So my electricity is used for lights, TV's etc.  and 4 tons of air conditioning and the HVAC blower. 

Curious what others are paying and where you're located by comparison.  Are rates changing in your locale?

I figure that the cost of energy here is going down a lot due to shale and natural gas so electric production is just cheaper than it was.  That's a guess; I haven't researched it.

I finally remembered what I wanted to say about this. Is there any good way of knowing whether your drops in electricity costs were due to local competition among suppliers or because of the general drop in natural gas prices? I believe (is this true or my bad memory?) that a lot of electricity in the northeast US is generated by burning gas. It would be interesting to separate out the two effects.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on November 15, 2017, 07:28:00 am
In general, the most reliable data are reported since official records were systematically recorded. For many countries that means approx. since 1900 or thereabouts. Attached, the collected information on a global basis that show the deviation versus the annual global mean, which shows that temperatures have been rising since then (source (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/)). So the record highs are also mostly in recent years.

Cheers,
Bart

I don't think anyone is disputing that we are currently in a slight warming period. 'Warm' only has meaning in realtion to 'cool'.

The current warm period is defined in relation to the previous 'cool' period, the Little Ice Age, which occurred from around 1300 to 1870 AD.

Of course, it's understandable that those who are promoting the dangers and adverse effects of anthropogenic emissions of CO2, will try to assert that the LIA, the MWP and the Roman Warm Period were not global events, and that the current warm period is unusual and unprecedented on a global scale.

However. such assertions are or were based upon a lack of evidence on past climates in other parts of the world.
I have no faith in people who make assertions based upon a lack of evidence, but I can understand that you might, Bart, because of your faith in the accuracy of computer models as they apply to digital camera performance. ;)

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/09/evidence-of-the-medieval-warm-period-in-australia-new-zealand-and-oceania/

"Conclusions
The existing studies document, that the MWP is clearly developed in Australia/Oceania. Temperatures have been elevated 950-1500 AD, with only short cooler interludes. Clear subsequent cooling is reported towards the Little Ice Age. Renewed warming occurred during ramp-up towards Modern Warm Period. There is currently no basis to say that the Modern Warm Period might be much warmer than the MWP in the region."
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 15, 2017, 11:04:36 am
I finally remembered what I wanted to say about this. Is there any good way of knowing whether your drops in electricity costs were due to local competition among suppliers or because of the general drop in natural gas prices? I believe (is this true or my bad memory?) that a lot of electricity in the northeast US is generated by burning gas. It would be interesting to separate out the two effects.
Interesting question, Bob.  From what I can gather from searches on the web, electric costs appear to have gone up slightly as an average.  So I would gather that it was from good old competition that my local township government negotiated a better rate.  One thing to consider is that this rate is guaranteed for two years.  So the utility is figuring just what their costs will be for gas or nuclear or wherever they generate the gas.  So the price is working on a prediction as well over the next two years.

It negotiated  a two year deal starting 1/1/19 with South Jersey Electric.  They're not even on the attached list.  Check the list to see just how many suppliers are available and the differences in prices.  Capitalism at work.
http://www.electricrate.com/residential-rates/new-jersey/
So the township must have called them up and negotiated directly. Homeowners and businesses have the option of switching to South Jersey or remaining with JCPL, but the negotiated rate is the best you can find so you'd be foolish not to go with the township.  The electricity rate went down 19% from what we are paying now.  That's for the electricity itself which we get from South Jersey Electric.  We still get the JCPL charge for the use of JCPL's structure as they own the wires and grid that delivers the power to your house.  That price is controlled by the Public Service Commission a government entity.  So together, the price will go down about 10% overall, a nice savings. Here's a list that shows all the competition in New Jersey where I live. 

So getting back to your question, I would say it's competition that forced prices down.  Curious how do rates work in Europe, Canada, Australia, etc?

What's interesting is that in the US, only a dozen or so states out of the 50 plus Washington DC have competition.  The rest have single suppliers whose prices are controlled by a governmental Public Service Commission.  Competition is better IMO.

New Jersey electric generation comes from about 60% gas and about 35% nuclear.   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States#/media/File:State_Electricity_Generation_Percentage_by_Type.png

Here's the main link that really has some interesting data about this whole topic. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States

What's interesting also about this whole thing is how varied production is from state to state.  I'm sure it's similar in every country. 

Also, our newly elected governor, Democrat Murphy, favors turning NJ all green.  So although Republican Washington has backed off, many states like NJ will push for less carbon.  Of course he said that to get elected. We'll see what he'll do when his voters realize they'll be paying a lot more for electricity if his ideas are instituted.  Frankly, states and countries are making a mistake when they pick winners and losers in energy.  Let the free market work.  It reminds me when Washington forced gasoline companies to include 10% methanol in gasoline in an effort to clean up the air.  All it did was raise the price of corn where methanol comes from increasing the price of food for poor people as corn is the major grain as animal feed.
http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/17/10/29/governor-s-race-2017-candidates-divided-on-energy-environment/
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 15, 2017, 11:16:29 am
What's interesting is that in the US, only a dozen or so states out of the 50 plus Washington DC have competition.  The rest have single suppliers whose prices are controlled by a governmental Public Service Commission.  Competition is better IMO.
You'll be surprized (maybe) but I agree. Both in the Netherlands as well as Belgium (and many other European countries) there is lots of competition between gas and electricity suppliers. It has reduced prices considerably. The only problem is that the grids are still controlled by (semi) government companies and the transfer and grid cost has not dropped, so now the transfer and grid costs exceed the cost of the electricity as such.

Frankly, states and countries are making a mistake when they pick winners and losers in energy.  Let the free market work. 
In general I agree with you, but if you are too strict on this new technology that can be competitive in the medium term will not get off the ground. So I don't have a problem with temporary government support but only if the technology supported can demonstrate competitiveness at a reasonable volume that it can achieve in the medium term.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 15, 2017, 02:17:17 pm
You'll be surprized (maybe) but I agree. Both in the Netherlands as well as Belgium (and many other European countries) there is lots of competition between gas and electricity suppliers. It has reduced prices considerably. The only problem is that the grids are still controlled by (semi) government companies and the transfer and grid cost has not dropped, so now the transfer and grid costs exceed the cost of the electricity as such.
In general I agree with you, but if you are too strict on this new technology that can be competitive in the medium term will not get off the ground. So I don't have a problem with temporary government support but only if the technology supported can demonstrate competitiveness at a reasonable volume that it can achieve in the medium term.
I'm glad we're on the same page.  One of the issues with the grid and plant costs are they won't go away.  They have to continue maintenance and support even as more and more people go to solar at home and then are allowed to "sell" their surplus back into the grid.  Even though the plants are producing less electricity and using less carbon and atomic fuel, the plant structure, grid, and associate costs are the same.  So the cost savings from renewables are moderated by the old fixed costs.

Speaking of Belgium, and cinematography, I just saw a new release of Murder on the Orient Express.  They used Kodak 65 film which looks very nice.  Non of that digital stuff.  Good movie to see.  Oh, for those who don't know, I mentioned Belgium because Hercule Poirot is the fictional Belgian detective in the movie, created by Agatha Christie.
movie clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8ewxmFcDgo

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 15, 2017, 03:11:27 pm
Long article on CO2 in The New Yorker:  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/20/can-carbon-dioxide-removal-save-the-world
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 15, 2017, 06:31:44 pm
Interesting article how a few Greenland glaciers will raise sea levels different amounts depending where you live.  Levels go down around Greenland but go up in Brazil more than let's say NYC.  What I'm curious about is why is it CO2 that's at fault.  After all, glaciers have been melting for 12000 years.  Where I lived in Queens NYC, there were glaciers than covered all of NYC creating the Hudson River Valley and Palisades when they retreated.  The Great Lakes are a leftover of the melting as are the 5 Finger Lakes in NYS. 

So here's the question.  How do we know the Greenland Glaciers are just retreating as part of the end of the last Ice Age?  Or if CO2 is having an effect, how much of each cause is there by percent?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/11/15/these-are-the-melting-glaciers-that-might-someday-drown-your-city-according-to-nasa/?utm_term=.10c1fbf608a1
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 15, 2017, 06:45:12 pm
Long article on CO2 in The New Yorker:  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/20/can-carbon-dioxide-removal-save-the-world
Removing CO2 and reversing their levels seems daunting, if not impossible.  Current figures are CO2 going up with no signs of them decreasing in the foreseeable future.  Spending on amelioration may be the only path in dealing with glaciers melting. 

Maybe it's just that the Earth with have no icecaps on either end nor glaciers at some near point in the future.  Just part of "normal" Earth history.  Then a new ice age will occur and the whole process will start over again. 

Does anyone know what the status of the glaciers were during the last period when the earth was the warmest at the middle between two ice ages? 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on November 16, 2017, 01:15:12 am
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29239194
"China's per capita carbon emissions overtake EU's"
They totally bamboozled Paris ;)

There is an article in the latest (paid) issue of German Spiegel, titled: "How China already today controls the world:"
with a subtitle: China stepped over the threshold to a superpower. And the West still hasn't grasped what it means.

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/warum-china-die-weltmacht-nr-1-ist-a-1177858.html
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: mbaginy on November 16, 2017, 03:46:13 am
Removing CO2 and reversing their levels seems daunting, if not impossible.
Here's a TED talk (https://www.ted.com/talks/tim_kruger_can_we_stop_climate_change_by_removing_co2_from_the_air) about reducing and removing CO2 levels.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 16, 2017, 10:00:22 pm
Despite CO2 increases, the world still seems to be breathing.  The patient is still alive.  See video.
https://www.space.com/38806-nasa-satellites-watch-earth-breathe-video.html
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on November 17, 2017, 09:19:25 pm
In Portugal, we have been recording data since the 1800's. Neither myself, nor the author of the article, were "attempting to create unscientific alarm". FYI, in 2016 we already had the warmest Summer, again repeated in 2017. In 2017, the summer temperatures extended into autumn, abnormally high.

Some data here:

Historical records: http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/index.cfm?page=country_historical_climate&ThisRegion=Africa&ThisCcode=PRT

Projections: http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/index.cfm?page=country_future_climate&ThisRegion=Africa&ThisCcode=PRT

Thanks for the link to the data. However, I see no reference to how the data was collected, nor any reference to an analysis of the data. All data, whatever the issue, has to be interpreted and placed within a context before it becomes meaningful.

Quote
According to the projections, the Median temp will rise about 2.5C in January. to about 5C in July. Regardless of the cause (nature, human, or combination of both), this is not good, and we need to mitigate and prepare for the changes it will cause.

That certainly sounds like 'unscientific alarm' to me. A 5 degrees C rise in summer temperatures, regardless of the cause!! We should always try to be certain of the cause before we attempt to tackle a problem, otherwise we could just be wasting money.

I presume you've heard of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period.

http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeurope.php

"Climate alarmists contend that the degree of global warmth over latter part of the 20th century was greater than it has been at any other time over the past one to two millennia.  Why?  Because this contention helps them sell their claim that the "unprecedented" temperatures of the past few decades were CO2-induced.  Hence, they cannot stomach the thought that the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago could have been just as warm as, or even warmer than, it has been recently, especially since there was so much less CO2 in the air a thousand years ago than there is now. "

There seems to be a  a difference of opinion among scientists as to whether the RWP, the MWP and the LIA (the cold period that preceded the current warm period), were global in extent, but I don't think there's any disagreement that such warm periods existed in the Mediterraneum region and the northwest of the northern hemisphere.

Those scientists who believe that human emissions of CO2 are a serious threat, such as Michael Mann, downplay the significance of the MWP to such a large extent that they even produce graphs showing that the MWP didn't exist (the Hockey Stick for example).

As a result of that Hockey Stick graph, Michael Mann was accused of scientific fraud. In order to protect his reputation, he felt it was necessary to take his accuser (Tim Ball) to court in a defamation case. It'll be interesting to see how the court case turns out. The last development I read was that the court had requested that Michael Mann produce his data and evidence that justifies the Hockey Stick graph.

However, it seems that Michael Mann has refused to do this on the grounds that such data is his own intellectual property. It seems amazing and totally incredible to me that any person who is genuinely concerned about the future well-fare of humanity would refuse to make public the evidence that supports such concerns, especially when such data and evidence was gathered at the expense of the US taxpayer. The most plausible explanation is that Michael Mann possesses no data and evidence that could support the Hockey Stick graph. In other words, the graph was a scientific fraud.

Your concerns in Portugal about excessive temperatures in summer, and/or during heat waves, is certainly due in part to the Urban Heat Island effect. In 2011 it was calculated that 61% of Portuguese lived in cities. It is estimated that will rise to 71.4 percent in 2030. Many countries already have higher percentages of the population living in cities.

What this means is that whenever we have a heat wave or unusually high temperatures, those higher temperatures are significantly exaggerated by the Urban Heat Island effect, and the majority of the population, world-wide, experiences those exaggerated temperatures because they live in cities.

It thus becomes much easier for 'climate change alarmists' to promote the CO2 scare, because the hotter temperatures in the cities cannot be denied. They are felt by most people, and thermometers located within the cities record the high temperatures, which are often described as the highest on record.

I think it is quite plausible that the highest recorded temperatures in Lisbon during the 20th and 21st centuries were warmer than the highest temperatures in Lisbon during the MWP and RWP, not because of rising CO2 levels, but because of rising urbanization.

Here are a few links to research on the subject. The last one deals specifically with Lisbon.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4555247/
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep11160
http://www.scielo.mec.pt/pdf/fin/n98/n98a06.pdf

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on November 20, 2017, 12:46:48 am
Long article on CO2 in The New Yorker:  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/20/can-carbon-dioxide-removal-save-the-world

Yes, it is long. But what surprises me is the complete lack of any mention of the indisputable fact that CO2 is essential for all life and that increased levels in the atmosphere, due to the burning of fossil fuels, has a fertilization effect on plant growth in general, and is helping to 'green' our planet. (Refer NASA article below)
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

The New Yorker article discusses some very clever methods of removing CO2 from the atmosphere to bring the CO2 levels back to what they were in pre-industrial times. There are claims that such processes could turn into trillion dollar industries and create lots of jobs.

However, I have two major objections here, based upon common sense and rationality. Creating jobs which don't produce any consumable products or services is extremely inefficient. It's a bit like employing people to pick up pebbles from the beach and then place them back again, as the ancient Romans sometimes did to keep their soldiers occupied, when not in conflict.

The other objection is the total disregard of the value of the diminished volume of food crops world-wide, if we were to succeed in bringing CO2 levels back to pre-industrial levels.

Here's a study which addresses this issue specifically. Since it's also very long, I'll quote just a few relevant paragraphs, but it's an interesting read for those who are curious and unbiased, but I imagine not so interesting for those who are entrenched in 'CO2 alarmism'.  ;)
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/monetary_co2.pdf

"Several analyses have been conducted to estimate potential monetary damages of the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration. Few, however, have attempted to investigate its monetary benefits. Chief among such positive externalities is the economic value added to global crop production by several growth-enhancing properties of atmospheric CO2 enrichment. As literally thousands of laboratory and field studies have demonstrated, elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 have been conclusively shown to stimulate plant productivity and growth, as well as to foster certain water-conserving and stress-alleviating benefits. For a 300-ppm increase in the air’s CO2 content, for example, herbaceous plant biomass is typically enhanced by 25 to 55%, representing an important positive  externality that is absent from today’s state-of-the-art social cost of carbon (SCC) calculations.

The present study addresses this deficiency by providing a quantitative estimate of the direct monetary benefits conferred by atmospheric CO2 enrichment on both historic and future global crop production. The results indicate that the annual total monetary value of this benefit grew from $18.5 billion in 1961 to over $140 billion by 2011, amounting to a total sum of $3.2 trillion over the 50-year period 1961-2011. Projecting the monetary value of this positive externality forward in time reveals it will likely bestow an additional $9.8 trillion on crop production between now and 2050.

In the case of soil infertility, many experiments have demonstrated that even when important nutrients are present in the soil in less than optimal amounts, enriching the air with CO2 still boosts crop yields. With respect to the soil of an African farm where their “genetic and agroecological technologies” have been applied, for example, Conway and Toenniessen speak of “a severe lack of phosphorus and shortages of nitrogen.” Yet even in such adverse situations, atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been reported to enhance plant growth (Barrett et al., 1998; Niklaus et al., 1998; Kim et al., 2003; Rogers et al., 2006). And if supplemental fertilization is provided as described by Conway and Toenniessen, even larger CO2-induced benefits above and beyond those provided by the extra nitrogen and phosphorus applied to the soil would likely be realized."


What I find very revealing is the number of negative reports that one comes across during an internet search on this subject, which attempt to counteract these positive effects of rising CO2 levels by claiming that atmospheric CO2 enrichment actually reduces food nutrition. This is another example of how bad news is more 'attention grabbing' than good news, as well as another example of 'climate-change alarmism' at work.  ;)

Those who have some understanding of organic food practices and soil nutrition, as I have, can see the absurdity in such claims. The nutritional value of specific types of food, grown in the same CO2 levels, can vary enormously according to location, soil fertility and farming practices.

As I mentioned before, in the deleted thread, the quantity of Selenium in Brazil nuts can vary enormously. If one is marketing Brazil nuts for their nutritional value of Selenium, and one is honest and concerned about human welfare, then one should ensure that the soil contains at least a moderate amount of Selenium. If it doesn't, one should add it to the soil, which is an additional expense of course.

This is the problem with modern agriculture. The motivation is to produce the maximum crop yield at the lowest cost. The cosmetic appearance of the food can easily be determined by eyesight. However, the nutritional content can only be determined through laboratory examination.

A method of increasing food nutrition by spending trillions of dollars in removing a free fertilizer (CO2) in order to also significantly reduce total food production, with the side effect that the reduced quantity of food will be slightly more nutritious, sounds totally crazy to me.

There are many far less expensive methods of increasing food nutrition without reducing food quantity.

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 20, 2017, 02:20:50 pm

What I find very revealing is the number of negative reports that one comes across during an internet search on this subject, which attempt to counteract these positive effects of rising CO2 levels by claiming that atmospheric CO2 enrichment actually reduces food nutrition. This is another example of how bad news is more 'attention grabbing' than good news, as well as another example of 'climate-change alarmism' at work.  ;)


A method of increasing food nutrition by spending trillions of dollars in removing a free fertilizer (CO2) in order to also significantly reduce total food production, with the side effect that the reduced quantity of food will be slightly more nutritious, sounds totally crazy to me.

There are many far less expensive methods of increasing food nutrition without reducing food quantity.
Ray, the key problem with the analysis you cite is that it does not deal very well with the issue of extreme weather conditions.  If drought spreads as a result of global warming, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant as H2O is an absolute requirement for plant growth.  I also object to calling CO2, free fertilizer.  It's not really fertilizer as that term really applies to exogenous nitrogen and phosphorus that are responsible for amino acid, nucleic acid and high energy phosphate production in plants.  Again, CO2 concentration is irrelevant as long as it is not zero if the plant has access to usable nitrogen and phosphorous. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 20, 2017, 11:23:04 pm
Ray, the key problem with the analysis you cite is that it does not deal very well with the issue of extreme weather conditions.  If drought spreads as a result of global warming, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant as H2O is an absolute requirement for plant growth.  I also object to calling CO2, free fertilizer.  It's not really fertilizer as that term really applies to exogenous nitrogen and phosphorus that are responsible for amino acid, nucleic acid and high energy phosphate production in plants.  Again, CO2 concentration is irrelevant as long as it is not zero if the plant has access to usable nitrogen and phosphorous. 
Another false argument from the climate change alarmists trying to get everyone to agree with them by scaring them.  Droughts are not spreading.   Rising temperatures evaporate more water over the oceans creating more precipitation over dry areas.   Why do you think the tropics like in the Amazon are so wet, lush and productive for plant, insect and animal species even though the temps are so hot year around?  Green is spreading.

It was cooler temperatures that dried out the Sahara.  Now that it's warming up, it's getting greener again.  Warmer air holds more water leading to more precipitation.  Cooler air holds less water vapor leading to less rain.


https://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/02/another-global-warming-catastrophe-the-sahara-desert-is-getting-greener/
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

The earth is getting greener mainly due to CO2 and more water.
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/despite-decades-deforestation-earth-getting-greener/
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on November 20, 2017, 11:32:57 pm
Ray, the key problem with the analysis you cite is that it does not deal very well with the issue of extreme weather conditions.  If drought spreads as a result of global warming, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant as H2O is an absolute requirement for plant growth.  I also object to calling CO2, free fertilizer.  It's not really fertilizer as that term really applies to exogenous nitrogen and phosphorus that are responsible for amino acid, nucleic acid and high energy phosphate production in plants.  Again, CO2 concentration is irrelevant as long as it is not zero if the plant has access to usable nitrogen and phosphorous.

Alan,
We've been through this before. The technical summary of the latest IPCC report stated specifically that there was low confidence that hurricanes, droughts and floods have been increasing since the 1950's.

Of course, one can always create computer models to show that there is a risk of that happening in the future, but what's interesting is that the same report states there is high confidence that precipitation levels (rainfall) have been increasing during the same period, and high confidence that heat-wave temperatures have been increasing.

Both of those 'high confidence' descriptions make sense to me in a world that is currently in a slight warming period. I say 'slight' because an average global increase of around 1 degrees C during the past 150 years or so, doesn't sound alarming to me, especially when that increase is referenced to the sometimes uncomfortably cool temperatures that existed around the end of the Little Ice Age which extended to the beginnings of industrialization in the early 19th century.

In a slightly warming climate one would expect evaporation to increase and therefore rainfall, which is not a bad thing. One might expect that increased rainfall would result in increased flooding. The fact that there is no strong evidence that flooding, on a global scale, has been increasing, despite increasing rainfall (according to that great authority on climate issues, the IPCC), would suggest that mankind's increasing use of water, through the construction of dams, is the reason for this lack of a corresponding increase in flooding, globally.

As regards the claimed increase in heat-waves, it's not clear from the evidence presented, to what extent such increases are influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect. Where were the thermometers located that measured such increases during heat waves?

The proposition that increased CO2 levels are causing the current warming is not scientifically verified. That the UHI effect is real can definitely be verified.

Quote
I also object to calling CO2, free fertilizer. It's not really fertilizer as that term really applies to exogenous nitrogen and phosphorus that are responsible for amino acid, nucleic acid and high energy phosphate production in plants.


I'm using the term fertilizer according to its broad meaning of 'something that enhances growth'. It's true that the term 'fertilizer' is usually associated with industrially produced chemicals such as Nitrogen and Phosphorus, that cost money and labor to produce and apply to the soil. The term can also be associated with any type of manure that is applied to the soil, which also involves labor.

The beauty of CO2 is that it's a fertilizer (oops! 'growth-enhancing chemical') that doesn't require any manufacturing or distribution costs. The plants grab it from the atmosphere and take it into the soil through root growth. Ain't nature wonderful!  ;D

[/quote]Again, CO2 concentration is irrelevant as long as it is not zero if the plant has access to usable nitrogen and phosphorous. [/quote]

And of course access to water, which you know is an absolute requirement for plant growth.  ;)

If it's true that an increase in CO2 levels is the main cause of the current warm period, and if it's true that increased precipitation has resulted from such warming, as the IPCC has stated with 'high confidence', then the consequences of spending trillions of dollars to reduce CO2 levels will not only be a general reduction in plant growth due to lower CO2 levels, but also less available water to irrigate such plants, which will reduce crop production even further.

In order to compensate for such reduced crop growth, we would not only have to spend additional funds to make available more chemical fertilizers but also additional funds on desalination plants on the coast and long irrigation pipelines. That approach doesn't seem at all sensible to me. It sounds more like 'shooting oneself in the foot', especially when alternative energy supplies tend to increase the over all cost of energy.  ;)

There is also the issue of the 'greening of the planet'. Are you suggesting that we should also apply fertilizers and water to all the natural forests to compensate for the lack of CO2 in the atmosphere?

One of the negative consequences of human development and rising populations is the significant deforestation that has taken place for agricultural purposes, and which continues to take place in many countries. The remaining forests really appreciate that extra CO2 we are giving them as a by-product of our energy production.  ;D

I'd also be interested in any research that supports your contention that plants can thrive in close to zero concentrations of CO2, provided they have adequate fertilizers and water. Perhaps you are referring to the C4 type of plants that can utilize CO2 more efficiently than the C3 types of plant.

C3 plants are far more common than C4 plants. The C3 type plants includes most small-seeded cereal crops such as rice, wheat, barley, rye, millet, oats; and also soybean, peanuts, cotton, sugar beets, spinach and potato.

Outside the agricultural system most plants, trees and grasses are of the C3 type. About 85% of all plants are of the C3 type.
There seems to be a general lack of research on the effects of significantly reduced CO2 levels and how such reduced growth might be reversed through other interventions such as increased use of fertilizers, water and genetic modifications.
However, I came across one very detailed article which specifically addresses such issues and reveals the complexities and uncertainties.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x/pdf

The following comments near the Conclusion in the pdf, I found particularly interesting.

"A plethora of past work strongly suggests that the increase in [CO2] that occurred between 15 000 and 10 000 yr ago may have been large enough to have had a profound impact on crop productivity, and hence on human subsistence patterns (Sage, 1995; Fig. 9). In general, glacial conditions would have been a hostile environment for C3 crops because of low [CO2], as well as drier soils and higher seasonal variation (Richerson et al., 2001). As the interglacial period commenced, the onset of rising [CO2] and other climatic changes would have removed an environmental limitation to the development of agriculture (Sage, 1995).
Increasing [CO2] during the interglacial period may have directly enhanced plant productivity and may have reduced the effects of interactive stressors, such that crop production could be sustained year after year within human societies (Sage, 1995).

Anthropologists are beginning to incorporate the importance of CO2 into their ideas on agricultural development.
For example, Bettinger et al. (2009) attributed the development of agriculture to the combined effects of climatic and cultural changes, including increasing [CO2]."


Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 23, 2017, 09:54:51 am
Who needs Paris? American company delivers to Australia on promise.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/23/16693848/elon-musk-worlds-biggest-battery-100-days
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 23, 2017, 10:40:48 am
Who needs Paris?
Everybody ;)

American company delivers to Australia on promise.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/23/16693848/elon-musk-worlds-biggest-battery-100-days
Great technological development, but can it be economical outside niche applications and at a larger scale? In case it does it's great but do we know?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on November 23, 2017, 10:57:05 am
Speaking about large batteries,
Earlier this year, German utility EWE unveiled its plans to build an energy storage system in an old salt mine that could ultimately become the biggest battery on Earth.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/germany-biggest-battery-salt-cave/
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 23, 2017, 10:56:31 pm
Everybody ;)
 Great technological development, but can it be economical outside niche applications and at a larger scale? In case it does it's great but do we know?
My point is that with or without Paris, companies and countries will respond to green energy market forces.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on November 24, 2017, 08:46:00 am
One of the reasons I'm in favour of the development of alternative energy supplies, particularly the solar-voltaic systems, is not only because of the reduction in the real pollution of noxious chemical emissions which are harmful to health, but because our fossil fuel reserves are limited, and sooner or later we'll have to look for alternative energy sources. Better sooner than later, I think.

What might have been holding back the development of the electric vehicle is a general lack of affordable and reliable electricity which is completely free of all emissions of that clean and green gas called CO2.  ;)

Here's the paradox. If the main motivation for the paradigm shift to electric vehicles is the reduction of CO2 emissions, then the electric vehicle only makes sense if it can be reliably recharged with electricity sources that do not emit CO2.

However, from my very rational and unbiased perspective, an affordable and efficient electric vehicle is greatly preferred, not only because it doesn't emit noxious chemicals that are harmful to health, but also because it doesn't emit nearly as much noise, which can also be considered as a pollution. The constant noise of traffic in the cities is one of the reasons I prefer the countryside.

Eventually, with appropriate research and development, the electric vehicle could become much cheaper and more efficient, as well as cleaner, than the petrol or diesel vehicle. That's a worthwhile goal, even though I personally think that the net negative effects of purely CO2 emissions are greatly exaggerated, and might not even exist in reality.

Another issue, which seems to be largely hidden, is the environmental pollution that results from the mining of Lithium and other rare earth elements which are widely used in batteries for so many products. Also, as the production of electric vehicles increases and the use of Lithium batteries for storage in homes with solar panels, and for windmill and solar farms increases, the demand for Lithium might put stress on reserves. Instead of the concept of 'peak oil', we could have a reality of 'peak Lithium', at some time in the near future.  ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 24, 2017, 04:40:51 pm
My point is that with or without Paris, companies and countries will respond to green energy market forces.
You're stating the obvious and bottom line your point has nothing to do with what was agreed in Paris.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 24, 2017, 05:33:42 pm
You're stating the obvious and bottom line your point has nothing to do with what was agreed in Paris.
I was addressing the argument that many made that America will lose out on development and products because they aren't in Paris accord.  I disagree with that because companies are not restricted.  Like Tesla, they will chase the money regardless of what the government does. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 25, 2017, 02:42:38 am
I was addressing the argument that many made that America will lose out on development and products because they aren't in Paris accord.  I disagree with that because companies are not restricted.  Like Tesla, they will chase the money regardless of what the government does.
Loss of an internal market will restrict growth, provide less drive for innovation and lower the opportunities, nobody said it would be zero, but I think it's obvious that there will be losses.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 25, 2017, 09:50:12 am
Loss of an internal market will restrict growth, provide less drive for innovation and lower the opportunities, nobody said it would be zero, but I think it's obvious that there will be losses.
You're assuming that government selected winners and losers help an economy.  Remember that resources not spent on government directed products will be spent elsewhere that will probably be more profitable and useful to society because "real" demand from buyers will exist, not phony directed pushes from the government.  An example is defense spending.  Sure, defense contractors and employees do well.  But who needs a tank?  Think of all the benefits to society of people spent their money on other things they really want instead of tanks demanded by the government.  Of course, we need tanks to defend ourselves.  But do we really need solar panels?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 25, 2017, 10:26:00 am
You're assuming that government selected winners and losers help an economy.  Remember that resources not spent on government directed products will be spent elsewhere that will probably be more profitable and useful to society because "real" demand from buyers will exist, not phony directed pushes from the government.  An example is defense spending.  Sure, defense contractors and employees do well.  But who needs a tank?  Think of all the benefits to society of people spent their money on other things they really want instead of tanks demanded by the government.  Of course, we need tanks to defend ourselves.  But do we really need solar panels?
That's an entirely different discussion. Do you think there was no "real" demand for these Tesla batteries? And to answer your last question, yes, solar panels now provide energy below fossil fuel cost, so I see no problem like you say with tanks. I think that's a false equivalence.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 25, 2017, 11:01:22 am
... solar panels now provide energy below fossil fuel cost...

When I rub my hands together, I also provide energy below fossil fuel cost, even below solar panel cost. But, I can only drive a Flintstone car with that energy ;)

(https://t5.rbxcdn.com/c835dfa9e4076dcb0c74eeeb78bf6903)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on November 25, 2017, 09:02:49 pm
.. solar panels now provide energy below fossil fuel cost..

Have you factored in the rising cost of fossil-fuel-generated electricity due to the regulatory imposition of renewables?

What has happened in Australia during recent times, is that the customer demand for electricity from fossil fuels has diminished because of the popularity of government-subsidized solar panels. The increasing price of electricity motivates more people to install solar panels, which in turn drives up the cost of fossil-fuel-generated electricity even further, because the anticipated customer demand during the initial investments in the coal and gas-fired power stations, has dramatically fallen. The same would apply to DSLR cameras which are becoming a niche market.

Australia is a country with huge reserves of fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) and huge reserves of Uranium, yet we have some of the highest electricity rates in the world. Isn't that just crazy?

https://leadingedgeenergy.com.au/highest-electricity-prices-world/
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 26, 2017, 10:03:07 am

Australia is a country with huge reserves of fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) and huge reserves of Uranium, yet we have some of the highest electricity rates in the world. Isn't that just crazy?

https://leadingedgeenergy.com.au/highest-electricity-prices-world/
Why is the current government who must support these policies still in power?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 26, 2017, 10:49:33 am
Why is the current government who must support these policies still in power?
Maybe they won't be.  What got Trump elected was that past government policies did not address the real damaging effects on many people from tax, trade, environmental regulations, and other economic policies.  Many politicians weren't listening to the voters.  They're were more concerned with touchy-feely issues instead of real meat-and-butter concerns like jobs.  Trump winning the rust-belt states was a wake-up call.  It was so powerful, Hillary lost and now the Dems just threw the Clintons under the bus for ever more.  They're finished.   If Australians get to the point where the power costs become a large enough issue, policies will change and/or parties in power will lose.  The same is true in other countries.  Everyone's all for green energy until it starts to cost them "real" money. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on November 26, 2017, 10:52:54 am
Why is the current government who must support these policies still in power?

Politics is almost as complicated as climate change. It's basically the Labour party (roughly equivalent to the Democrats in the US) who are fighting for a reduction in CO2 emissions. The Liberals, who are currently in power in the Australian Federation (roughly equivalent to the Republicans in the US), have a more practical view on energy supply, and would like to extend the life of current coal plants, and/or build new plants of the latest Ultra-supercritical variety.

Unfortunately, the current Liberal government does not have an outright majority in the Senate, so has great difficulty in getting new legislation passed. Individual states also have the power to make their own decisions.

Because the future of political decisions, depending on which party is in power, is very uncertain, private companies are reluctant to invest in new coal-powered electricity plants, even though the latest technology can guarantee that emissions which are harmful to health are reduced to negligible levels.

The state of South Australia, under mostly Labour state governments, has made a transition to renewables, and has got itself into trouble, due to the unreliability of renewables, which is why it has now commissioned the building of the largest battery storage system in the world, the current Tesla project.

Australia in general is high on the list of energy costs, but South Australia is the highest. It'll be interesting to see if the Tesla battery project brings the costs down.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 26, 2017, 11:32:10 am
Politics is almost as complicated as climate change. It's basically the Labour party (roughly equivalent to the Democrats in the US) who are fighting for a reduction in CO2 emissions. The Liberals, who are currently in power in the Australian Federation (roughly equivalent to the Republicans in the US), have a more practical view on energy supply, and would like to extend the life of current coal plants, and/or build new plants of the latest Ultra-supercritical variety.

Unfortunately, the current Liberal government does not have an outright majority in the Senate, so has great difficulty in getting new legislation passed. Individual states also have the power to make their own decisions.

Because the future of political decisions, depending on which party is in power, is very uncertain, private companies are reluctant to invest in new coal-powered electricity plants, even though the latest technology can guarantee that emissions which are harmful to health are reduced to negligible levels.

The state of South Australia, under mostly Labour state governments, has made a transition to renewables, and has got itself into trouble, due to the unreliability of renewables, which is why it has now commissioned the building of the largest battery storage system in the world, the current Tesla project.

Australia in general is high on the list of energy costs, but South Australia is the highest. It'll be interesting to see if the Tesla battery project brings the costs down.

I've read elsewhere that the batteries will cost Australia $50 million which works out to about $1700 for each of the 30,000 homes effected.  Of course that's the build price.  What about upkeep, maintenance, and eventual replacements of the batteries?  It's not a one-time charge.

I also read that they still have to build diesel -fired plants: "The state has yet to say how much it would pay for the battery, which is part of a A$510 million ($390 million) plan that includes diesel-fired generators to help keep the lights on following a string of blackouts over the past 18 months."

So the cost of electricity  based on $390 million/30,000 homes is actually $13,000 per home.  So much for "free" electricity.  And you still need the diesel plants burning "dirty" carbon fuel for backup.  It seems that energy-rich Australia will continue to pay the highest for electricity for years to come.  The current politicians won't last long when taxes go up to pay for all this free stuff. 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-power-tesla/tesla-cranks-up-big-battery-in-australia-idUSKBN1DN0B4?il=0
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 26, 2017, 12:11:26 pm
Of course, we need tanks to defend ourselves.  But do we really need solar panels?

Does anyone else find this comment inexplicable?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 26, 2017, 12:21:40 pm
Does anyone else find this comment inexplicable?
It would have been helpful if you posted my entire post.  So I did so below.   So, what is it you don't understand?  Maybe I can explain it to you. 

You're assuming that government selected winners and losers help an economy.  Remember that resources not spent on government directed products will be spent elsewhere that will probably be more profitable and useful to society because "real" demand from buyers will exist, not phony directed pushes from the government.  An example is defense spending.  Sure, defense contractors and employees do well.  But who needs a tank?  Think of all the benefits to society of people spent their money on other things they really want instead of tanks demanded by the government.  Of course, we need tanks to defend ourselves.  But do we really need solar panels?

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 26, 2017, 01:26:32 pm
When I rub my hands together, I also provide energy below fossil fuel cost, even below solar panel cost. But, I can only drive a Flintstone car with that energy ;)
How many volts between your fingertips?  ;)

And in case you missed it, Flinstone cars are driven by feet, not by rubbing hands together   :P
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 26, 2017, 01:27:20 pm
Have you factored in the rising cost of fossil-fuel-generated electricity due to the regulatory imposition of renewables?
Yes, in most countries here these days solar panels are not subsidized and pay a share of using the grid. Still their overall (cradle-to-grave) cost is lower vs. fossil fuel based electricity.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 26, 2017, 01:31:57 pm
How many volts between your fingertips? ... ;)

Depends on where I stick my fingertips... it is known to produce quite a shock ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 26, 2017, 01:42:34 pm
Depends on where I stick my fingertips... it is known to produce quite a shock ;)
Watch out Slobodan, before you know it you might become the subject in a "#me-too" blog  :o
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 26, 2017, 02:52:05 pm
Yes, in most countries here these days solar panels are not subsidized and pay a share of using the grid. Still their overall (cradle-to-grave) cost is lower vs. fossil fuel based electricity.
Fossil fuel electric generation is cheaper in the US and much more expensive in Australia so the price advantages are not comparable. You'll have less incentive in the US and more incentive in Australia to install solar.  Also, how do you figure costs.  You have to look at the full life cycle, still having to keep fossil generators when it's "dark", etc. What about batteries like the problem Tesla is solving in Australia.  These costs have to be paid for with taxes which don't show up in a homeowner's electric bill.   What about additional roof replacement costs if you have solar there?  Just saying it's cheaper doesn't mean it's so.  It's often just hype from the solar industry. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 26, 2017, 05:23:29 pm
Fossil fuel electric generation is cheaper in the US and much more expensive in Australia so the price advantages are not comparable. You'll have less incentive in the US and more incentive in Australia to install solar.  Also, how do you figure costs.  You have to look at the full life cycle, still having to keep fossil generators when it's "dark", etc. What about batteries like the problem Tesla is solving in Australia.  These costs have to be paid for with taxes which don't show up in a homeowner's electric bill.   What about additional roof replacement costs if you have solar there?  Just saying it's cheaper doesn't mean it's so.  It's often just hype from the solar industry.
Many wrong assumptions, why do you spread nonsence when you have no idea what you are talking about.
Cost for backup of solar (and wind) are here fully paid by the electric bill of all consumers. No general tax money is going there.
Why would you need extra roof replacements with solar panels? Build it right the first time and a decent roof here lasts 70 to 100 years if not more.
And bottom line, it's cheaper, whether you like it or not, spreading misinformation isn't going to change that. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 26, 2017, 05:40:48 pm
... why do you spread nonsence when you have no idea what you are talking about...

That was totally uncalled for.

Quote
...a decent roof here lasts 70 to 100 years if not more...

"why do you spread nonsence when you have no idea what you are talking about?" (sorry, couldn't resist) :D

Maybe in Europe, not here:

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 26, 2017, 09:35:57 pm
Many wrong assumptions, why do you spread nonsence when you have no idea what you are talking about.
Cost for backup of solar (and wind) are here fully paid by the electric bill of all consumers. No general tax money is going there.
Why would you need extra roof replacements with solar panels? Build it right the first time and a decent roof here lasts 70 to 100 years if not more.
And bottom line, it's cheaper, whether you like it or not, spreading misinformation isn't going to change that. 
Everything I said is true for certain countries, maybe most.  Backup of solar I referred too was in Australia and referred to in an article stating $500 million in additional costs.  Even if it's not taxed and passed on in people's electric bills, it still costs everyone additional money for the storage and diesel generators they said they have to build.

I also stated that because fossil produced electric energy is cheaper in the US than where you live, the cost of renewable energy is more costly relative to fossil produced.  So as I said the so-called "savings" are not comparable country to country. 

Regarding roofs, only the most expensive in the US have slate or other materials that could last 70 years.  I doubt you will convince rich people to cover their beautiful slate roofs with solar panels and reduce the property and aesthetic value.  Most average American homes have roofs that last 15-20 years.  So at some point, you have to replace the roof.  You then have to dismantle the solar panels and reinstall them, all at additional cost and risk.  Also, in America, rebates are still the norm.  So the public is paying for the savings that only some people get.

Most articles pushing the low cost and savings idea come from climate change supporters or companies who install solar systems.  I've studied the cost savings here in America.  Without government rebates, it still doesn't make sense and even with them I'd say they're marginal in savings if at all.  I say that as an businessman and engineer who designed and installed energy management systems since the 1973 oil crisis who had to prove to my customers that energy systems will reduce their costs before I could get them to buy them.  So please hold your insults about the "nonsense" I'm serving.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on November 26, 2017, 10:47:00 pm
Maybe in Europe, not here:

It's true that the lifespan of asphalt roof shingles, commonly used in North America is only 15 to 18 years. It's also incredibly stupid, wasteful and shortsighted to continue using such a material. (For a complete disclosure I have also such shingles on my roof).

Fortunately, Elon Musk comes to the rescue. In addition to his Tesla car company, SpaceX, Hyperloop, Tunnel Boring and Battery Gigafactory, this fairly busy man recently opened also an innovative solar roof tile company. His new glass solar roof tiles, coming to the market next year, will be so durable that they are warrantied for the lifetime of your house, or infinity, whichever comes first. The link below shows a nicely clad tile roof on an attractive home and an atached garage, complete with a sleek aerodynamic car in the driveway.

https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/solarroof
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on November 27, 2017, 04:06:10 am
That was totally uncalled for.
Nope, fully deserved  :P
"why do you spread nonsence when you have no idea what you are talking about?" (sorry, couldn't resist) :D
Maybe in Europe, not here:
Apparently you didn't see the word "here" in my statement, I was talking about "here" which you know for me is Europe. Selective memory doesn't help your credibility.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 27, 2017, 08:02:36 am
It's true that the lifespan of asphalt roof shingles, commonly used in North America is only 15 to 18 years. It's also incredibly stupid, wasteful and shortsighted to continue using such a material. (For a complete disclosure I have also such shingles on my roof).

So true, but it's the way we build a lot of things in North America in general. Low price is king, quality is low. No one expects to live in a house for very long, I think, so there is no need for long-term quality. And up till now, at least, land and heating/cooling was cheap, so inefficient insulation didn't matter much and it was cheap and easy to simply move to a new home farther out in the suburbs. People do it this way because they can. We even abandon entire cities, e.g., Detroit.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 27, 2017, 08:06:00 am
It's true that the lifespan of asphalt roof shingles, commonly used in North America is only 15 to 18 years. It's also incredibly stupid, wasteful and shortsighted to continue using such a material. (For a complete disclosure I have also such shingles on my roof).

Fortunately, Elon Musk comes to the rescue. In addition to his Tesla car company, SpaceX, Hyperloop, Tunnel Boring and Battery Gigafactory, this fairly busy man recently opened also an innovative solar roof tile company. His new glass solar roof tiles, coming to the market next year, will be so durable that they are warrantied for the lifetime of your house, or infinity, whichever comes first. The link below shows a nicely clad tile roof on an attractive home and an atached garage, complete with a sleek aerodynamic car in the driveway.

https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/solarroof
I think most of the newer shingles are a fiberglass composite but still only have a limited lifetime.  We've been in our house for just over 30 years and I've already done two complete replacements mostly because we had a couple of small leaks and I wanted to make sure that we didn't have a greater failure.  Shingle life is also climate dependent and areas where there are extremes of seasonal temperatures are not good. 

Regarding the Musk effort, it will be interesting to see if he can make a go of it.  Dow Chemical created a similar solar shingle some years ago.  Unfortunately it was not cost competitive with the 'traditional' solar panels and Dow got out of the business last year.  A good solar shingle product will be quite useful as it will allow architects to have interesting roof designs and still deliver solar power to the home.  I've see a number of new houses being built in our area with roof styles that while large in total area do not have enough flat space for a solar panel array.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 27, 2017, 08:07:51 am
Excellent New York Times article on the impact of higher temperatures in Peru causing quick glacier melting:  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/26/world/americas/peru-climate-change.html?_r=0  the desert region is irrigated by water from the glacier and it might run out sooner than anticipated.  There is likely no other source of water for this region.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2017, 10:15:07 am
Using very expensive shingles that have solar built in likeTesla raises the construction costs of a new house. The electric savings will be washed away by the higher mortgage interest payments.  Ditto with addingTesla shingles to an existing home.   Unless you have $60 or $70,000 in cash laying around, you have to finance the installation and the interest charges eat up the electric savings.  Of course,  we may be able to get poorer homeowners to subsidize richer ones by offering tax rebates so the richer ones can save on their high electric usage costs.   Like Al Gore.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2017, 10:34:58 am
For example,  if a Tesla roof cost $50,000 more than a conventional roof,  the monthly additional mortgage is $250 a month or $3000 a year.  Add maintenance costs , battery replacements,  etc. Its just not economically viable.   Of course,  the cost of electricity will go up so it could become more valuable in later years.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 27, 2017, 10:46:49 am
...Apparently you didn't see the word "here" in my statement, I was talking about "here" which you know for me is Europe. Selective memory doesn't help your credibility.

Except Alan was not talking about Europe, but the US and Australia, and I and several other posters supported his facts. Besides, I did noticed your "here" and even acknowledged it with "maybe in Europe." Nothing "selective" with my memory.

As for Europe, I am aware of the old fashioned, clay-based shingles, that can last 100+ years. But that's because houses in Europe are much older and built with the materials meant to withstand the test of time. Europeans don't move (relocate) much. In America, you never know when the next tornado, hurricane, loss of job, dying of an industry, etc. will force you to move. Hence cheaper buildings.

Which makes me wonder, what is the roof longevity of newly built houses in Europe? Even in my home country, I do not see much of those red-clay roofs, and in my travels through Europe, I noticed much more modern black-shingle roofs, not unlike here.

Care to share any source of European roof longevity stats, like I did for the US?

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on November 27, 2017, 07:12:07 pm
Many clay tile roofs on the traditional European houses are over 100 years old.
Below is a section which shows several types of roofs, the one on the left must be from the pre-war times.

 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 27, 2017, 09:04:37 pm
Many clay tile roofs on the traditional European houses are over 100 years old.
Below is a section which shows several types of roofs, the one on the left must be from the pre-war times.

Indeed, although there are many different types of construction around. Most types of construction last a long time, especially when they are protected from direct sun radiation by e.g. Photo Voltaic (solar) panels. One does need to be careful with the mounting points of the PV panels on the traditional roof surface, those will become the critical spots to monitor.

In general, the roofs here outlive the expected useful life of solar panels, so Alan K's scare tactics are just to justify inaction.
In fact, the roof covering of the apartment complex I'm living in, was replaced (as a precautionary matter) some 15(?) years ago (they were from the '70s, so some 30 years old at the time.

And in addition to financially breaking even in something like 7-10 years, out of the 20 or so years that PV solar panels are expected to last (with warrantied efficiency), one immediately starts contributing one's bit to the reduction of CO2 emissions (and starts saving money after break-even). And with improving PV-panel quality/efficiency and rising energy taxes, the break-even period is likely to get even shorter, to the point that the government is getting worried about that steady stream of income.
 
And NO, there are no Diesel-fueled generators required to cover for the times with low solar irradiation. The existing power plants just run at a reduced output level (or some of them are decommisioned/retired early), thus immediately polluting less. In (economically justified) time, even those will be replaced by (probably) Wind energy farms (in my case probably most of them at sea), or by Geothermal power generation (which provides direct heat, additionally converts water to steam for turbines, and produces Hydrogen through hydrolysis with the excess of energy).

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2017, 09:50:14 pm
Indeed, although there are many different types of construction around. Most types of construction last a long time, especially when they are protected from direct sun radiation by e.g. Photo Voltaic (solar) panels. One does need to be careful with the mounting points of the PV panels on the traditional roof surface, those will become the critical spots to monitor.

In general, the roofs here outlive the expected useful life of solar panels, so Alan K's scare tactics are just to justify inaction.
In fact, the roof covering of the apartment complex I'm living in, was replaced (as a precautionary matter) some 15(?) years ago (they were from the '70s, so some 30 years old at the time.

And in addition to financially breaking even in something like 7-10 years, out of the 20 or so years that PV solar panels are expected to last (with warrantied efficiency), one immediately starts contributing one's bit to the reduction of CO2 emissions (and starts saving money after break-even). And with improving PV-panel quality/efficiency and rising energy taxes, the break-even period is likely to get even shorter, to the point that the government is getting worried about that steady stream of income.
 
And NO, there are no Diesel-fueled generators required to cover for the times with low solar irradiation. The existing power plants just run at a reduced output level (or some of them are decommisioned/retired early), thus immediately polluting less. In (economically justified) time, even those will be replaced by (probably) Wind energy farms (in my case probably most of them at sea), or by Geothermal power generation (which provides direct heat, additionally converts water to steam for turbines, and produces Hydrogen through hydrolysis with the excess of energy).

Cheers,
Bart
Bart, I'm not trying to scare anyone.  Being in the energy conservation business, I try to assess actual value.  I don't know Europe.  Costs there for electricity may be higher than in the US.  That would make solar payback quicker where you live. 

Our roofs don't last 50 years.  So if you for example want to put in a solar system on a roof that's ten years old, you have a tough decision to replace the roof early or wait another ten years and have to deal with removing and re-installing the solar system.  Warranties for the solar system are great.  Does that include the batteries?  What if the roofer damages the solar panels?  How much to clean snow and dirt off the panels? I wouldn't think your apartment buildings do not have enough roof space to provide enough solar electricity for all the tenants.  Do you people use air conditioners? 

In America in many states, there are huge tax incentives, rebates, etc.  So the so-called savings may benefit the home owner who installs.  But the rest of the taxpayers who cannot take advantage of solar wind up paying for his "free" electricity.  That's neither good economics nor is it fair socially when rich people use poorer people's money to improve their lives.  I'm befuddled that liberal minded Europeans would be in favor of such social policies.  You surprise me.  :)

Finally, do you have studies that show the 7-10 years payback and proof the system last 20 years?  I didn't know they have been around that long to prove your point. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2017, 10:52:14 pm
Bart, I was just checking the Netherland's climate.  It's cold latitude at 52 degrees is higher than all of the 50 American states except for Alaska.  Where I live, New Jersey, latitude 40 degrees and a pretty high northern state, everyone uses A/C for the most part.  Going south you can't live without air conditioning.  Florida would belong to the alligators and pythons without A/C.    So it appears you don't use much air conditioning except for American tourists in hotels.  :)  Do you and your friends and family have A/C's?

This is important to our discussion because you need a small solar system to provide electricity for your home.  So it's hugely easier for your country to provide solar power.  You just use so much less electricity.  If I could turn my A/C off, I'd reduce my electricity by 70%, maybe more.  (I heat with natural gas).  Add the fact that electricity rates are much higher in your country also provides a quicker payback for solar.

The point is savings are relative to other things and vary enormously by locale, cost for carbon fueled electricity, climate, rebates, taxes, etc.  Each locale has to calculate the return on investments to their local factors.  If I lived in your country, I'd probably go solar too.  But otherwise, we're arguing apples to oranges.  Neither one of us is right or wrong. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on November 27, 2017, 11:03:59 pm
Our roofs don't last 50 years.  So if you for example want to put in a solar system on a roof that's ten years old, you have a tough decision to replace the roof early or wait another ten years and have to deal with removing and re-installing the solar system. 

Alan, it's only the asphalt shingles that don't last that long.
Here in Canada, you can get metal roofs lasting 50-70 years, and clay roof tiles lasting up to 100 years (concrete roof tiles last only half as long). However, the cheaper asphalt shingles are still installed on most of the roofs, since most homeowners rotate their homes more frequently than their roof coverings.

In Quebec City, there is a large Ice Hotel built entirely from ice blocks and hard packed snow. That roof lasts only one winter season, but on the other hand, it uses only organic materials which are very enviromentally friendly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGnGpkPYa8k

If you haven't slept in an ice room yet, you'll enjoy the video clip.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2017, 11:21:44 pm
This is why the US dropped out of Paris.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-27/opec-battle-with-u-s-for-oil-supremacy-nears-day-of-reckoning
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2017, 11:26:10 pm
Alan, it's only the asphalt shingles that don't last that long.
Here in Canada, you can get metal roofs lasting 50-70 years, and clay roof tiles lasting up to 100 years (concrete roof tiles last only half as long). However, the cheaper asphalt shingles are still installed on most of the roofs, since most homeowners rotate their homes more frequently than their roof coverings.

In Quebec City, there is a large Ice Hotel built entirely from ice blocks and hard packed snow. That roof lasts only one winter season, but on the other hand, it uses only organic materials which are very enviromentally friendly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGnGpkPYa8k

Actually, Les, you raised another issue why solar has hard going here in the US.  Americans tend to move more often then Europeans and other people.  Not sure about Canadians.  In any case, if you think you'll be moving because a change in job, etc., looking at long term return on investments are not as attractive.  The other factor is will you house sell for more money or just about the same as non-solar homes in your neighborhood?  These factors become a turn-off to solar for many people.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 27, 2017, 11:39:27 pm
Another interesting issue with solar is how you pay for it - with outright cash purchase, leasing or financing it.  The latter two can become big problems when you try to sell your home.  How to deal with the leasing and financing issue and the prospective purchaser who now has to provide additional financing and credit checks.  These are things the solar installing companies never tell you about.   
http://www.dailyrepublic.com/projects/home-seller/solar-panel-leases-a-growing-problem-for-home-sellers/
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 28, 2017, 08:16:41 am
Actually, Les, you raised another issue why solar has hard going here in the US.  Americans tend to move more often then Europeans and other people.  Not sure about Canadians.  In any case, if you think you'll be moving because a change in job, etc., looking at long term return on investments are not as attractive.  The other factor is will you house sell for more money or just about the same as non-solar homes in your neighborhood?  These factors become a turn-off to solar for many people.

Possibly, but that's a little short-sighted thinking (which is the essential problem, I guess), since a long-lasting roof is an asset that increases the value of a house. Anyway, we do this already with shingle roofs, don't we, because we estimate the life left on it when buying a house. It's just the time frame that changes.

We do this kind of inadequate analysis all the time. We don't build subway lines or new roads because taxpayers don't want to spend the money. All people see is cost. But we lose sight of the long-term value to everyone of having that new asset. Some may think that it is difficult to calculate but it's not, we have centuries of experience in evaluating the benefits of infrastructure spending.

We (the royal we) do something similar in other areas. As I have stated before (in this thread or in a previous one) there are an estimated 190,000 abandoned oil and gas wells in Alberta alone. The companies that constructed them were NOT required to take them down at the end of their productive life. The cost for doing that didn't disappear, of course, it is just a legacy passed on to future taxpayers. This is another example of a benefit accrued to a few, the resource companies, but paid for by the many, the rest of us. We choose to calculate the government subsidies paid into the development of solar panels but ignore the century and a half of various subsidies to the resource industries. At best, this is an incomplete calculation.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on November 28, 2017, 10:31:35 am
Possibly, but that's a little short-sighted thinking (which is the essential problem, I guess), since a long-lasting roof is an asset that increases the value of a house. Anyway, we do this already with shingle roofs, don't we, because we estimate the life left on it when buying a house. It's just the time frame that changes.

We do this kind of inadequate analysis all the time. We don't build subway lines or new roads because taxpayers don't want to spend the money. All people see is cost. But we lose sight of the long-term value to everyone of having that new asset. Some may think that it is difficult to calculate but it's not, we have centuries of experience in evaluating the benefits of infrastructure spending.

We (the royal we) do something similar in other areas. As I have stated before (in this thread or in a previous one) there are an estimated 190,000 abandoned oil and gas wells in Alberta alone. The companies that constructed them were NOT required to take them down at the end of their productive life. The cost for doing that didn't disappear, of course, it is just a legacy passed on to future taxpayers. This is another example of a benefit accrued to a few, the resource companies, but paid for by the many, the rest of us. We choose to calculate the government subsidies paid into the development of solar panels but ignore the century and a half of various subsidies to the resource industries. At best, this is an incomplete calculation.
I wish my roof was slate.  But I bought a resale and all the houses made in my 55+ community are made cheap, frankly, not only roofs. Yet they are expensive enough that special design is beyond what we would spend in any case.  Unless you're  a multi-millionaire and have an architect who's building to your blank check, you can't buy anything within your price range that is built to such personal standards. 

Regarding infrastructure, I agree that many industries have left their junk after the industry moved on.  Look at Detroit and across the whole rust belt.  Laws could be written.  But states are so happy when new industry moves in to give their people jobs, they're afraid to make it too onerous to enforce such requirements.  They don't want to scare off new industry.  But, the laws are more stringent, sometimes too stringent.  There has to be a balance of sorts.

On a personal note, my wife who was a school teacher in a Queens, NYC public school that had an issue.  A clothes cleaning establishment 5 blocks away had shut down years earlier.  However, the chemicals they used for years  seeped into the ground and migrated to near the school.  Fumes were seeping in to the school's basement.  The  Feds and NYC researched the issue, tested the ground with instruments,  and had to install traps and special exhaust systems to keep the air clear in the school.  The taxpayers paid for the "cleanup". Even so, I told my wife to stay out of the basement.  She worked on the 2nd floor.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 30, 2017, 05:43:30 pm
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/29/study-satellites-show-no-acceleration-in-global-warming-for-23-years/
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: EricV on December 01, 2017, 12:30:14 pm
No acceleration means a steady increase in global temperature, by 0.1C per decade according to this study.  Compared to other models, I guess this counts as a good result.  But integrated over another 50 years, it still represents very significant global warming.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 01, 2017, 01:51:32 pm
Why isn't the temperature continuing to go up if CO2 continues to go up? What accounts for the stall or decreasing rates?  If there are other factors affecting it, what are they? Why aren't scientists discussing them?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on December 01, 2017, 02:15:46 pm
Why isn't the temperature continuing to go up if CO2 continues to go up?
It is still going up, but less then some other models predict. The paper was published in a scientific journal, so it will be discussed in the scientific community but not by Daily Caller, who has no interest to publish anything that goes against their opinion. Hell, they're known to buy witnesses to make false statements and allegations. There's biased media on the right/conservative side as well it seems.  ;)

Btw, the paper was interesting since it also explains some of the difficulties to make accurate and representative temperature measurements of the atmosphere's temperature and at first blush (granted I'm not an expert) it seems they seem to have done a good job of that aspect.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: amolitor on December 01, 2017, 05:58:54 pm
Once upon a time there was a rich land, with berries and fruits all the summer long. You could hunt game and gather fruits and live well all through fall.

A few people said "we should dry some berries, dry some meat. Perhaps we should plant some crops so that there will be extra food, to be saved for later. For the winter will be very long indeed" but everyone else laughed and said "there's plenty to go around, and in the winter, the free market will sort it all out. It is foolish to expend extra effort now."

And so winter came and there were only a few handfuls of berries that had been dried by accident. And the market did indeed sort it out, the last few berries sold for astronomical sums. But everyone died anyways, because the winter was very long, and very cold.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 01, 2017, 08:06:09 pm
... the last few berries sold for astronomical sums... But everyone died anyways, because the winter was very long, and very cold.

Wait, isn't it supposed to get warm, very warm? With plenty of fresh, juicy berries? ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on December 01, 2017, 08:54:47 pm
Wait, isn't it supposed to get warm, very warm? With plenty of fresh, juicy berries? ;)
Lot of hot air in Washington and getting hotter.
 
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/08/washington-dc-is-hot-and-getting-hotter/
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 01, 2017, 11:22:43 pm
It is still going up, but less then some other models predict. The paper was published in a scientific journal, so it will be discussed in the scientific community but not by Daily Caller, who has no interest to publish anything that goes against their opinion. Hell, they're known to buy witnesses to make false statements and allegations. There's biased media on the right/conservative side as well it seems.  ;)

Btw, the paper was interesting since it also explains some of the difficulties to make accurate and representative temperature measurements of the atmosphere's temperature and at first blush (granted I'm not an expert) it seems they seem to have done a good job of that aspect.
You didn't answer my question.  If the temps aren't going up at the same rate. why not?  If there are other factors that we haven't yet discovered or fully understand, it would be important to understand them thoroughly. Otherwise all the models and predictions could turn out wrong. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on December 01, 2017, 11:39:34 pm
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/29/study-satellites-show-no-acceleration-in-global-warming-for-23-years/

Thanks for that, Slobodan. Here's an extract from the article which I think gets to the crux of the matter.

"Two major volcanoes — El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991 — caused global average temperature to dip as a result of volcanic ash, soot and debris reflecting sunlight back into space.

Those eruptions meant there was more subsequent warming in the following years, making the rate of warming appear to be rising as a result of man-made emissions or other factors, Christy said.

While volcanic eruptions are natural events, it was the timing of these that had such a noticeable effect on the trend. If the same eruptions had happened near the more recent end of the dataset, they could have pushed the overall trend into negative numbers, or a long-term cooling,” Christy said."


It's clear from the historical and geological record that certain regions of the planet have undergone warming and cooling trends in the recent past, during this period we could call the 'Anthropocene'.  ;)

For example, it was rather cold during the Iron Age, from around 900 BC to 300 BC; then it was rather warm during the period in which the Roman Empire flourished, from around 250 BC to 400 AD; then it was rather cold again during the period known as the Dark Ages, which were really miserable.

The Medieval Warm Period started around 900 AD and resulted in favourable conditions in Greenland for the migration of the Vikings from Iceland. However, those warm conditions in Greenland began to change around 1300 AD putting great stress on agriculture and causing the Vikings to abandon their home, (although it probably wasn't the only cause. There are always numerous contributing causes to just about everything.)

The Medieval Warm Period was followed by the Little Ice Age, broadly from around 1350 AD to 1850 AD.
However, all these sucessively warm and cool periods are not consistently warm or cool during the whole period. There are often variations within each period. The Little Ice Age appears to have had at least 3 short, particularly cold periods within the longer, generally cold period. According to the NASA Earth Observatory, one began about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all separated by intervals of slight or relative warming.

Our current warm period, often estimated as a rise of approximately 1 degree C during the past 150 years, is in relation to this particularly cold period which began in 1850 and peaked around 1910. The following NOAA temperature graph shows a global warming of 0.95 degrees C since the year 1870 which is already within (at least the beginning of) this particularly cold period, so one might reasonably ask why is the year 1870 considered to be an ideal and natural temperature which is representative of the baseline in the graph, ie. 0 degrees C.

If the base line is taken as the year 1910, one could claim the temperature has risen 1.4 degrees C in the past 100 years, which is more alarming than 0.95 degrees C during the past 146 years. If one uses the base line of 1944 as zero, the temperature rise becomes 0.65 degrees C during the past 72 years, and during the period of the most significant emissions of CO2 when industrialization and the world population really took off.

The reason why the year 1870 is chosen as the base line is because this is the period when the thermometer was developed as a reliable instrument, and instrumental temperature records began.

Imagine if we had reasonably accurate instrumental records going back a thousand years or more. Depending on which year or decade was chosen as a base line one could probably describe our current decade as representative of a significant warming, or a slight warming, or an insignificant warming, or zero warming, or a slight cooling.

This is the problem that "hockeystick' Michael Mann faced. He didn't of course have any instrumental records of global temperatures around a thousand years ago, during the Medieval Warm Period, nor sufficient proxy records such as tree rings, fossil pollen, corals, lake and ocean sediments, covering a global scale, in order to assess global average temperatures, so to produce a graph which mixed up modern 19th and 20th century instrumental records with a complete lack of instrumental data during the Medieval Warm Period, to show that the MWP didn't exist at a global level, was considered by certain less biased and more honest scientists to be scientific fraud.

Another part of the problem is that global changes in climate are never completely synchronous. The timing of the MWP and the LIA that occurred in Europe and the North West generally, would not have been identical with similar warming and cooling periods in China, or New Zealand, but there would have been an overlap, as recent studies show, so these events can be considered global.

An average global temperature is a human construct. It doesn't apply to any specific region, except by chance. According to the global map below, again from NOAA, there are actually regions on the planet that have shown no warming during the past century. There are other larger regions which have shown only very slight warming, of less than 1 degree F (not C).

There are even larger regions for which there is no data, specifically, but not only, around the polar regions. In fact, if we add the regions for which there is no data to the regions where there is no warming, to the regions where there is only very slight warming, that covers the majority of the surface of the planet.

Hope you can all now sleep soundly in the knowledge of the certainty.....of the uncertainty about climate change.  ;D
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on December 02, 2017, 03:40:38 am
You didn't answer my question.  If the temps aren't going up at the same rate. why not?  If there are other factors that we haven't yet discovered or fully understand, it would be important to understand them thoroughly. Otherwise all the models and predictions could turn out wrong.
You made a wrong statement and asked a wrong question. First you said the temperatures were not going up, but they still are. Lastly you asked why it doesn't get discussed where in actual fact you have no idea what's being discussed between scientist.
My position on it is that when the paper is a fraud it will be debunked, when it is true the models will be adjusted over time. I'm not a climate or atmosphere scientist so I can't judge the real merits of the paper nor answer the question why it's going up at a lower pace vs. what was previously claimed. I have faith there are enough ethical scientists out there that it will be sorted over time.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 03, 2017, 08:37:56 am
Nice piece in the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/opinion/sunday/soil-power-the-dirty-way-to-a-green-planet.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fsunday&_r=0) today on the need for more sustainable agricultural practices so that the soil absorbs more CO2.  I think Ray has mentioned this before.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on December 03, 2017, 07:03:24 pm
Nice piece in the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/opinion/sunday/soil-power-the-dirty-way-to-a-green-planet.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fsunday&_r=0) today on the need for more sustainable agricultural practices so that the soil absorbs more CO2.  I think Ray has mentioned this before.

Alan,
I agree with the points in your linked article. Here's the summary:

"Because of carbon’s climate change connection, we’ve been conditioned to think of it as the enemy, when in fact it’s as vital to life as water. The way to make amends is to put it back in the soil, where it belongs."

You're right. I did mention this issue before. As a result of my interest in Permaculture I became more aware of the importance of the natural biological processes occuring below the surface of the soil, which tend to be out of sight and therefore out of mind.

The reality seems to be that the total quantity of life below the soil surface is greater than the total quantity of life above the surface, if we include all the roots and fine roots of all plants and trees, and all microbes, bacteria, insects, worms, and so on.

http://www.soils4teachers.org/biology-life-soil?noSSO=1

"Only 5% of what is produced by green plants is consumed by animals, but the 95% is consumed by microorganisms. One gram of fertile soil can contain up to one billion bacteria."

https://ecomyths.org/2010/10/05/are-there-more-creatures-above-ground-than-below/

"What do we know?  We know that there are thousands of creatures beneath our feet.  The majority of all terrestrial insects live in the soil for at least some part of their lives.  We know that they are very important for natural areas, agriculture, horticulture, and sustaining all of life on earth.

The soil below one square yard of woodland could contain over 200 species of arthropods (such as insects, crayfish, and spiders) and up to 1000 species of soil animals in total.

There are up to 7,700lbs of bacteria in one acre of soil."
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 04, 2017, 12:30:54 am
Curious of there is a practical limit on CO2 increasing? The increase in carbon being captured by animals, plants and other natural processes increases to offset the increase in CO2.  In other words, the earth balancing itself out naturally. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 04, 2017, 06:08:45 am
Curious of there is a practical limit on CO2 increasing? The increase in carbon being captured by animals, plants and other natural processes increases to offset the increase in CO2.  In other words, the earth balancing itself out naturally.

Only if we stop adding more CO2 to the system than it can deal with. That means that we need to reduce the current emissions. If we succeed in doing that in line with the Paris agreements, we may limit the temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels. Á new equilibrium will not yet be achieved by the end of the century. It's a slowdown that's required to limit the rise to 2 degrees, rather than a plateau being reached.  But it will already be hard enough to reach the 2 degree Celsius goal (let alone the 1.5-degree ambition).

The worry is that we may trigger irreversible effects that make things spiral out of 'control', so it's wise to not gamble with the only home we have. Because CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a long time, much longer than more potent greenhouse gasses like methane, it can take decades for our current emissions to be absorbed by the system (e.g. oceans absorb some 40% of the carbon in CO2, as can be seen from the rate of acidification).

Climate processes are slow on our timescale, and today's emissions will have a lasting effect for decades to come.

Scientists are excited by the quality of results they get from the new recently launched ESA Sentinel-5P satellite (http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Sentinel-5P/Sentinel-5P_brings_air_pollution_into_focus), part of the EC Copernicus environmental monitoring programme. Sentinel-5P carries the most advanced sensor of its type to date: Tropomi, which now enables to see very detailed images of all sorts of emissions/pollutions, at a resolution that was not available before. That will make it easier to identify the hot spots and focus attention on resolving the issues.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. In addition, the current trend is still accelerating instead of slowing to a new plateau/equilibrium.
(https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on December 04, 2017, 07:25:04 am
Quote
Over the past decade, billions of dollars have been spent on carbon-capture projects that have not materialized. The most recent failure was the $7.5 billion Kemper Project in Mississippi, whose owners earlier this year announced that instead of finishing the planned low-emissions coal plant, they would just turn it into a natural-gas plant.

But there’s a fix, carbon capture is both vital and viable.
Have a look at the interesting and quite extensive article published by Quartz (qz.com) below. Over the next two weeks, Quartz will publish a series of articles exploring carbon-capture technologies from China to California, showcasing an important but poorly understood part of the world’s race to zero emissions. These are stories of staunch environmentalists who take a different approach to solving the biggest global threat humanity has ever faced, and of a new breed of energy entrepreneur trying to convert carbon dioxide from a liability to an asset.

Quote
One solution can be found at the Hellisheidi geothermal power plant, Iceland’s largest, just outside the capital Reykjavik. Since 2014, the plant has been extracting heat from underground, capturing the carbon dioxide released in the process, mixing it with water, and injecting it back down beneath the earth, about 700 meters (2,300 ft) deep. The carbon dioxide in the water reacts with the minerals at that depth to form rock, where it stays trapped. In other words, Hellisheidi is now a zero-emissions plant that turns a greenhouse gas to stone.

Quote
Just outside Houston, Texas, spread over an area of 4,300 acres (more than 3,500 soccer fields), is the WA Parish Generating Station. It comprises four natural gas-fired units and four coal-fired units, producing 3,700 MW of power, enough to meet the energy needs of 3 million US households. The power plant is so big it has its own train station, where, two to three times a day, dozens of carriages unload 15,000 metric tons of coal from the Powder River Basin of Wyoming.
One of the coal units, which produces about 240 MW of power (enough for 200,000 households), was recently retrofitted with state-of-the-art carbon-capture technology. The project, operated by two energy companies, the US’s NRG and Japan’s JX Nippon, was christened “Petra Nova,” which means “new oil” in Latin. When it started operating earlier this year, it became—and remains—the world’s largest coal power plant with carbon-capture technology, with the capacity to capture more than 90% of its emissions, about 1.6 million metric tons of carbon emissions each year. It cost $1 billion to build, $190 million of which came from the US government.
Among a string of failures, Petra Nova stands tall as a carbon-capture project completed on time and within budget. Its success is partly attributable to its use of off-the-shelf technologies that had been tested and proven. The failed Kemper Project, on the other hand, tried to build its own set of technologies to convert coal into gas before doing carbon capture. The main causes for its failure, however, had to do more with reasons beyond technology innovation, such as an unanticipated drop in natural-gas prices.
The idea of capturing and burying emissions is simple, but executing it at scale is complex, NRG spokesperson David Knox warned me before we began the tour. “Petra Nova is really five projects in one,” he said. Petra Nova does all five steps of carbon capture and storage (CCS): generating carbon dioxide, capturing the emissions (which is a two-part process), transporting it to where it will be stored, and injecting it deep underground and then monitoring it.

https://qz.com/1144298/humanitys-fight-against-climate-change-is-failing-one-technology-can-change-that/
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 06, 2017, 03:49:39 pm
I was watching a NatGeo nature TV show that showed how disappearing ice in the Arctic is changing animal behavior and distribution.  Narwahls are losing out to killer whales as the latter expand their territory into warming and ice freer areas.  Fish like cod are moving up from the south filling in warmer seas of the north.  Kodiak bears are switching to berries that arrive earlier in spring so the bears are abandoning salmon runs getting their carbs from the berries.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170823121333.htm 

In the TV movie, polar bears who used to hunt seals now have shifted to salmon, something left to their grizzly cousins before. Apparently, polar bears never hunted salmon before but seem to be adapting quite nicely to other prey.

The point of all this is rather than warming being a constant foreboding situation, all that's happening is that species are adapting; some are winning more than others, but life goes on.

I've been complaining in these forums that there's not been enough of honest shows showing the advantages of a warming climate.  So I was quite pleased when I viewed this show today.  Interesting that it was originally produced in 2014.  Where has it been for the last three years? 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 06, 2017, 04:56:01 pm
Cleaning up the environment; reducing CO2. VW exec in US sentenced to 7 years in jail. 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-06/vw-executive-sentenced-to-7-years-in-prison-for-diesel-role
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on December 07, 2017, 06:59:27 am
Cleaning up the environment; reducing CO2. VW exec in US sentenced to 7 years in jail. 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-06/vw-executive-sentenced-to-7-years-in-prison-for-diesel-role

In the meantime, there are no complaints about the methane pollution. Methane is a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide (CO2), but the negative effect on the climate of methane is 23 times higher than the effect of CO2.

The largest farm in the world (in terms of acreage) is the Mudanjiang City Mega Farm in Heilongjiang, China which has around 100,000 cows on 22,500,000 acres.  For reference, that is 50 times bigger than the largest dairy farm in Europe. Considering that an average cow releases around 100 kg of methane per year, just this one farm produces 10,000 metric tons of methane per year.

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: thierrylegros396 on December 07, 2017, 08:10:26 am
In the meantime, there are no complaints about the methane pollution. Methane is a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide (CO2), but the negative effect on the climate of methane is 23 times higher than the effect of CO2.

The largest farm in the world (in terms of acreage) is the Mudanjiang City Mega Farm in Heilongjiang, China which has around 100,000 cows on 22,500,000 acres.  For reference, that is 50 times bigger than the largest dairy farm in Europe. Considering that an average cow releases around 100 kg of methane per year, just this one farm produces 10,000 metric tons of methane per year.

You forgot to add, higher temperatures means less permafrost, and also more methane release, so higher temperatures, up to the trigger point which Bart talk about.

Thierry
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 07, 2017, 10:09:23 am
Phew, Les, that makes me feel so much better! I mean, blaming the Chinese felt so xenophobic, racist almost... blaming Chinese cows, however... 😉
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on December 07, 2017, 10:39:27 am
Phew, Les, that makes me feel so much better! I mean, blaming the Chinese felt so xenophobic, racist almost... blaming Chinese cows, however... 😉
Well, according to Beef2Live the number of cows per capita is much higher in the US vs. China ;)
Here we really need to point our xenophobic finger at the cows in India, wether they are sacred, holy or not  :P
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on December 07, 2017, 12:45:12 pm
Phew, Les, that makes me feel so much better! I mean, blaming the Chinese felt so xenophobic, racist almost... blaming Chinese cows, however... 😉

To make you feel even better it might help to know that in addition to "Grown In China" cows,  they import also a lot of beef from US. What this import means is that the Chinese get the steaks and the Americans the methane, plus a lot of nitrogen and ammonia in the soil and freshwater streams.

https://www.drovers.com/article/chinese-suppliers-race-order-us-beef
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1012668109662

Some time ago, I paddled down on the Guadalupe river near Austin which starts flowing as a clear cold stream from the Canyon Lake dam through nice meadows and pretty cattle pastures.  Unfortunately, with every mile, the river gets warmer and murkier as a result of all the runoffs from the farms on both river shores.
 
(http://hillcountryflyfishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/tedguad1.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on December 07, 2017, 01:00:45 pm
Well, according to Beef2Live the number of cows per capita is much higher in the US vs. China ;)
Here we really need to point our xenophobic finger at the cows in India, wether they are sacred, holy or not  :P

In other words, although USA has the 4th largest cattle inventory in the world, that constitutes only 10% of the world's cattle population (based on 998,000 cattle in the beef2Live table).
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on December 07, 2017, 03:44:20 pm
Methane is a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide (CO2), but the negative effect on the climate of methane is 23 times higher than the effect of CO2.

Excellent example of a confused and misleading statement, Les. Well done!  ;D

Whilst Methane is claimed to have a much more significant greenhouse effect than CO2, this greater effect is per molecule, not per quantity of the gas in the atmosphere.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Methane accounts for only 10% of the greenhouse effect, compared with 82% for CO2. Refer attached image.

However, even this comparison from an apparently reliable source is misleading because it completely excludes what is by far the most significant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and that is 'water vapour'.

Calculating the precise greenhouse effect of water vapour is impossible because the amount varies so greatly from region to region and within short periods of time. Estimates of the proportion of the greenhouse effect due to water vapour seem to vary from around 65% to 95%.

Taking water vapour into consideration reduces that claimed 10% contribution of Methane to probably less than 3%.
Of course, the alarmists will tend to jump in at this point and claim that warming due to CO2 and Methane increases the amount of water vapour which in turn amplifies the warming effect. This is another excellent example of alarmism because it ignores the counteractive albedo effect of clouds which reflect a portion of the heat from the sun to outer space. More water vapour translates to more clouds which in turn translates to more reflection of heat from the sun which is a counterbalancing cooling effect.

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 09, 2017, 09:58:34 am
More fake news using some old dying polar bear to blame climate change.  The continuously biased presentations of these things are what convinces deniers that it's a hoax.  As long as false presentations are done about the real truth, the whole science of climate change becomes suspect.  They have to stop twisting the reality of these things to fit their preconceived agenda.  People know when they're being had.
https://www.livescience.com/61151-starving-polar-bear-captured-on-video.html
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 09, 2017, 11:34:10 am
"Fact has a liberal bias"
attribution unknown
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 09, 2017, 03:00:21 pm
More fake news using some old dying polar bear to blame climate change.  The continuously biased presentations of these things are what convinces deniers that it's a hoax.  As long as false presentations are done about the real truth, the whole science of climate change becomes suspect.  They have to stop twisting the reality of these things to fit their preconceived agenda.  People know when they're being had.
https://www.livescience.com/61151-starving-polar-bear-captured-on-video.html

Yes, it's unfortunate when sites that purport to represent science make bald emotional appeals. (I know nothing about that web site.) Wether they intend it as propaganda or wether they're just mis-guided is beside the point. And whether or not you are insulted by these displays is also equally beside the point. None of these aspects have anything to do with the underlying science. It's still all there for people to see and read.

If you don't like bleeding heart videos of polar bears, don't watch them. I don't. But it is silly to use them as a proxy for denigrating climate science.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 11, 2017, 07:15:54 pm
Yes, it's unfortunate when sites that purport to represent science make bald emotional appeals. (I know nothing about that web site.) Wether they intend it as propaganda or wether they're just mis-guided is beside the point. And whether or not you are insulted by these displays is also equally beside the point. None of these aspects have anything to do with the underlying science. It's still all there for people to see and read.

If you don't like bleeding heart videos of polar bears, don't watch them. I don't. But it is silly to use them as a proxy for denigrating climate science.
The problem, Bob, is that it's hard for people to separate the emotional appeal of climate change from the facts about it.  If someone is shaking your hand with one hand while their other is in your pocket fiddling with you wallet, it;s hard to be convinced they're being honest about the hand shake.  I've been shopping for a car recently with my wife.  When we leave the dealerships, I ask my wife if she feels as dirty as I do having got a load of garbage from the salesmen who just aren't believable. 

How does the average guy separate the truth from the hype? 

I was reading today how  50 world leaders (less Trump) are getting together regarding Paris plans for the future.  Meanwhile China, one of them, continues to pollute and increase CO2 around the world with their coal-fired electric plants and other carbon pollution construction.  So China grows in wealth as CO2 and global warming intensifies, all while Paris gives them a pass until 2030. 
"Beijing’s $900 billion “belt and road” initiative is building infrastructure across countries with three times China’s population, he noted. “If nothing is done… their emissions could be three times China’s emissions.”
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/12/11/belt-road-countries-emit-triple-chinas-carbon-warns-official/ (http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/12/11/belt-road-countries-emit-triple-chinas-carbon-warns-official/)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 11, 2017, 11:19:19 pm
A recent article how well polar bears are doing despite the constant negative barrage of fake news how climate change is destroying the species.
https://polarbearscience.com/2017/11/06/twenty-reasons-not-to-worry-about-polar-bears-the-2017-update/
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on December 12, 2017, 01:01:24 am
Here in Canada, the real problems are all the insects and other pests which used to freeze up in the winter. In the last few winters, their survival rates got drastically higher and that  spoils all the fun for the summer photography and hiking in the greater outdoors. Not counting more damage to the crops and forests.

I haven't seen any migrating polar bears in southern Ontario yet, but a few years ago, a pack of timber wolves took advantage of a rarely formed ice bridge at the northern shore of Lake Superior, to the Michipicoten Island that was populated by woodland caribou. Needless to say, the wolves have killed most of the caribous on the island, and now The Ministry of Natural Resources instead of killing the killers made the politically correct decision to evacuate the remaining caribous to another island. Needless to say, that without any deer on the island the wolves will perish anyway.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ontario-government-to-move-caribou-facing-wolf-attacks-off-island 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 12, 2017, 01:58:33 am
Les, Lyme disease in America has become a scourge due to warmer winters as deer ticks do better.  Of course deer the deer ticks feed off of are doing better in winters too accounting for more ticks.  Deer hunters have more venison to eat which saves cows from predation. :)   We humans might not like the mosquitoes or ticks.  But they are delicious to some species which are probably growing in population as well.  Global warming is good for the environment and growth of species populations.  Al Gore should be pleased. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on December 12, 2017, 05:27:28 am
I was reading today how  50 world leaders (less Trump) are getting together regarding Paris plans for the future.  Meanwhile China, one of them, continues to pollute and increase CO2 around the world with their coal-fired electric plants and other carbon pollution construction.  So China grows in wealth as CO2 and global warming intensifies, all while Paris gives them a pass until 2030. 
"Beijing’s $900 billion “belt and road” initiative is building infrastructure across countries with three times China’s population, he noted. “If nothing is done… their emissions could be three times China’s emissions.”
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/12/11/belt-road-countries-emit-triple-chinas-carbon-warns-official/ (http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/12/11/belt-road-countries-emit-triple-chinas-carbon-warns-official/)

Alan:
- if you're backing out of the agreement you give up your seat at the table, very simple, get over it.
- China is not getting a pass under the Paris agreement
- The article you quoted is about what is being done to avoid the alarmist doomsday picture you're painting about growth in the "belt and road" area. Your selective quoting is misleading.
- As long as the average US citizen emits twice the CO2 of most of the other people in the world I think it would be better if they did more to reduce instead of pointing fingers at others.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on December 12, 2017, 05:40:43 am
Les, Lyme disease in America has become a scourge due to warmer winters as deer ticks do better.  Of course deer the deer ticks feed off of are doing better in winters too accounting for more ticks.  Deer hunters have more venison to eat which saves cows from predation. :)   We humans might not like the mosquitoes or ticks.  But they are delicious to some species which are probably growing in population as well.  Global warming is good for the environment and growth of species populations.  Al Gore should be pleased.

Alan, the warm winters are not necessarily better for everything.  :(
For one thing, it's a disaster for the Canadian outdoor ice rinks. For example, in Ottawa, every winter the Rideau canal in the middle of the city freezes and opens for skating. As a point of interest, the Rideau Canal Skateway is the largest naturally frozen ice rink in the world. However, last winter the skateway was opened only for 18 days, the shortest season on record. Bad for skaters and for the local business. The season is simply too short for bringing in the polar bears from further up north.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/canal-ncc-short-season-1.3463948
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 12, 2017, 08:40:29 am
The problem, Bob, is that it's hard for people to separate the emotional appeal of climate change from the facts about it.  If someone is shaking your hand with one hand while their other is in your pocket fiddling with you wallet, it;s hard to be convinced they're being honest about the hand shake.  I've been shopping for a car recently with my wife.  When we leave the dealerships, I ask my wife if she feels as dirty as I do having got a load of garbage from the salesmen who just aren't believable. 

How does the average guy separate the truth from the hype? 

I disagree that it's difficult to separate emotional appeals from real science. Lots of people do it every day. If you're getting your science from sound bites on the local news from someone with too much hair and big teeth, you're getting emotion, not science. :)

Your question about where to get the truth beggars belief. There are thousands of scientists working on it and publishing it every day. And there are many legit publications that disseminate the info. Before the political parties in your country and mine decided to politicize science, they used to have science advisors at the highest levels. When those folks told people in power things they didn't want to hear, they were eliminated. That should worry everyone. The question is, why doesn't it?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 12, 2017, 08:56:27 am
Les, Lyme disease in America has become a scourge due to warmer winters as deer ticks do better.  Of course deer the deer ticks feed off of are doing better in winters too accounting for more ticks.  Deer hunters have more venison to eat which saves cows from predation. :)   We humans might not like the mosquitoes or ticks.  But they are delicious to some species which are probably growing in population as well.  Global warming is good for the environment and growth of species populations.  Al Gore should be pleased.
As one who has been bitten by a Lyme tick (a quick dose of 400mg of doxycycline was prophylactic against me getting the disease), I can attest to the problem.  However, it's not necessarily a function of global warming but of deer populations grossly out of control.  My suburban region of Washington DC has deer all over the place and efforts to cull the population have been resisted by all the animal lovers.  I have given up on gardening as the deer just come in and eat to their content (along with the rabbits who are now invasive and also a host to Lyme ticks).
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 12, 2017, 09:49:57 am
As one who has been bitten by a Lyme tick (a quick dose of 400mg of doxycycline was prophylactic against me getting the disease), I can attest to the problem.  However, it's not necessarily a function of global warming but of deer populations grossly out of control.  My suburban region of Washington DC has deer all over the place and efforts to cull the population have been resisted by all the animal lovers.  I have given up on gardening as the deer just come in and eat to their content (along with the rabbits who are now invasive and also a host to Lyme ticks).
And deer are dangerous to drivers.  I nearly hit one a couple of days ago when it trotted out across the road thirty feet in front of me.  Since moving here 4 years ago, there's probably been 8-10 times that's happened.  One of these days my luck is going to run out.  People get killed and it really messes up your auto, thousands in damages to repair.  Where ever you drive around here in New Jersey there are carcasses of dead deer hit by cars. Who needs a gun? Turkey vultures fill the skies looking for road kill.  It's like Africa. :)  This is rutting season when the dumb, horny bucks are busy chasing the girls oblivious to everything.    I've had Lyme disease too and had the antibiotic treatment.  My dog almost died from it.  I don't go into the woods to hike or shoot pictures as much anymore because of it. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on December 12, 2017, 11:35:56 am
Hundreds of closed coal mine shafts in previously heavily mined Ruhr area in Germany are in danger of collapsing and creating very large sink holes.

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/bergbau-rund-2500-verlassene-schaechte-in-nrw-a-1182805.html
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Frans Waterlander on December 12, 2017, 12:28:40 pm
And the sky is falling too!!!!!
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on December 12, 2017, 01:12:54 pm
It is not the sky, just frozen moisture from the clouds. We got about 10cm last night.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on December 12, 2017, 07:03:36 pm
I disagree that it's difficult to separate emotional appeals from real science. Lots of people do it every day. If you're getting your science from sound bites on the local news from someone with too much hair and big teeth, you're getting emotion, not science. :)

Your question about where to get the truth beggars belief. There are thousands of scientists working on it and publishing it every day. And there are many legit publications that disseminate the info. Before the political parties in your country and mine decided to politicize science, they used to have science advisors at the highest levels. When those folks told people in power things they didn't want to hear, they were eliminated. That should worry everyone. The question is, why doesn't it?

Good points, Robert. Those who get their science from sound bites on the local news, or even from lengthier documentary programs which include interviews of scientists addressing the dangers of rising CO2 levels, will tend to accept that rising CO2 levels pose a serious threat to the welfare of the planet and the future of humanity.

However, those who have an inquiring mind and some understanding of the principles of the the scientific method, and who have the time to search for relevant facts which are never mentioned, even during lengthy interviews of climate scientists on the media, might begin to understand how biased the presentation of the case for 'CO2 Alarmism', in the media, really is.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 13, 2017, 10:24:35 am
However, those who have an inquiring mind and some understanding of the principles of the the scientific method, and who have the time to search for relevant facts which are never mentioned, even during lengthy interviews of climate scientists on the media, might begin to understand how biased the presentation of the case for 'CO2 Alarmism', in the media, really is.
I think this statement is misleading.  Climate change is multi-factorial and subject to a number of inputs and outputs.  I would agree that focusing on one aspect of climate change is inappropriate based on our current knowledge.  The affect of CO2 on atmospheric warming is proven by science and efforts to control it along with methane emissions is necessary.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on December 13, 2017, 07:43:50 pm
I think this statement is misleading.  Climate change is multi-factorial and subject to a number of inputs and outputs.  I would agree that focusing on one aspect of climate change is inappropriate based on our current knowledge.  The affect of CO2 on atmospheric warming is proven by science and efforts to control it along with methane emissions is necessary.

Alan,
I definitely agree that climate change is multi-factorial and also enormously complex with so many positive and negative feedbacks which, fortunately, tend to create a balance.

The point I was making in my previous post is that the news media tends to focus only on the negative aspects of CO2 and doesn't even try to educate the listener about basic and fundamental qualities related to whatever aspect of climate change is being mentioned.

A few examples spring to mind but I'll refer to just one, otherwise the post would be very long.  ;)

(1) CO2 is a pollutant. Rarely is it mentioned that CO2 is essential for all life and that most plants thrive in elevated levels of CO2, especially when they are water-stressed.

There are real problems resulting from deforestation for agricultural purposes, which must affect the climate to some degree, but fortunately the CO2 we emit from the burning of fossil fuels at least helps the remaining forests to flourish, as well as most of the food crops we grow.

Of course, we don't notice such effects because CO2 levels have been rising so gradually over the past 150 years, at an average rate of less than 1 part per million per year. One wouldn't expect a farmer to notice, after, say, 10 or 20 years of farming a particular crop, that the same crop was growing more vigorously due to the very small increases in CO2 during that 10 or 20 year period. Even if the period were much longer, say 50 or 60 years, it would be assumed that any increase in the growth of a particular crop would be due to improved farming techniques and better application of fertilizers, water, pesticides and weed control.

However, imagine a scenario in which we could funnel CO2 into outer space at a very high rate, so that CO2 levels were reduced from the current 406 ppm to pre-industrial levels of 285 ppm within a year or so. Then the farmers would notice a significant reduction in crop yields, despite applying the same amount of water and fertilizers.

Of course, if the farmers were forewarned that CO2 levels would be drastically reduced during the next growing season, they might be able compensate for the effects of reduced CO2 levels by applying more water and fertilizers to their crops. That would raise the cost of food, which might not be a problem in wealthy, developed countries, but could be a serious problem for many people in poor, undeveloped countries, and the poor farmers in those countries who already struggle to grow sufficient food with insufficient fertilizers and water supplies.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 17, 2017, 12:00:48 pm
I think this statement is misleading.  Climate change is multi-factorial and subject to a number of inputs and outputs.  I would agree that focusing on one aspect of climate change is inappropriate based on our current knowledge.  The affect of CO2 on atmospheric warming is proven by science and efforts to control it along with methane emissions is necessary.
It's getting up to 59 degrees F next Saturday here in New Jersey, about 17 degrees higher than average.  My wife thinks it's great, the warmer weather that is.  Who needs Florida?  Warming is good.  A lot of older people especially die in colder weather.  Warming trend is reducing mortality and extending people's lives.   
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 17, 2017, 12:35:14 pm
It's getting up to 59 degrees F next Saturday here in New Jersey, about 17 degrees higher than average.  My wife thinks it's great, the warmer weather that is.  Who needs Florida?  Warming is good.  A lot of older people especially die in colder weather.  Warming trend is reducing mortality and extending people's lives.   

Not seeing a smiley at the end of this I can only assume that you were serious, but I hope I'm wrong.

First of all, weather is not climate. Weather is not climate. Weather is not climate. Should I repeat it again in larger font?

Second, when all the tropical insects and diseases invade New Jersey, and all the dairy cows in Wisconsin die from the heat, and Atlanta and Texas become deserts, you might not be so grateful for the warm weather. :)



Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 17, 2017, 01:22:04 pm
(1) CO2 is a pollutant. Rarely is it mentioned that CO2 is essential for all life and that most plants thrive in elevated levels of CO2, especially when they are water-stressed.


And it's also one of the negative factors in e.g. the current California wildfires. Lots of plant biomass from the spring is now withering and thus releasing previously stored CO2 again, and it is additionally providing an excellent fuel source for wildfires.

BTW, we're discussing the excess CO2 production that can be considered as a pollutant, not the CO2 that's part of the natural cycles.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on December 18, 2017, 08:12:09 am


And it's also one of the negative factors in e.g. the current California wildfires. Lots of plant biomass from the spring is now withering and thus releasing previously stored CO2 again, and it is additionally providing an excellent fuel source for wildfires.

BTW, we're discussing the excess CO2 production that can be considered as a pollutant, not the CO2 that's part of the natural cycles.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart,
You seem to be implying that the human being (of Homo Sapiens species) is not a natural creature. The carbon that we're releasing into the atmosphere was previously sequestered into the soil, or upprer crust, from vegetation that flourished millions of years ago.

Coal was formed through the fossilization of forest trees and other plants, and oil through the interaction of bacteria, algae and plankton.
The carbon in these fossils is now being re-released into the atmosphere as a result of a natural evolutionary process that has taken place during the development of life on earth, which has resulted in the great prevalence of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, a sub species of Homo Sapiens, which is current humanity.

There are always positives and negatives about natural cycles. In fact, the positive cannot exist without the negative, and the negative cannot exist without the positive. Electricity cannot flow without the existence of both a positive and a negative.

The major negatives about the burning of fossil fuels are the real pollutants of harmful chemical emissions into the atmosphere, which directly affect human health, and the degradation of the environment through unrestricted mining and waste products that are not properly dealt with, and land which is not properly rehabilitated after the mining has ceased.

The major positives are increased human welfare and economic development through the use of cheap and efficient energy sources, and the greening of the planet due to the reintroduction of sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere.

Some of the negatives also apply to the mining of Lithium and rare earth metals for battery storage, in order to combat the partially illusive threat of increasing CO2 levels.

A science of climate change which only focuses on the negative aspects of CO2 emissions, is very poor science.

The following video of a TED talk, by a qualified ecologist, provides an interesting solution to the problems we face in the future, by using the positive effects of elevated CO2 levels in combination with a change in farming practices.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 18, 2017, 01:18:03 pm
I received a justifiable complaint about a series of political statements unrelated to the topic at hand.  Those posts were totally unnecessary and have been either edited or removed.  This is the LAST time I will put up with this and will close the thread down and report back to Chris that the experiment did not work.  You all have been warned.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on December 19, 2017, 06:19:29 pm
This thread was the only place I could think to post about my recently discovered 200+ acre landfill just 2.5 miles from a newly built hospital in my local town I've lived for ten years. In fact it's my first landfill I've ever visited or even lived this close to as a native Texan all my life. It's kinda' funny because I moved to this town for its clean air, land and water since it sits right over an aquifer recharge zone. From telling folks I randomly meet about this landfill I don't even think most of the locals knew about this landfill either.

It's been there since 1988 and I've never heard of it when visiting this small town over the years. I found it this year from its huge grassy hill off on the distant horizon in the newly developed northeast sector of the town where this hospital is located. Approaching this hill driving on a paved farm road I smelled the familiar burning antifreeze odor I thought at first was from my car only to find that it was from all the methane gas vent pipes peppered across the entire hill as well as from the smoke stack pipe with a flame as I found out later was the city's and Waste Management Corp.'s approach to renewable energy by burning this methane trapped in this hill to put back into the electric grid.

I looked up online if there were any regulations for how close one should build a hospital to a landfill and all that came up was articles on how hospital waste was filling up landfills. I could not reword the search term to get a hit on any regulatory info about landfills and hospitals only to find an article that stated the EPA says there's no harm breathing this air if you live at least 2 miles.

Then an even more disturbing article mentioned a degreaser type chemical in these landfills was found by EPA to be more dangerous than first studied and that both NASA and the defense department who used this chemical told federal authorities to have the EPA to change their statement.

WTF?!
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 21, 2017, 07:54:49 am
there is a nice story in the New York Times today about the impact of beavers in the Denali refuge in Alaska.  Increasing temperatures have expanded the range of the beaver with a resulting adverse impact on the permafrost layer:  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/climate/arctic-beavers-alaska.html?_r=0 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 22, 2017, 09:14:24 am
We think we know a lot about trees, but there is always new info coming on stream. This is an hour long episode of a long-standing science series Nature of Things on CBC TV. I am not sure if everyone will be able to see it: http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episodes/what-trees-talk-about (http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episodes/what-trees-talk-about). I didn't fully appreciate the degree of interconnectedness of a stand of trees, nor their effect on climate/weather. It's not too revelatory on the topic of climate chance per se, but it adds to fundamental knowledge.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 22, 2017, 01:29:59 pm
State of large-scale battery development: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/batteries-canada-technology-1.4455998 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/batteries-canada-technology-1.4455998).
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on December 22, 2017, 09:26:21 pm
Thanks for posting that article about trees, Robert. I live in a Arbor Day Foundation designated "Tree City USA" town of New Braunfels and I'm not surprised by some of the findings related in that link.

Developers really take issue with the regulations established to preserve the trees in this town and across the state of Texas. It's because of trees my landlord has to shut off the water to our apartment complex to dig up the log size roots that bust the water pipes.

I can live with that since I'm now paying for an allocated water bill.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on December 24, 2017, 08:53:17 am
If trees could talk, they would thank us profusely for raising CO2 levels, and wish us Merry Christmas.  ;D
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 24, 2017, 09:27:55 am
If trees could talk, they would thank us profusely for raising CO2 levels, and wish us Merry Christmas.  ;D

And trees will outlive mankind, long after we have made ourselves extinct.

Cheers, and enjoy a Merry Christmas while we can,
Bart

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 26, 2017, 07:33:20 pm
One of America's green energy companies does it again saving South Australia power problem.  "Better then hoped for." Who needs Paris?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tesla-battery-australia-20171226-story.html
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 26, 2017, 08:13:28 pm
Getting back to photography, here's a nice NY Times photo essay of Climate Change scientists at work in the field.
https://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/12/11/the-scientists-who-track-climate-change-in-the-field/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Multimedia&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on December 26, 2017, 10:39:01 pm
One of America's green energy companies does it again saving South Australia power problem.  "Better then hoped for." Who needs Paris?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tesla-battery-australia-20171226-story.html

Alan,
I can't find any information on the actual cost of this battery storage compared with alternative backup strategies. How long are the batteries expected to last before replacement is required, for example?

In my search, I came across the following article.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/marketing-con-fears-as-elon-musks-sa-battery-costs-remain-secret/news-story/64597062cc83ffd06cbe5fbc6bf14227

We should also bear in mind the following comment from the article you quoted.

"It can power up to 30,000 homes, though only for short periods — meaning that the battery must still be supported by traditional power plants in the event of a long outage."

PS. I just found an alternative view from one of those bloody climate change deniers.  ;D

https://stopthesethings.com/2017/12/11/south-australias-mega-battery-a-costly-exercise-in-green-vanity-signalling/

"South Australians wake every day to an unfolding economic nightmare: they pay the highest retail power prices in the world, while suffering routine load shedding (scheduled power cuts) and mass blackouts (unscheduled), whenever wind power output collapses on a total and totally unpredictable basis. Businesses are being wiped out and whole industries are under threat.

A bit like one of Baldrick’s ‘cunning plans’, SA’s vapid Premier, Jay Weatherill signed up with Californian carpetbagger, Elon Musk to squander $150 million of taxpayers’ money on a battery which could notionally power SA for four minutes when the wind stops blowing."
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 27, 2017, 12:20:17 am
Ray, My post was just a poke at the Paris accord supporters to show that you don't have to be a member country to make money off of green energy.  You only need to be a brash entrepreneur.  In fact, being involved with government will just slow you down. 

Also, as I posted before #326, the batteries cost a fortune for each person served.  Here's a copy of an earlier post I made in this thread.:

"I've read elsewhere that the batteries will cost Australia $50 million which works out to about $1700 for each of the 30,000 homes effected.  Of course that's the build price.  What about upkeep, maintenance, and eventual replacements of the batteries?  It's not a one-time charge.

I also read that they still have to build diesel -fired plants: "The state has yet to say how much it would pay for the battery, which is part of a A$510 million ($390 million) plan that includes diesel-fired generators to help keep the lights on following a string of blackouts over the past 18 months."

So the cost of electricity  based on $390 million/30,000 homes is actually $13,000 per home.  So much for "free" electricity.  And you still need the diesel plants burning "dirty" carbon fuel for backup.  It seems that energy-rich Australia will continue to pay the highest for electricity for years to come.  The current politicians won't last long when taxes go up to pay for all this free stuff. 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-power-tesla/tesla-cranks-up-big-battery-in-australia-idUSKBN1DN0B4?il=0"
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on December 27, 2017, 08:04:49 am
Cost/benefit analyses rarely are complete. That is, if someone wants to show that something can't be done, it's easy to come up with reasons why it can't. Mention lots of costs, but never mention benefits.

A few years, people were saying that "full-size" sensors would never be produced in quantity because of silicone wafer failure rates , etc., and now we're surrounded by full-frame cameras that don't really cost all that much. What's expensive today is cheap tomorrow.

At the moment, there are lots of people pointing out all the reasons that we can't move away from resource-based energy, pointing all the things that are wrong with the "alternate" energy sources. And the arguments all seem to make sense, they always do, since they only point out the costs and leave out the benefits.

Here's a thought experiment. Assume that there was no oil industry and someone discovered oil next week. Arguments would immediately begin about the "costs" and "benefits" of switching to oil. Would the modern-day world agree to having large petro-chemical plants in our suburbs, would we agree to destroying the Louisiana coast, would we agree to putting lead in the atmosphere, etc. All of the things that may be wrong with "alternates" are also wrong with resource-based energy. We're just used to those, so we think they're normal.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 27, 2017, 08:16:51 am
Cost/benefit analyses rarely are complete. That is, if someone wants to show that something can't be done, it's easy to come up with reasons why it can't. Mention lots of costs, but never mention benefits.
This is often forgotten in discussions related to alternative energy.  There are lots of conceptual ideas that fail in this type of analysis.  We are starting to see lots of electric car charging stations in parking garages in my area.  I wonder if anyone has really thought about where this energy comes from.  In additiona, people can sign up to receive their home electricity from renewable sources.  This is just a "feel-good" idea and one that is not terribly practical.  Consider what would happen if everyone in the US did this; there would not be nearly enough supply for all those who wanted it.  Here is a story from my hometown newspaper:  http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-cca-renewables-20170708-story.html
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 27, 2017, 08:20:23 am
Ray, My post was just a poke at the Paris accord supporters to show that you don't have to be a member country to make money off of green energy.  You only need to be a brash entrepreneur.  In fact, being involved with government will just slow you down.

It's saddening that so many do not understand the meaning of the Paris accord, but one learns to manage one's expectations ...

For those who do care about their health and earthly belongings, I'll add the following consideration which is part of the Paris accords:
How to respond to the justified critical remarks by e.g. the Indian Government, saying that "What moral authority do the Western industrialized countries think they have, to deny India our 150 years of rapid economic development, after they polluted the world's atmosphere for that long?

Well, that's exactly one of the things that the Paris accord addresses. It's not about brash entrepreneurs (there will always be some). It's not about denying other entrepreneurs to sell coal or use it to generate power. It's about providing a coordinated global approach towards a sustainable future and a healthier environment. However, that global approach will have to (amongst others) phase out the use of fossil fuel, matching the capabilities of individual countries in doing so without hurting their development, as much as possible. It will be a painful exercise for some, but less painful than inaction, which will also cost a lot more than managing the transition.

One of the solutions incorporated in the Paris accords is to assist developing countries in providing easy access to resources that allow them to skip the fossil fuel-based power generation, and start using renewable energy sources instead. That will help not only the suppliers of those technologies (companies that have invested in technological know-how), but also the developing countries (in changing living conditions for their populations for the better), and the rest of the world also benefits from improved conditions (health and climate).

Quote
Also, as I posted before #326, the batteries cost a fortune for each person served.

You failed to add how much they save in required capacity of the remaining power generation facilities, and the cost of having no energy for periods of time. You also seem to have misunderstood the purpose of such buffer capacity storage facilities. I'm not saying that the specific example is an optimal solution, but that the principle of not using a virtually free source of energy (solar, wind, and hydro) is stupid. And also that building in some form of buffer capacity to bridge the variable availability of those sources only makes sense.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on December 27, 2017, 08:26:31 am
Hey guys, check the global warming that's going on in Erie, Pa.  ;D ;D
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 27, 2017, 08:52:56 am
This is often forgotten in discussions related to alternative energy.  There are lots of conceptual ideas that fail in this type of analysis.  We are starting to see lots of electric car charging stations in parking garages in my area.  I wonder if anyone has really thought about where this energy comes from.

Yes, good point, but it's being addressed by modern installations.

As an example, at the edge of my town, a renewed train-station is being built, including underpasses for local traffic that doesn't have to wait anymore for the trains crossing the local roads. Part of the effort to get people out of their cars is to provide viable transportation alternatives with fewer drawbacks for society.

Therefore, a 5-story parking garage for 600-vehicles is part of the facility, and it is 100% energy neutral, solar panels on the roof. It generates as much power as it needs to be operated, including all the electrical installations for lighting, elevators, entrance gates with automated payment, and a growing number of charging stations for electric cars, etc. And it doesn't look too bad from the outside either, which can't be said for all buildings. During the construction, lots of environmentally friendly materials like wood were used that have a reduced impact on CO2 emissions (e.g. compared to the production of concrete/cement).

To solve the issue of fossil-fuel based power generation for a.o. those trains, and the rest of the country, our government has announced a prohibition by law to produce utility energy with coal as a fuel, by 2030 or sooner if possible. New tenders for Windfarms are now subsidy-free, because the builders have become more experienced and efficient, and the government is forthcoming is assigning locations (mostly at sea, given our specific geographical situation) with already existing powerlines to shore, and/or a possibility to use excess energy for the production of Hydrogen.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 27, 2017, 09:19:41 am
Cost/benefit analyses rarely are complete. That is, if someone wants to show that something can't be done, it's easy to come up with reasons why it can't. Mention lots of costs, but never mention benefits.

A few years, people were saying that "full-size" sensors would never be produced in quantity because of silicone wafer failure rates , etc., and now we're surrounded by full-frame cameras that don't really cost all that much. What's expensive today is cheap tomorrow.

At the moment, there are lots of people pointing out all the reasons that we can't move away from resource-based energy, pointing all the things that are wrong with the "alternate" energy sources. And the arguments all seem to make sense, they always do, since they only point out the costs and leave out the benefits.

Here's a thought experiment. Assume that there was no oil industry and someone discovered oil next week. Arguments would immediately begin about the "costs" and "benefits" of switching to oil. Would the modern-day world agree to having large petro-chemical plants in our suburbs, would we agree to destroying the Louisiana coast, would we agree to putting lead in the atmosphere, etc. All of the things that may be wrong with "alternates" are also wrong with resource-based energy. We're just used to those, so we think they're normal.
Bob, the government had little to do with the advancement of silicon chips except as they support space and military requirements.  Better chips for cameras were developed because companies compete with one another, hence the constant sales pitch of the never ending argument of quantity of pixels and DR.  It's become a competitive wedge issue for buyers that the camera manufacturers are sure to satisfy.  The same with solar and other green products.  They will develop regardless due to free market demands and competition. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 27, 2017, 09:35:53 am
It's saddening that so many do not understand the meaning of the Paris accord, but one learns to manage one's expectations ...

For those who do care about their health and earthly belongings, I'll add the following consideration which is part of the Paris accords:
How to respond to the justified critical remarks by e.g. the Indian Government, saying that "What moral authority do the Western industrialized countries think they have, to deny India our 150 years of rapid economic development, after they polluted the world's atmosphere for that long?

Well, that's exactly one of the things that the Paris accord addresses. It's not about brash entrepreneurs (there will always be some). It's not about denying other entrepreneurs to sell coal or use it to generate power. It's about providing a coordinated global approach towards a sustainable future and a healthier environment. However, that global approach will have to (amongst others) phase out the use of fossil fuel, matching the capabilities of individual countries in doing so without hurting their development, as much as possible. It will be a painful exercise for some, but less painful than inaction, which will also cost a lot more than managing the transition.

One of the solutions incorporated in the Paris accords is to assist developing countries in providing easy access to resources that allow them to skip the fossil fuel-based power generation, and start using renewable energy sources instead. That will help not only the suppliers of those technologies (companies that have invested in technological know-how), but also the developing countries (in changing living conditions for their populations for the better), and the rest of the world also benefits from improved conditions (health and climate).

You failed to add how much they save in required capacity of the remaining power generation facilities, and the cost of having no energy for periods of time. You also seem to have misunderstood the purpose of such buffer capacity storage facilities. I'm not saying that the specific example is an optimal solution, but that the principle of not using a virtually free source of energy (solar, wind, and hydro) is stupid. And also that building in some form of buffer capacity to bridge the variable availability of those sources only makes sense.

Cheers,
Bart
Just because the Indian and Chinese governments prevented growth until recently because of stupid economic and political decisions, does not mean the more advanced societies should give up their gains to live better that they worked hard for.  That argument is used by individuals who sat on their asses, didn't push their children to get educations, and then demand that others who worked hard and pushed their children to get educated now owe them a living.  Re-distribution of wealth.  Sounds like the Communists.   

Additionally, the Chinese will produce at least the equal amount of CO2 that they already produce when they pollute foreign countries with 800 new coal fired electric generation plants throughout the world during the next ten years.  How does Paris help with that?  It's a joke.  China reduces its pollution and moves it off shore.  Brilliant plan, Paris.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 27, 2017, 09:51:58 am
Yes, good point, but it's being addressed by modern installations.

As an example, at the edge of my town, a renewed train-station is being built, including underpasses for local traffic that doesn't have to wait anymore for the trains crossing the local roads. Part of the effort to get people out of their cars is to provide viable transportation alternatives with fewer drawbacks for society.

Therefore, a 5-story parking garage for 600-vehicles is part of the facility, and it is 100% energy neutral, solar panels on the roof. It generates as much power as it needs to be operated, including all the electrical installations for lighting, elevators, entrance gates with automated payment, and a growing number of charging stations for electric cars, etc. And it doesn't look too bad from the outside either, which can't be said for all buildings. During the construction, lots of environmentally friendly materials like wood were used that have a reduced impact on CO2 emissions (e.g. compared to the production of concrete/cement).

To solve the issue of fossil-fuel based power generation for a.o. those trains, and the rest of the country, our government has announced a prohibition by law to produce utility energy with coal as a fuel, by 2030 or sooner if possible. New tenders for Windfarms are now subsidy-free, because the builders have become more experienced and efficient, and the government is forthcoming is assigning locations (mostly at sea, given our specific geographical situation) with already existing powerlines to shore, and/or a possibility to use excess energy for the production of Hydrogen.

Cheers,
Bart
Bart, regarding your parking garage and solar panels,  Citibank tried the roof-top solar panels in their headquarters in NYC in 1977 after the 1973 oil crisis that started "green" energy.  Nothing new about it.  The 45 degree angle roof was to contain solar as a publicity stunt because even if they got it working, it would only furnish enough power to support one of the fifty some odd floors in the office building.  Click link below.

Your garage on the other hand is a special situation.  Since it only houses cars, that need ventilation to get rid of the fumes, no real heating or air conditioning is required.  You only need a few watts for lighting, elevators and maybe a couple of offices.  In NYC, many above-ground parking lots do not even have full walls.  Big openings are left on all car floors so they are naturally vented requiring no fans.  So electric requirements are minor. 


I think it's great that your country is trying to go all green.  But even in your country, I've read there are major delays in big cities where solar and wind is impractical especially because of the large electric requirements and no place to install the green generation.  It will be even harder in the US with such a large and divergent population, territory, and most importantly climate differences.  Can you imaging putting in solar and wind for NYC and the crowded northeast?  Frankly nuclear would be best.  In NJ where I live, we get 50% from nuclear and a little less from natural gas.   
https://www.google.com/search?q=citicorp+building&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=ujWueOcMHmjsKM%253A%252CH558vWzlUyJd5M%252C_&usg=__4YTibLb5YGmqGkjzFGxDIINYX2s%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinmJiTtqrYAhUF2yYKHSKiAScQ9QEISzAE#imgrc=ujWueOcMHmjsKM:
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 27, 2017, 09:55:00 am
[snipped nonsense]
Additionally, the Chinese will produce at least the equal amount of CO2 that they already produce when they pollute foreign countries with 800 new coal fired electric generation plants throughout the world during the next ten years.  How does Paris help with that?  It's a joke.  China reduces its pollution and moves it off shore.  Brilliant plan, Paris.

I hear that USA coal exports are doing fine, since the home market started declining ...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-column-russell-coal-usa/u-s-coal-exports-surge-but-thank-china-not-trump-russell-idUSKBN1AG0CC

I bet that some of that coal is being used to allow the manufacture of US consumables in China.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. this is not intended as a political statement but to expose the hypocrisy. Pointing a finger at others means pointing 3 at yourself.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 27, 2017, 10:30:28 am
I hear that USA coal exports are doing fine, since the home market started declining ...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-column-russell-coal-usa/u-s-coal-exports-surge-but-thank-china-not-trump-russell-idUSKBN1AG0CC

I bet that some of that coal is being used to allow the manufacture of US consumables in China.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. this is not intended as a political statement but to expose the hypocrisy. Pointing a finger at others means pointing 3 at yourself.
Trump promised more work for our coal industry.  Exports have gone up considerably since he became president. Trump is keeping his word.  If the Chinese, Indians and other people around the world need coal, why shouldn't it be American coal?  I don't see the Australians turning away the business. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on December 27, 2017, 10:50:29 am
Ray, My post was just a poke at the Paris accord supporters to show that you don't have to be a member country to make money off of green energy.  You only need to be a brash entrepreneur.  In fact, being involved with government will just slow you down.
Are you afraid we forgot the exact same information (and nonsence follow-up) that you also posted some time ago in post #311 of this thread? Repeating yourself never strengthens your case, it's more like the opposite. I'm not going to repeat my reaction ;)  You can read there why I think none of this Tesla Bla-Bla has anything to do with the Paris accords.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 27, 2017, 11:27:43 am
Are you afraid we forgot the exact same information (and nonsence follow-up) that you also posted some time ago in post #311 of this thread? Repeating yourself never strengthens your case, it's more like the opposite. I'm not going to repeat my reaction ;)  You can read there why I think none of this Tesla Bla-Bla has anything to do with the Paris accords.
I agree.  Tesla has nothing to do with Paris.  It developed sales because there's a market for it.  Tesla and other American firms will produce green energy as the free market demands.  The fact America is no longer part of Paris will not hurt American green energy in the world market, hence Tesla's sale of batteries to Australia which is in the Paris accord. 

One other comment.  America is made up of 50 sovereign states.  So it's not just Washington DC that decides green energy requirements.  California, who many years ago lead the way for cleaner burning autos, that European car maker VW lied about in their cars for a decade, is leading the way again regarding other clean and green energy.  Their laws will effect the world's production and design again as they have new requirements.  So America can create standards without Paris.  We can decide what's best for ourselves without have a bunch of Chinese and Indians and Europeans  deciding for us what's best in their interest.  I'd rather have California lead than Paris.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 27, 2017, 11:35:13 am
I'd rather have California lead than Paris.

Who do you think has a larger impact on global climate change in this century, China and India and Africa, or California ?

Have the California Wildfires already been forgotten, not to mention last season's hurricanes? And that's only the beginning of what's to come.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on December 27, 2017, 11:37:29 am
The fact America is no longer part of Paris will not hurt American green energy in the world market
Read my previous responses why I believe this is not true and the US economy will suffer because of withdrawing from the Paris accords.
 
One other comment.  America is made up of 50 sovereign states.  So it's not just Washington DC that decides green energy requirements.  California, who many years ago lead the way for cleaner burning autos, that European car maker VW lied about in their cars for a decade, is leading the way again regarding other clean and green energy.  Their laws will effect the world's production and design again as they have new requirements.  So America can create standards without Paris.  We can decide what's best for ourselves without have a bunch of Chinese and Indians and Europeans  deciding for us what's best in their interest.  I'd rather have California lead than Paris.
Do you really believe that Amerrica creates standards? According to your own logic here it's the mainly democratic and green/Paris supporting state of California that helps creating the standards. And you as a republican Trump supporter think that's a good thing? I am amazed  :o
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 27, 2017, 01:51:14 pm
Who do you think has a larger impact on global climate change in this century, China and India and Africa, or California ?
.
Have the California Wildfires already been forgotten, not to mention last season's hurricanes? And that's only the beginning of what's to come.

Cheers,
Bart
I'd rather have Californians lead instead of Chinese because Californians are Americans.  Additionally, Californians because of their standards have been doing more to reduce pollution and carbon then the Chinese and Indians who have just increased the world's pollution. Not even close.

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 27, 2017, 01:57:28 pm
...
 Do you really believe that Amerrica creates standards? According to your own logic here it's the mainly democratic and green/Paris supporting state of California that helps creating the standards. And you as a republican Trump supporter think that's a good thing? I am amazed  :o
Of course America has standards. Do you think we thrrow garbage in the street? California has created emission standards for automobiles for decades that have changed the way cars are manufactured throughout the world. Except for Europea that's cheated for last 10 years.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on December 27, 2017, 03:42:04 pm
Of course America has standards. Do you think we thrrow garbage in the street? California has created emission standards for automobiles for decades that have changed the way cars are manufactured throughout the world. Except for Europea that's cheated for last 10 years.
VW cheated on NOx (and is rightfully paying heavily), not Europea. Are you sure there aren't a few US companies who didn't cheat environmental regulations?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 27, 2017, 05:44:12 pm
... the mainly democratic... state of California...

Democratic... small letter, big difference.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 27, 2017, 06:47:26 pm
VW cheated on NOx (and is rightfully paying heavily), not Europea. Are you sure there aren't a few US companies who didn't cheat environmental regulations?
American companies are straight as an arrow.  Not like Europea. :)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on December 27, 2017, 08:17:17 pm

Have the California Wildfires already been forgotten, not to mention last season's hurricanes? And that's only the beginning of what's to come.


Only the beginning of what's to come? That sounds very alarmist, Bart.  ;)

Don't you mean, 'That's only a continuation of what's happened in the past?'

It's this aspect of misinformation which is the potentially disastrous component of the drive towards expensive renewable energy, the false impression created by the media that every extreme weather event is a record-breaking event caused by AGW which in turn is caused by rising CO2 levels.

The historical and geological records tend to show that modern extreme weather events of any type, whether flood, drought, hurricane or forest fire, have been just as bad, and often worse in the past.

Even the current forest fire in California, in terms of acreage burned, does not appear to be the worst on record, despite almost every media report claiming that it is. The acreage burned in this current fire in California appears to be 281,000, yet in year 1889 there was a fire in California that covered at least 300,000 acres

"The Santiago Canyon Fire of 1889 (previously called the Great Fire of 1889) was a massive wildfire in California, which burned large parts of Orange County, Riverside County, and San Diego County during the last week of September, 1889. It was possibly the single largest wildfire in the recorded history of California, burning at least 300,000 acres (1,200 km2) of land."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_Fire

In order to find a solution to any problem we have to correctly identify the cause of the problem. I have no objection to research and development into alternative supplies of energy. Energy is the lifeblood of all human activity. We can do nothing without it. We should exploit all sources of energy in the cleanest and most efficienct manner that our technological development allows.

The real problems we face are due to our apparent inability to learn from history, whether it's the history of incessant, continuous wars and religious conflicts, or the history of extreme weather events in a particular area.

We seem to mindlessly build houses in flood plains, or areas frequently subject to hurricanes, or forest fires, and then blame human-induced climate change for the next extreme weather event that destroys our home, deluding ourselves that the extreme weather event was unprecedented, the worst on record, caused by rising CO2 levels, and that such destruction can be prevented in the future by reducing CO2 levels.

How foolish!
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on December 28, 2017, 02:32:56 am
Democratic... small letter, big difference.
Thanks Slobodan, both small and big are correct for the State of California, but I indeed meant the big one :)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on December 28, 2017, 02:33:57 am
American companies are straight as an arrow.  Not like Europea. :)
And if you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you, only used twice.....  ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 28, 2017, 06:44:29 am
Only the beginning of what's to come? That sounds very alarmist, Bart.  ;)

Don't you mean, 'That's only a continuation of what's happened in the past?'

No, it's exactly what I meant, it's getting worse than it was.

Quote
It's this aspect of misinformation which is the potentially disastrous component of the drive towards expensive renewable energy, the false impression created by the media that every extreme weather event is a record-breaking event caused by AGW which in turn is caused by rising CO2 levels.

Misinformation? Scientific consensus agrees about the increased likelihood of more extreme weather events and amounts of precipitation, as a direct result of CO2 induced global warming. Warmer air holds more water vapor, more water vapor traps more heat which allows more water vapor to be held by the troposphere until the amount of water becomes too much and results in larger amounts of precipitation. There will be more floods at some places and more droughts in other places. We've been over that already, ad nauseam some may say.

Also, not equating the improved capabilities of the California firefighters to fight the fires into your comparison with historical records is very unscientific. They didn't even have the equipment or planes back then to assist in getting huge amounts of water to hotspots or strategic locations. Fact is that the rising CO2 levels result in more plant biomass, which then dries out and withers at the change of seasons and with droughts, and forms a larger fuel source for these wildfires. So these are also likely to become worse. The only solution seems to be the migration of the population. The CO2 levels will keep rising for quite a while to come.

Yes, it will get worse.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on December 28, 2017, 10:03:09 am
Scientific consensus agrees about the increased likelihood of more extreme weather events and amounts of precipitation, as a direct result of CO2 induced global warming.

I hesitate to get into this circle jerk of a thread, but I have to point out that in the middle fifties "scientific consensus" agreed that an ICBM was impossible. The reason I emphasize this is that I was in Air Defense Command at the time and we were starting to move toward the SAGE air defense system, which was enormously expensive and was based on the "scientific consensus" that bombers were the real threat. I didn't believe in "scientific consensus" then, and I don't believe in it now. "Scientific consensus" means that people calling themselves scientists have become politicized. There is no such thing as real "scientific consensus." I could give more historical examples of the futility and stupidity of the idea of "scientific consensus," but this is the one I, personally, was caught up in.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 28, 2017, 10:41:49 am
I hesitate to get into this circle jerk of a thread, but I have to point out that in the middle fifties "scientific consensus" agreed that an ICBM was impossible. The reason I emphasize this is that I was in Air Defense Command at the time and we were starting to move toward the SAGE air defense system, which was enormously expensive and was based on the "scientific consensus" that bombers were the real threat.

Hi Russ,

That's not scientific consensus. Scientific consensus arrises after a long period where peer-reviewed publications have been circulated amongst fellow scientists (who are eager to disprove a hypothesis or find flaws in the methodology used) and the vast majority of reviewers come to the same conclusions, that the hypothesis stands despite efforts to disprove it. That's also known as an emerging scientific truth. What's more, the evidence gets stronger all the time, as our abilities to reconstruct past events gets better, and new instruments allow to make even more accurate measurements of current events. Virtually ALL evidence points in the same direction, anthropogenic CO2 based global warming is the earth's thermostat, and we're still cranking it up...

Quote
I didn't believe in "scientific consensus" then, and I don't believe in it now. "Scientific consensus" means that people calling themselves scientists have become politicized. There is no such thing as real "scientific consensus."

That was not scientific, and it was not consensus.

This is consensus:
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

And the greenhouse gas effects of CO2 have been known for ages, heck even the oil companies warned about them in the '90s. Talk about consensus:
Climate of Concern - Royal Dutch Shell (1991)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VOWi8oVXmo

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on December 28, 2017, 11:01:34 am
As the New Year approaches, it might be useful to point out the negative effects of the fireworks. The New Year's Eve fireworks blow huge amounts of fine dust in the air which is a real health risk, whther it is on 4th of July or 31st of December.  What you inhale on those days, stays in your body for the full year. Extended exposure to particulate matter can lead to coughing, wheezing and even lead to an early death for people with pre-existing conditions like heart or lung disease, according to the EPA.

So, if you are going to photograph this New Year's fireworks, do it from a safe distance, stay upwind, and put on a respiratory mask. You might want to use also a ND filter.

http://time.com/3943702/fourth-of-july-fireworks-pollution/
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on December 28, 2017, 11:13:36 am
Hi Russ,

That's not scientific consensus. Scientific consensus arrises after a long period where peer-reviewed publications have been circulated amongst fellow scientists (who are eager to disprove a hypothesis or find flaws in the methodology used) and the vast majority of reviewers come to the same conclusions, that the hypothesis stands despite efforts to disprove it. That's also known as an emerging scientific truth. What's more, the evidence get stronger all the time, as our abilities t reconstruct past events gets better, and new instruments allow to make even more accurate measurements of current events. Virtually ALL evidence points in the same direction, anthropogenic CO2 based global warming is the earth's thermostat, and we're still cranking it up..

That was not scietific, and it was not consensus.

This is consensus:
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

And the greenhouse gas effects of CO2 have been known for ages, heck even the oil companies warned about them in the '90s. Talk about consensus:
Climate of Concern - Royal Dutch Shell (1991)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VOWi8oVXmo

Cheers,
Bart

Bart, I'm not going to continue in this befuddled discussion beyond this post. The kind of "scientific consensus" that ruled out the possibility of an ICBM was exactly what you're talking about. There was plenty of peer-review, and a vast majority of scientists in the know came to the same conclusion. There weren't even the political pressures attempting to enforce that conclusion there are nowadays with "climate change." In the case of the ICBM discussion there was no way to prove or disprove it, as is the case with the idea that the majority of climate change is being caused by human activity. You believe that. I don't believe that. I remember when I was at University of Michigan in the early fifties and according to a "consensus" among the best geologists in the world, we were on the verge of a new ice age. That "consensus" was no more reliable than the crap you're telling me about. The climate will change. Relax. Have a Perfect Manhattan. Enjoy life. The climate will change back. It's the way the world works.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on December 28, 2017, 08:09:21 pm
Just for scale and we do need some perspective on how severe us puny humans are destroying our planet, I'ld suggest everyone watch "Day The Dinosaurs Died".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/day-dinosaurs-died.html

It provides a further and more detailed investigation describing the scale of magnitude in regards to the size of the rock (7 miles) and the physics and chemistry involved in how it changed the climate of the Earth globally. They even took core samples of the outer peak ring impact crater off the Mexico coast that line up very precisely to time and location of the KT line seen in rock formation across the world. It's a level of precision in explaining what happened and it relates to what it takes to change the climate.

Not sure, but just one 7 mile rock hitting the Earth makes CO2 concerns somewhat petty by comparison. The researchers and scientists said in the NOVA piece that if that rock hit out in the Pacific or Atlantic ocean none of us would be here discussing this. Now that's some pretty profound perspective.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on December 28, 2017, 08:22:47 pm
Thanks for posting that article, Bill. Unfortunately, the video in the supplied link doesn't work in Canada.
I found another online article by BBC about that event. The most shocking fact is that the energy released by the large asteroid was equivalent to 10 billion Hiroshima A-bombs.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39922998
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on December 28, 2017, 09:01:21 pm
Thanks for posting that article, Bill. Unfortunately, the video in the supplied link doesn't work in Canada.
I found another online article by BBC about that event. The most shocking fact is that the energy released by the large asteroid was equivalent to 10 billion Hiroshima A-bombs.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39922998

You're welcome...and my name is not Bill. It's Tim.

And yes, that's what the NOVA piece indicated about the amount of energy released from the asteroid impact that changed the climate globally.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 29, 2017, 08:33:23 am
Trump promised more work for our coal industry.  Exports have gone up considerably since he became president. Trump is keeping his word.  If the Chinese, Indians and other people around the world need coal, why shouldn't it be American coal?  I don't see the Australians turning away the business.
There is actually less work in the coal industry if one is counting workers.  This will continue as the cheapest coal comes from surface mining.  Largest coal producing state in the US is Wyoming where it is all surface mined.  A lot of this coal goes to India and China as you can judge from the rail statistics for Burlington Northern (one of Warren Buffet's companies).  If you are judging Trump's success by workforce count, he has failed.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 29, 2017, 08:40:31 am
Bart, I'm not going to continue in this befuddled discussion beyond this post. The kind of "scientific consensus" that ruled out the possibility of an ICBM was exactly what you're talking about. There was plenty of peer-review, and a vast majority of scientists in the know came to the same conclusion.
I can tell you from my own family history that you are wrong.  My father's first cousin was an aerospace engineer first at Convair in San Diego and then at Hughes in Los Angeles.  Convair was working on these types of projects in the early 1950s and developed both ICBMs and the Atlas Centaur which was used by NASA.

Wikipedia Link to Atlas development:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65_Atlas
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 29, 2017, 09:06:24 am
I can tell you from my own family history that you are wrong.  My father's first cousin was an aerospace engineer first at Convair in San Diego and then at Hughes in Los Angeles.  Convair was working on these types of projects in the early 1950s and developed both ICBMs and the Atlas Centaur which was used by NASA.

Wikipedia Link to Atlas development:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65_Atlas

Which illustrates the difference between on the one hand (hopefully) scientifically educated individuals working towards tactical/strategical goals with a (somewhat) limited budget and a political force to set some priorities, and on the other hand (academic) scientists exploring/expanding the boundaries of our knowledge.

It also suggests that the general public (including policymakers at government levels) need to better understand how we form our thoughts and opinions. Here is an interesting article that addresses those issues:

People who know how the news is made resist conspiratorial thinking
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/12/knowing-how-the-news-media-works-protects-people-from-conspiracy-theories/

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 29, 2017, 09:47:58 am
...People who know how the news is made resist conspiratorial thinking
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/12/knowing-how-the-news-media-works-protects-people-from-conspiracy-theories/

GIGO
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 29, 2017, 09:51:02 am
GIGO

Explain, if you intend to discuss something.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 29, 2017, 10:14:18 am
Meaning garbage assumptions/survey questions lead to garbage conclusions. If one ever wondered how come so many polls/surveys led to spectacularly wrong predictions/conclusions, look no further. The way questions are asked (consciously or subconsciously influenced by the pollster's own bias) lead or nudge the responders to answer the certain way. The most ridiculous example from the article: “I am in control of the information I get from the news media.” What does it even mean? How does one respond to such a question? How does one interpret whatever the answer is? If the answer is Yes or No, and even if on a scale of 1 to 10, what, for instance, does "Yes" mean? "Yes, I am in control..." might mean "Yes, I believe what I read" or it might mean "Yes, I am very sceptical when I read..." Both sides might feel they are "in control." 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on December 29, 2017, 10:18:22 am
Explain, if you intend to discuss something.

Cheers,
Bart

In the context of Climate Change, GIGO could stand for the conversion of liquid gas to gaseous state
Example: Gasoline In, CO2 gas Out
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on December 29, 2017, 10:30:15 am
I can tell you from my own family history that you are wrong.  My father's first cousin was an aerospace engineer first at Convair in San Diego and then at Hughes in Los Angeles.  Convair was working on these types of projects in the early 1950s and developed both ICBMs and the Atlas Centaur which was used by NASA.

Wikipedia Link to Atlas development:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65_Atlas

Good grief! Am I actually going to get back into this absurdity? Well, not for long. I can't believe this fiasco is still going on after almost 500 head-rattlings.

Alan, development of an ICBM involves a few small things beside launching an Atlas into space. There are minor problems such as accurate targeting, and a nuclear device that'll survive both launch and reentry. And yes, you're right. By the end of the fifties the world had ICBM's, though, to avoid being impolite, I'll just say that the Wikipedia article leaves out a few minor details.

But why do you think the US committed itself to the SAGE system for air defense? When I came home from Korea shortly after the end of that war and was assigned to Air Defense Command, which later became part of NORAD, we had radar sites all over the northern US and southern Canada. Each site had controllers (including me) capable of controlling fighter intercepts against incoming bombers. The SAGE system was going to leave the radars in place but remove the controllers from the radar sites and put them into a very few central blockhouses where, with the help of first-generation computers, they'd take the place of the controllers scattered over what we used to call the "highline." I was Director of Combat Operations at a SAGE center in the mid seventies, so I'm intimately familiar with that operation too.

If ICBM's were a reality, it wouldn't make sense to reduce the number of targets the damned things would have to encompass. If you could knock out a few SAGE centers with ICBMs, there'd no longer be any defense against incoming bombers. The whole attack plan would be simplified and become much less costly. Yes, if it survived, SAGE would be a great improvement against bombers, but since it was absolutely defenseless against ICBMs it couldn't possibly survive.

But we went ahead with SAGE, to which we committed in the early to mid fifties, and which, to me, always was a monstrous and immensely expensive strategic blunder. Why do you suppose we did that, Alan, if we were convinced ICBMs were on the way?

In the end, we lucked out, and we now can control fighters from airborne early warning and control aircraft, which are survivable.

In any case, none of this has a damned thing to do with "climate change" dogma from the true believers.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 29, 2017, 11:51:22 am
Last night I was watching a program that showed how there was no San Francisco bay 12000 years ago.  The warming since then has raised the seas hundreds of feet creating the bay. We seem to be in-between ice ages, maybe still warming up a little regardless of CO2.  So it's been melting for 12000 years since the height of the last ice age.  99% of the melting was long before man had any effect.  So what causes the ice ages?  What other thing is effecting it and how do we know that the "slight" increase we're seeing now is not just mainly part of whatever causes the ice age cycles?  Or if CO2 is having an effect, it's rather very minor compared to the main cause?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on December 29, 2017, 03:05:04 pm
Last night I was watching a program that showed how there was no San Francisco bay 12000 years ago.  The warming since then has raised the seas hundreds of feet creating the bay. We seem to be in-between ice ages, maybe still warming up a little regardless of CO2.  So it's been melting for 12000 years since the height of the last ice age.  99% of the melting was long before man had any effect.  So what causes the ice ages?  What other thing is effecting it and how do we know that the "slight" increase we're seeing now is not just mainly part of whatever causes the ice age cycles?  Or if CO2 is having an effect, it's rather very minor compared to the main cause?

Along similar lines regarding how weather created ice behaves in different parts of the world my weather man down here in Texas says due to the temperature inversion where hot air is sitting on top of cold air close to the ground my central Texas area will not get snow. But several weeks ago we got snow but the temperature at ground level was above freezing (about 38 degrees) and it took all day for the snow to melt as the temps warmed up above 38 degrees throughout the day.

I'm scratching my head now on trying to understand enough why the weather behaves very inconsistently and unpredictably for me to believe CO2 is the only thing that's causing the ice caps to melt.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Rob C on December 29, 2017, 03:10:17 pm
Last night I was watching a program that showed how there was no San Francisco bay 12000 years ago.  The warming since then has raised the seas hundreds of feet creating the bay. We seem to be in-between ice ages, maybe still warming up a little regardless of CO2.  So it's been melting for 12000 years since the height of the last ice age.  99% of the melting was long before man had any effect.  So what causes the ice ages?  What other thing is effecting it and how do we know that the "slight" increase we're seeing now is not just mainly part of whatever causes the ice age cycles?  Or if CO2 is having an effect, it's rather very minor compared to the main cause?

How do you know that if you step in front of a bus it might kill you? How can you be sure it might not stop all by itself before impact? Busses have been stopping at regular intervals since there were busses, some even come along in bunches. That could be interesting if their synchronicity goes bad.

Might make sense to avoid stepping in front of them, just in case.

Oy fucking vey.

Rob
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 29, 2017, 03:45:17 pm
How do you know that if you step in front of a bus it might kill you? How can you be sure it might not stop all by itself before impact? Busses have been stopping at regular intervals since there were busses, some even come along in bunches. That could be interesting if their synchronicity goes bad.

Might make sense to avoid stepping in front of them, just in case.

Oy fucking vey.

Rob
Spending trillions of dollars "just in case" instead of spending those finite resources on cancer and heart research, malaria eradication, health care, etc is not prudent.  It's not exactly like we have money to burn.

Also, your bus example is not a good analogy.  We know that brakes stop a bus.  We also know that CO2 produced by man does not cause the ice ages.  It may have a slight incremental effect on warming, or not.  After all, since the seas have risen hundreds of feet in 12,000 years as the ice age cycle warms, a couple inches of additional rising of the seas are really just inconsequential perturbations.  But the main cause of ice age cycles of warming and cooling is something else.  I'm asking what is that cause and could it account for most if not all of the current rise in temperature?  I'm really interested in the answer but no one here seems to know. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 29, 2017, 03:59:28 pm
There is actually less work in the coal industry if one is counting workers.  This will continue as the cheapest coal comes from surface mining.  Largest coal producing state in the US is Wyoming where it is all surface mined.  A lot of this coal goes to India and China as you can judge from the rail statistics for Burlington Northern (one of Warren Buffet's companies).  If you are judging Trump's success by workforce count, he has failed.
I read that coal exports are up around 25% and jobs up 1200 workers.  Not a lot but if you consider the stress natural gas alternative energy is having on coal, that's not bad.  But you're missing the whole point.  Hillary told the coal workers to go screw themselves.  Trump showed empathy.  He said he would help and has.  Things may not work out the way you hope for.  But it's nice to know when people are on your side and care about you.  That's why he won. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 29, 2017, 05:35:04 pm
I read that coal exports are up around 25% and jobs up 1200 workers.  Not a lot but if you consider the stress natural gas alternative energy is having on coal, that's not bad.  But you're missing the whole point.  Hillary told the coal workers to go screw themselves.  Trump showed empathy.  He said he would help and has.  Things may not work out the way you hope for.  But it's nice to know when people are on your side and care about you.  That's why he won.
Trump's campaign on bringing coal mining jobs back was confined pretty much to Appalachian states.  Those states have lost and continue to lose coal mining jobs.  Jobs are not being created in mining but in the ancillary support areas.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 29, 2017, 10:09:26 pm
Trump's campaign on bringing coal mining jobs back was confined pretty much to Appalachian states.  Those states have lost and continue to lose coal mining jobs.  Jobs are not being created in mining but in the ancillary support areas.
Yeah, things are pretty bad in the coal industry.  I think the next democrat candidate should just be honest and tell the coal miners to get another job.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on December 30, 2017, 12:54:50 am
Yeah, things are pretty bad in the coal industry.  I think the next democrat candidate should just be honest and tell the coal miners to get another job.

Most of the jobs in the coal industry were lost because of advancing technology and automation, as well as the increased demand for natural gas and renewable energy not because of government regulation. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis said in its 2017 U.S. Coal Outlook that it predicted jobs will continue to be cut, and that “too many companies are still mining too much coal for too few customers.”

The job losses in the photojournalism and news industries were even higher than in the coal segment.  From January 2001 to September 2016, the newspaper publishers industry lost over half of its employment, from 412,000 to 174,000. Australian and Canadian media companies reported also significant losses in their news industries. Even Eastman Kodak, Tesla, National Oilwell Varco, and Molina Healthcare Inc. eliminated thousands of jobs in 2017 alone.
 
A new report has found that 38 percent of US jobs will be replaced by robots and artificial intelligence by the early 2030s. Interestingly, Germany, the Europe's strongest economy and manufacturing powerhouse has quadrupled the amount of industrial robots it has installed in the last 20 years, without causing human redundancies.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Rob C on December 30, 2017, 04:58:59 am
1.  Spending trillions of dollars "just in case" instead of spending those finite resources on cancer and heart research, malaria eradication, health care, etc is not prudent.  It's not exactly like we have money to burn.

Also, your bus example is not a good analogy.  We know that brakes stop a bus.  We also know that CO2 produced by man does not cause the ice ages.  It may have a slight incremental effect on warming, or not.  After all, since the seas have risen hundreds of feet in 12,000 years as the ice age cycle warms, a couple inches of additional rising of the seas are really just inconsequential perturbations.  But the main cause of ice age cycles of warming and cooling is something else.  I'm asking what is that cause and could it account for most if not all of the current rise in temperature?  I'm really interested in the answer 2. but no one here seems to know.



1. Who told you that's where the money, as in public (?), would be going? It's a typical fib of substitution, where a prize that was never available is offered as decoy in an argument. The same "public health" lie was used, to great effect, in the lead-up to the Brexit vote.
 
2. You know perfectly well that if they did and told you, you still couldn't buy it. Couldn't, because it's mindset. Magically, all that shit we pump into the air doesn't affect anything because some of us don't like to imagine that it has to, that there is nowhere else for it to go, that it can't reasonably just hang there, doing nothing one way or the other. Preposterous to imagine anything else. Yeah, just as cigarettes, we were told in the forties and fifties, were making us all better singers if enjoying a more brief career. Stick in a star, and whether it's soap or cigarettes people buy the lie.

Obviously, then, better doing nothing than trying to do the bit that we can to prevent or at least limit within our abilities what may also be happening beyond our own causation.

Somehow, it all reminds me of that great Trumpian project: build a diversionary wall that will instantly stop US citizens craving drugs and consequently being responsible for thousands of Mexican dead every year through gang violence to supply that wonderful market. Colour it in the tones of immigration instead, immigration that does the jobs the legitimate Americans don't want to do, just as in Britain where some of the Poles, Romanians et al. find themselves doing the otherwise unfilled jobs nobody else wants. Jobs, in the end, that left undone would stop the country in its tracks. But hey, those jobs "we" don't want to do are obviously jobs that are stolen from us so we can no longer want not to do them, but can use them instead as ammunition with which to attack Johnny Foreigner.

You see how it works? Introduce non sequiturs, as the last paragraph above, and hope your opponent is of limited attention span.

"Yeah, things are pretty bad in the coal industry.  I think the next democrat candidate should just be honest and tell the coal miners to get another job."

Now that's a wonderful idea: honesty in politics!

Sadly, it will never catch on: people don't want truth, people want comfort against reality. Politicians exist because the market exists. Snake oil can even be used for cooking, as proven by the tribes in the Amazon and in the Congo, and is guarateed to meet all international health standards and safeguards.


Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 30, 2017, 08:26:07 am
Does anyone have the answer to my questions? What caused the melting of the snow and glaciers over the last 12,000 years that caused the seas to rise hundreds of feet and would that cause be part of why the seas have risen a few inches over the last hundred and fifty years?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 30, 2017, 08:42:00 am

...A new report has found that 38 percent of US jobs will be replaced by robots and artificial intelligence by the early 2030s. Interestingly, Germany, the Europe's strongest economy and manufacturing powerhouse has quadrupled the amount of industrial robots it has installed in the last 20 years, without causing human redundancies.

Les, that's an interesting statistic.   How have the Germans done that?  Maybe we can learn something from them.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 30, 2017, 09:23:21 am
Les, that's an interesting statistic.   How have the Germans done that?  Maybe we can learn something from them.

The power of weaseling statistics: you increase the number of robots from one to four, you quadrupled them. Easy. Not saying that's what's happening in Germany, just that "quadrupling" as an indicator is meaningless. Besides, Germany has been loosing (its own) population for years.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Rob C on December 30, 2017, 10:27:45 am
The power of weaseling statistics: you increase the number of robots from one to four, you quadrupled them. Easy. Not saying that's what's happening in Germany, just that "quadrupling" as an indicator is meaningless. Besides, Germany has been loosing (its own) population for years.

Which has been Angela's big fear for the future: the projected, almost total absence of drones. Hence the allowed influx. I don't believe she or any of them in politics has the slightest bit of sympathy with them for their own (humanitarian?) sake, just for the convenience they can represent. Trouble, of course, is controlling them properly once they are in!

I was watching Sky News this morning, and learned that Lord Adonis has resigned for his beliefs in the negative impact that Brexit will have on Britain's economy. Up steps Iain Duncan Smith, arch Brexiteer, saying that it was right that Adonois should be gone, that arguing against the "democratic decision" was terrible, and that is stank of elitism! Elitism! from him, ye gods! Clever theft of a left-wing mantra and turning it against anyone with a different belief.

Wiki thinks:

"Personal life[edit]
He married Elizabeth "Betsy" Fremantle, daughter of the 5th Baron Cottesloe, in 1982. The couple have four children,[77] and live in a country house belonging to his father-in-law's estate in Swanbourne, Buckinghamshire.[78]

Duncan Smith has been reported to support both Tottenham Hotspur,[79] where he holds a season ticket,[80] and Aston Villa.[81]"

The vote was so close, but suddenly, the almost half-nation that opposed tribal suicide (almost a cult, you could say, for the new Briton) is elitist!

You have to watch these people mouthing it to believe it is beng mouthed. And yes, you also have to watch with care the news that you are exposed to with your corn flakes. You could choke to death: manslaughter by politician, no less. They're trying hard to get me!

;-)



Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on December 30, 2017, 10:45:55 am
The power of weaseling statistics: you increase the number of robots from one to four, you quadrupled them. Easy. Not saying that's what's happening in Germany, just that "quadrupling" as an indicator is meaningless. Besides, Germany has been loosing (its own) population for years.

No doubt, many stats are misleading or manipulated. Also, similar to USA, many of the new jobs are low paid jobs without any benefits. However, the number of jobs in Germany has increased any way you measure it. Below are a few interesting articles explaining some of the facts and reasons behind the job growth in Germany.

Employment Rate in Germany increased to 74.80 percent in the second quarter of 2017 from 74.60 percent in the first quarter of 2017. Employment Rate in Germany averaged 68.65 percent from 1992 until 2017, reaching an all time high of 75.30 percent in the fourth quarter of 2016 and a record low of 63.60 percent in the second quarter of 1997.
https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/employment-rate

Considering how Germany anchors a European continent plagued by high unemployment and slow growth, its labor market is on fire. The number of unemployed has been halved over the past decade. With just 2.6 million people out of work, the German unemployment rate has declined to 5.9%. The country’s exports reached nearly $1.3 trillion in 2016. That’s roughly, and remarkably, half of Germany’s GDP, amounting to about 9% of world exports that year.

The economy is doing well despite Germany’s accommodation of more than 1 million refugees since 2015. For three years now the German government has been running a budget surplus. Figures for 2016 forecast a surplus of $25 billion.
https://hbr.org/2017/03/the-real-reason-the-german-labor-market-is-booming

Black market employers in Germany are facing hard times, a new study has found, because better-paid legal work has been shrinking the ranks of those forced into untaxed, cash-in-hand jobs.
http://www.dw.com/en/german-job-growth-shrinks-shadow-economy/a-19020108

It's not only Germany. Even a small country as Ireland is growing their jobs at impressive rate (although mainly around Dublin and Belfast).
Other important fact is that the U.S. market has six times more retail square feet per person that the United Kingdom (or other European countries), with 2,375 square feet per 100 inhabitants. Way too much. No wonder, many of the shops and department stores in USA are going belly up, along with thousands of jobs.

https://www.businessworld.ie/news-from-ireland/Irish-employment-growth-set-to-continue-according-to-report-568713.html
http://www.us.jll.com/united-states/en-us/news/3775/life-liberty-and-the-pursuit-of-retail-space
 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 30, 2017, 11:07:01 am
So Les. what does Germany do to keep it's employment and industrial production so high?  I know that culturally they've always been hard workers.  But specifically, what government and private policies have contributed to it?  Let's learn from them.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 30, 2017, 11:16:46 am
...It's not only Germany. Even a small country as Ireland is growing their jobs at impressive rate (although mainly around Dublin and Belfast).
Other important fact is that the U.S. market has six times more retail square feet per person that the United Kingdom (or other European countries), with 2,375 square feet per 100 inhabitants. Way too much. No wonder, many of the shops and department stores in USA are going belly up, along with thousands of jobs.

https://www.businessworld.ie/news-from-ireland/Irish-employment-growth-set-to-continue-according-to-report-568713.html
http://www.us.jll.com/united-states/en-us/news/3775/life-liberty-and-the-pursuit-of-retail-space
 
Unfortunately America has decreased its manufacturing prowess and has become a nation of consumers of services.  So rather than building factories, we build shopping malls. Then we hire minimum wage employees to move foreign goods around the stores to sell to other Americans whose dollars go to China, Germany, Japan, and other foreign manufacturing economies.  If the dollar collapses due to all our debt and printing of dollars, foreign products will explode in price making them unaffordable in America.  Americans will have to go back to the farm to feed ourselves. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on December 30, 2017, 12:04:55 pm
Unfortunately America has decreased its manufacturing prowess and has become a nation of consumers of services.  So rather than building factories, we build shopping malls. Then we hire minimum wage employees to move foreign goods around the stores to sell to other Americans whose dollars go to China, Germany, Japan, and other foreign manufacturing economies.  If the dollar collapses due to all our debt and printing of dollars, foreign products will explode in price making them unaffordable in America.  Americans will have to go back to the farm to feed ourselves.

You hit the nail on the head, Alan. When it comes to manufacturing and applied R&D, Canada fares even worse than USA, It relies too much on exporting raw materials out of the country without adding any value to it.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on December 30, 2017, 12:27:38 pm
Just to try to get this thread back on "Climate Change: Science and Issues," here is a piece by a climate scientist on how we can tell what the effects of global warming are:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/29/opinion/sunday/climate-change-global-warming.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/29/opinion/sunday/climate-change-global-warming.html)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 30, 2017, 05:12:11 pm
Just to try to get this thread back on "Climate Change: Science and Issues," here is a piece by a climate scientist on how we can tell what the effects of global warming are:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/29/opinion/sunday/climate-change-global-warming.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/29/opinion/sunday/climate-change-global-warming.html)
Negative article about global warming from influenctial papers like the NY Times are unfortunately theiir mainstay.  They have enormous effect on the subject.  However, when all or most of what you get is negative news, that's all you believe.  It's this kind of biased reporting that gives doubt to many people that the damages from global warming are being hyped.  I'm not saying that warming doesn't cause problems.  It's just that there's no balance in the reportage.

Well, here's an article from NASA that originally came from Nature.  Using instrumentation from NASA and NOAA, it posits that the greening of the earth has increased to an amount of leaves equal to twice the size of the United States over the last 35 years.   About 70% of the greening is from CO2.  More vegetation allows increase of all species that need vegetation. While the article goes on to tell how "bad" climate change is (well, of course, it originally came from Nature magazine), it would be nice if the NY Times would have articles that give the positive effects of CO2.  Naysayers complain that supporters have their thumb on the scale. 
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on December 31, 2017, 03:41:23 am
It's this kind of biased reporting that gives doubt to many people that the damages from global warming are being hyped.  I'm not saying that warming doesn't cause problems.  It's just that there's no balance in the reportage.
But if it is giving problems shouldn't we do something about that, despite the fact there are some positives as well? I don't have a problem with what you call "unbalanced" reportage, I think the negatives require action (and therefore need attention), I'll take the positives as they come so I have no problem hearing less about it and getting less "thumb on the scale" with policy makers.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 31, 2017, 09:47:07 am
But if it is giving problems shouldn't we do something about that, despite the fact there are some positives as well? I don't have a problem with what you call "unbalanced" reportage, I think the negatives require action (and therefore need attention), I'll take the positives as they come so I have no problem hearing less about it and getting less "thumb on the scale" with policy makers.
I think the negatives are being hyped by institutions, businesses, countries, politicians and scientists for monetary and political advantages.  By them avoiding discussing the benefits and options on how to deal with changes, it seems they're being dishonest.  That creates suspicions especially when their recommendations will take money from people to support their plans.  I'm always suspicious when people tell me that if I spend more on their ideas, I'll be better off. 

The whole subject is not balanced.  When was the last time you saw a TV program on nature that mentioned warming is greening the earth and also causing issues with low lying islands, for example?  That although many polar bears are having difficulty with less ice, their populations are growing and we're finding that they're learning to adapt finding other food like salmon.  When was the last time we heard a scientist or politician suggest that we stop funding flood insurance with tax money to support the habitation of coastal areas that are open to storms destruction rather than pushing the idea that somehow we can protect those rich owners by changing CO2 fifty years from now?  How about allowing the money for green energy to provide stilts for those homes in flood areas.  The problem is we don't discuss variables about what's really going on nor the ways to deal with them.  It's all one-sided.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 31, 2017, 10:03:19 am
You hit the nail on the head, Alan. When it comes to manufacturing and applied R&D, Canada fares even worse than USA, It relies too much on exporting raw materials out of the country without adding any value to it.

America's debt is over 100% to GDP compared to Canada's 66% to their GDP.  So you're still doing better.  Both Canada and America are rich in recourses.  There's only so much value so can add to oil, gold, copper, etc.  If there is a surplus, selling it to others gives wealth to the people.  But I agree that it would be nice to let's say make more copper electrical wire to sell to the world rather than just the copper.  Then you'd increase the jobs and wealth to the country.  Unfortunately, countries like China still have a billion people who would like to get into the middle class like the 400 million of their compatriots.  And they're willing to work for rice now so we can't compete in a lot of areas. 

Getting back to CO2, most people would rather spend on infrastructure like bridges and roads and airports, rather than green energy.  With the former, it effects their lives more directly.  In this time of limited resources (America is running a deficit of $600 billion this year), they're not too concerned about an extra 4 inches of sea rise fifty years from now.  They're concerned about feeding their kids and sending them to college.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on December 31, 2017, 10:08:16 am
New Year's is coming up in a few a hours.  And I know we've gotten into heated disputes during the last twelve months.  So if I said anything that offended anyone (and probably did), I apologize.   And I want to take this time to wish everyone and their families a happy and healthy New Year.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: PeterAit on December 31, 2017, 10:44:24 am
For anyone interested in the real science of climate change and how scientists are determining that severe weather events, such as Harvey, are made worse  by climate change, here is a clearly written and detailed article that you should read.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/29/opinion/sunday/climate-change-global-warming.html


Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 31, 2017, 11:38:03 am
New Year's is coming up in a few a hours.  And I know we've gotten into heated disputes during the last twelve months.  So if I said anything that offended anyone (and probably did), I apologize.   And I want to take this time to wish everyone and their families a happy and healthy New Year.
+1!!!!!
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 01, 2018, 06:58:33 am
That creates suspicions
Ill doers are ill deemers, genuinly opening up your mind to different options and viewpoints usually takes care of ill-founded suspicions.
The whole subject is not balanced.  When was the last time you saw a TV program on nature that mentioned warming is greening the earth and also causing issues with low lying islands, for example?  That although many polar bears are having difficulty with less ice, their populations are growing and we're finding that they're learning to adapt finding other food like salmon.  When was the last time we heard a scientist or politician suggest that we stop funding flood insurance with tax money to support the habitation of coastal areas that are open to storms destruction rather than pushing the idea that somehow we can protect those rich owners by changing CO2 fifty years from now?  How about allowing the money for green energy to provide stilts for those homes in flood areas.  The problem is we don't discuss variables about what's really going on nor the ways to deal with them.  It's all one-sided.
First, it's not television or media who make policy, it's the policy makers and then the people who execute the resulting plans. Nobody stops anybody from bringing good ideas to the table how to deal with the problems, but whining and being suspicious is counter productive and doesn't solve anything.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 01, 2018, 08:16:02 am
... genuinly opening up your mind to different options and viewpoints...

Says the "100% consensus"  ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 01, 2018, 08:45:10 am
Says the "100% consensus"  ;)
Where did I say that? ;)

Putting words in my mouth I never said doesn't make your credibility one bit better  :P
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Two23 on January 01, 2018, 12:39:30 pm
So Les. what does Germany do to keep it's employment and industrial production so high?  I know that culturally they've always been hard workers.  But specifically, what government and private policies have contributed to it?  Let's learn from them.

From what I've read, rather than get rid of full time workers, in Germany they tend to keep the employees but cut the hours.  Thus, instead of starting with 10 workers working 80 hours per day and then laying off 2 to work 64 hours, they will keep all 10 and divide the 64 hours between them. 

As for robots/software costing jobs, I'll dive into history.  One hundred years ago on the Northern Plains (U.S.) where I live, they would typically hire about 20 men to harvest a half section of wheat (and 4 women to cook meals.)  (1 section = 1 sq. mile.)  There would also be about a dozen or so horses.  Today these same fields are harvested with massive machinery--the new Case wheat head is fifty feet wide!  Three men can cut a half section of wheat in about a day.  (One man in the combine, one* pulling the grain cart, and one driving the grain truck.)  There used to be one family (typically six people) per quarter section, or 24 per section.  Now there is one famly (four people) per section.  The surrounding small towns could no longer support retail stores and have become mostly abandoned.  At one time in my state well over 50% of the jobs directly involved farming, now it's about 3%.  A massive number of jobs have disappeared.  However, the unemployment rate in my state is 2.5% (up slightly from 1.8%.)  So, what happened?  My oldest son went to college and now has a job with Premiere Bank in the IT dept.  My youngest son has temporarily dropped out of college at 20 years old to take his first job--a video game graphics programmer with Microsoft making >$60/hr.  Neither of these jobs existed when they were born.  Despite our owning a farm, neither of my kids know how to run a combine or even a tractor.  My grandfather, a production foreman for Procter & Gamble during the 1930s, often told me, "There's always work for an honest man."


Kent in SD

Photos:
Cutting wheat, Groton SD August 2016
Theshing crew, Webster SD, August 1909

*There is now software that allows a Case combine and tractor
to communicate, allowing a "drone" tractor to pull a grain cart
alongside the combine to load the grain & then take it back to
the truck to offload. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 01, 2018, 01:24:48 pm
Kent:  Nice story and pictures.  Glad your family is doing well.  After living all our lives in NYC, my wife and I retired to New Jersey where they're are a lot of small farms. Nothing like in the Dakotas, but still it's nice to see cows, horses, sheep, corn fields, etc.  Here's a shot of a nearby farm.  I love it here.
Of course it's been cold, hit around 5 degrees F last night (about -15C).  Thank God for global warming. :)

Open sky country.  In NJ!
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3742/11488097275_5fc3d0d8ef_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ivav5F)New Jersey Farm (https://flic.kr/p/ivav5F) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Two23 on January 01, 2018, 02:08:57 pm

Of course it's been cold, hit around 5 degrees F last night (about -15C).  Thank God for global warming. :)



We hit -31 last night.  I wanted to go out pheasant hunting first thing this morning as they congregate in large flocks when it's a bit cool like that, but my wife threw a fit about me going out in the middle of nowhere alone.  I don't tell her how cold it gets at night when I'm out alone taking photos of trains.  Sometimes it gets too cold for the trains to run. ;D  The only thing is you better have a "Plan B" if your car doesn't start!  I wear goose down filled clothing that's about four inches thick, designed for high altitude mountain climbing.  There is an old saying on the Northern Plains--"Forty below keeps out the riff-raff." ;)


Kent in SD
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Two23 on January 01, 2018, 02:56:30 pm
No doubt, many stats are misleading or manipulated. Also, similar to USA, many of the new jobs are low paid jobs without any benefits. However, the number of jobs in Germany has increased any way you measure it. Below are a few interesting articles explaining some of the facts and reasons behind the job growth in Germany.

1. Employment Rate in Germany increased to 74.80 percent in the second quarter of 2017 from 74.60 percent in the first quarter of 2017.

2. The economy is doing well despite Germany’s accommodation of more than 1 million refugees since 2015. For three years now the German government has been running a budget surplus.

3. It's not only Germany. Even a small country as Ireland is growing their jobs at impressive rate (although mainly around Dublin and Belfast).




As an avid investor and daily reader of WSJ, Forbes, and other financial oriented media, I'll add a few observations:

1.  Keep in mind Germany tracks number of people working, not how many hours they work.  In U.S. they tend to lay off workers when production hours decrease.  In Germany (and some other European countries,) they tend to keep the employees and allocate the fewer hours between them.    It's hard to make a direct comparision here.

2.  From what I've read, most of those immigrants do not yet have jobs.  Germany has a system of apprenticeship, so there is typically a six to fifteen year lag in getting a job.  I.e., the recent immigrants are not counted as unemployed OR unemployed.  They aren't yet in the system.  Story:  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-18/german-jobless-mystery-explained-as-refugees-hide-in-statistics

3.  Ireland is a special case.  When a  decades long low level civil war ended, they found their economy in a shambles.  Their solution was to dramatically cut corporate taxes.  It's currently 12.5%, compared to the U.S. rate of 35%  (recently cut by Trump to 20-22%.)   https://www.idaireland.com/invest-in-ireland/ireland-corporate-tax

Anyway, my point is things aren't always what they seem.  You have to do your own research or you can be misled by media reports.



Kent in SD
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 01, 2018, 05:41:17 pm
A show of hands please.

Hands up if you read the NYT article posted here earlier.
Hands up if you’ve seen the Netflix doc “Chasing Ice”.

Two hands up here.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Two23 on January 01, 2018, 07:18:37 pm
A show of hands please.

Hands up if you read the NYT article posted here earlier.
Hands up if you’ve seen the Netflix doc “Chasing Ice”.

Two hands up here.



I never read the NYT, the National Enquirer, or Pravda.  I'm too cheap to pay for Netflix.


Kent in SD
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 02, 2018, 12:05:00 am
We are entering a new Ice Age, people!

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 02, 2018, 02:42:08 am
We are entering a new Ice Age, people!
Only in NA, it's the punishment for the US pulling out of the Paris accords  :P
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 02, 2018, 09:07:57 am
That's funny Pieter.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on January 02, 2018, 09:16:41 am
I'm beginning to wonder whether or not that "scientific consensus" among geologists in the early fifties wasn't right after all. Maybe we ARE on the verge of a new ice age. I'm sure glad I don't own an orange grove here in Florida. The smudge pots are coming out. There are gonna be a lot of people up all night the next few nights fighting "climate change."
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 02, 2018, 09:27:46 am
Hi Folks,

In the town where I like, the Mayor and municipal council expressed some bold Sustainability goals for the year 2030, and with upcoming elections in March, they seek cooperation from its citizens. One of the many specific targets aims at improving the quality of the air that we breathe.

I'm participating in a Citizen Science project that, with support from the city, therefore wants to have a better view on what the actual air quality is, in order to pinpoint problem areas and see if progress can be detected. Part of that project involves the construction of a large number of relatively affordable measuring stations and establishing a LoRaWAN network structure for the automatic transmission of the data. By using relatively 'low-cost' stations, we will be able to create a more finely meshed sampling grid with measuring stations than the current official national measuring grid can offer. We are also collaborating with the authorities (RIVM, KNMI) that manage those official measuring stations, a.o. by calibrating our simple sensors against their elaborate systems, by periodically running them in parallel at the same location (to set a baseline and monitor for drift over time). Those authorities benefit from our finer mesh actual sampling instead of calculating and modeling between the official stations.

As the required components are coming in from all over the globe, and we have time to do some soldering, programming, 3D-design, QA validation of parts and results, and calibration of the different sub-units, I've done the first test with a pilot unit that amongst others will test for Particulate Matter that's suspended in the air. What better time to test than with the traditional new year's fireworks ...

Attached a graph of what one of my (not yet calibrated) sensors picked up, and the air was cleaner than the years before, due to fewer fireworks (some official ones got cancelled due to windy conditions), strong winds/gusts, frequent rain showers, and relatively high temperatures (which prevented fog/smog from forming). The normal situation on a Sunday would show PM10 values of 3-5 µg/m³ when there is little traffic, with a somewhat higher level during the week's working days and temporary peaks (to some 25 µg/m³ on dry days which is above the legal limits) during the rush-hours. The fireworks obviously scored much worse air quality with a peak PM10 reading of 105.1 µg/m³, and that was a relatively modest outcome compared to previous years that also started disappearing sooner than usual, it took something like 1 or 2 days in the previous years to get back to normal levels.

I wish all the LuLa readers a happy and clean 2018.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 02, 2018, 09:30:03 am
I'm beginning to wonder whether or not that  "scientific consensus" among geologists in the early fifties wasn't right after all. Maybe we ARE on the verge of a new ice age.
Was the consensus that it would only hit North America ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on January 02, 2018, 12:12:40 pm
The consensus, Pieter, was that there'd be a new ice age. Not instantly, but by the time the global warming panic (renamed "climate change" after original forecasts didn't pan out) died down. The world's population should find really warm clothes and shelter. I remember a discussion turning toward the idea of igloos for the homeless.

Now, if you think igloos for the homeless is a crackpot idea, you should realize that in comparison with the rest of this thread it's absolutely sane. Lewis Carroll could have picked up some wonderful story ideas if he'd been able to read this stuff.

Happy new year.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 02, 2018, 01:25:45 pm
Well, there was something about an mini ice age in the papers here as well recently. But I don't think it has any relation to the current cold spell in a small part of the world (i.e North America).
We'll see how it pans out (or how it cancels out), while contrary to you I believe human activity is contributing to the warming I tend to take the alarmist messages about the effects from all sides (warming, deniers and possible ice age) with a big grain of salt.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 03, 2018, 08:01:57 am
While we are in the midst of a bad cold spell here in the Eastern US, it looks like continental Europe is pretty warm by comparison.  I looked at the foreign temperatures in today's Washington Post and most every major European city was at or above freezing including Kiev and Moscow which usually are much colder this time of the year.  This is just a reminder that weather is local and transitory while climate change is global and lengthy.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 03, 2018, 08:10:23 am
We're still in an interglacial period of the Ice Age.  So it's still warming up. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 03, 2018, 08:14:11 am
While we are in the midst of a bad cold spell here in the Eastern US, it looks like continental Europe is pretty warm by comparison.  I looked at the foreign temperatures in today's Washington Post and most every major European city was at or above freezing including Kiev and Moscow which usually are much colder this time of the year.  This is just a reminder that weather is local and transitory while climate change is global and lengthy.
+1, They showed a map of the world on television here New Year's eve where shades of blue was temperatures below normal, white at normal and shades of red for temperatures above normal (darker/more saturated colour was a larger deviation from normal). It only showed parts of the US and Canada blue, the whole rest of the world was mainly red with modest areas white. But I agree with Alan G, this doesn't prove or disprove anything about climate change, it's just what happened with the weather this week.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 03, 2018, 08:17:28 am
We're still in an interglacial period of the Ice Age.  So it's still warming up.
Not if you believe Russ or Slobodan, they're reporting (or speculating) an Ice Age is coming.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 03, 2018, 10:49:27 am
+1, They showed a map of the world on television here New Year's eve where shades of blue was temperatures below normal, white at normal and shades of red for temperatures above normal (darker/more saturated colour was a larger deviation from normal). It only showed parts of the US and Canada blue, the whole rest of the world was mainly red with modest areas white. But I agree with Alan G, this doesn't prove or disprove anything about climate change, it's just what happened with the weather this week.
Fair enough. So when does weather become indicative of climate change? Wouldn't we have to discount the warmer Summers that we've had the last couple of years as just weather?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 03, 2018, 11:00:24 am
Fair enough. So when does weather become indicative of climate change? Wouldn't we have to discount the warmer Summers that we've had the last couple of years as just weather?
I think nothing has to be discounted, you only need to look at very long time (moving) averages to demonstrate warming or cooling and filter out day-to-day (and week-to-week, month-to-month) weather variations.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on January 03, 2018, 11:48:07 am
Not if you believe Russ or Slobodan, they're reporting (or speculating) an Ice Age is coming.

Not at all, Pieter. I'm not speculating about anything at all. Unlike some others (who shall remain nameless) I know better than to speculate about crap like this. Believe it or not guys, you don't need to go hide in a closet. I'll be all right.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 03, 2018, 01:08:59 pm
I'm beginning to wonder whether or not that "scientific consensus" among geologists in the early fifties wasn't right after all. Maybe we ARE on the verge of a new ice age......

Not at all, Pieter. I'm not speculating about anything at all. Unlike some others (who shall remain nameless) I know better than to speculate about crap like this. Believe it or not guys, you don't need to go hide in a closet. I'll be all right.

Indeed, maybe not speculating, but reading your first post you're not sure about it all either ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on January 03, 2018, 03:20:35 pm
Indeed, maybe not speculating, but reading your first post you're not sure about it all either ;)

You betcha. When it comes to climate I've learned not to be sure about anything. That's why I roll on the floor laughing when I see the kinds of certainties pompously expounded in this thread.  ;D ;D 8)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 03, 2018, 05:11:15 pm
You betcha. When it comes to climate I've learned not to be sure about anything. That's why I roll on the floor laughing when I see the kinds of certainties pompously expounded in this thread.  ;D ;D 8)
So you're also not sure it's not CO2 from fossil fuel burning that's causing the current warming? ;)
Or is that the only thing you are sure about  ::)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on January 03, 2018, 08:01:18 pm
If you believe CO2 has an effect, Pieter, your next question should be: how much of an effect has CO2? Anybody who believes all warming is caused by CO2 evidently never has walked out and felt the sun on his skin. Sure, sun on the skin is a local effect, but climate is affected by many things. I'd never say that CO2 doesn't affect warming, but the idea that all warming is caused by CO2 is absurd. Furthermore, I don't see any reliable indication that the "globe" is warming. I believe that parts of the globe are warming. I also believe other parts of the globe are cooling. I also believe parts of the globe are staying at pretty consistent temperatures. Bottom line: what I see is another synthetic panic driven by politics. I'm almost 88 years old and I've seen a lot of these. This is just another one. "The sky is falling. The sky is falling."
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 03, 2018, 09:03:04 pm
I think nothing has to be discounted, you only need to look at very long time (moving) averages to demonstrate warming or cooling and filter out day-to-day (and week-to-week, month-to-month) weather variations.
But even measuring climate change in a human time span of a life time or a couple of hundred years is a perturbation compared to the earth's history or even the time frame of an Ice Age. Climate change supporters have claimed the higher temperatures over the last three or four summers as being part of global warming.   Is fours years enough to consider what's happening part of climate change?    Someone reported today that the temperature over the last week has not been colder as a week's average in more than one hundred years. Can global warming denialists claim that proves that the climate is getting colder and a new ice age is beginning?  Who's deciding when it counts and when it doesn't? 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 03, 2018, 09:19:17 pm
Interesting chart and explanation of changes in climate over the last 4500 years.  Multiple warm and cold periods.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on January 03, 2018, 09:47:46 pm
Here's an interesting history of the IPCC, which describes how politics has interfered with the scientific process in order to create an apparent consensus and an unscientific degree of certainty on many climate-change issues.

The article is a bit long, but well worth reading for those who have a bit of curiosity about  the subject.

https://judithcurry.com/2018/01/03/manufacturing-consensus-the-early-history-of-the-ipcc/
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 03, 2018, 10:35:48 pm
Ray, in reading that article, it pointed out that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the UN governmental body for assessing the science related to climate change, not a scientific panel.  UN bureaucrats decide which scientific articles are important.  Why am I not surprised?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 04, 2018, 02:11:16 am
If you believe CO2 has an effect, Pieter, your next question should be: how much of an effect has CO2? Anybody who believes all warming is caused by CO2 evidently never has walked out and felt the sun on his skin. Sure, sun on the skin is a local effect, but climate is affected by many things. I'd never say that CO2 doesn't affect warming, but the idea that all warming is caused by CO2 is absurd. Furthermore, I don't see any reliable indication that the "globe" is warming. I believe that parts of the globe are warming. I also believe other parts of the globe are cooling. I also believe parts of the globe are staying at pretty consistent temperatures. Bottom line: what I see is another synthetic panic driven by politics. I'm almost 88 years old and I've seen a lot of these. This is just another one. "The sky is falling. The sky is falling."
Russ, you didn't answer my question and I hope you don't mind that I think this post of you fits right into the description you gave about others in post #501. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 04, 2018, 02:19:06 am
  Who's deciding when it counts and when it doesn't?
Nobody, all data count. When you want to look ahead one or two generations you need to look back for at least the same time and then study cause and effect relationships. Is that all known and perfectly understood, I think not. Is it enough understood that humans and the extra CO2 they put in the air has a significant effect on the current warming? I think yes. I just smile at the deniers using the uncertainties about what we know as a scapegoat for their arguments. I think it's better to look at what we know and expand that rather than focus on we don't know and use that as an excuse to sit on our hands.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 04, 2018, 07:48:15 am
Here's an interesting article that points to a moderating impact on Antarctic ice shelf melting:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/01/03/large-antarctic-snowfall-increases-could-counter-sea-level-rise-scientists-say/?utm_term=.b647687f61ab  Increased snowfall in some areas may mitigate the melting effect as it simply recycles moisture back.

ALSO:  PLEASE CEASE ALL PERSONAL ATTACKS.  LAST WARNING BEFORE THIS THREAD GETS SHUT DOWN.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Ray on January 04, 2018, 09:09:06 am
I think it's better to look at what we know and expand that rather than focus on we don't know and use that as an excuse to sit on our hands.

Good point. Following is what I understand is known with a high degreee of certainty.

(1) Increased CO2 levels increase plant growth in general, including the crops we grow for essential food.

(2) Warming, whatever the cause, results in increased evaporation, which in turn results in increased rainfall, which contributes to increased food production and a greening of the planet, in conjunction with increased CO2 levels.

(3) Warming periods have occurred frequently in the past, followed by cooling periods. These past changes in climate have had little or nothing  to do with human emissions of CO2.

(4) Warm periods in the past have tended to correlate with the flourishment of past civilizations such as the Roman Empire and various Dynasties in China.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on January 04, 2018, 09:48:43 am
I think it's better to look at what we know and expand that rather than focus on we don't know and use that as an excuse to sit on our hands.
Okay, Pieter, tell me what the alternative to "sitting on our hands" might be.

The "Paris Accord?" Utterly worthless. In order for it to have any value at all you first have to conclude:

(1) That there's such a thing as global warming (Nobody seems to be worrying that we're in a period of global cooling, so "climate change" must mean global warming. Right?) So far, in spite of truckloads of politically-based "studies," nobody's been able actually to demonstrate that the globe is warming. That's why the scarier term got changed to the more vague term "climate change."

(2) That humans are causing global warming. If you can't show that global warming is taking place, demonstrating that humans are causing something that isn't taking place is a tough row to hoe. But more politically-based "studies" attempt to do exactly that.

(3) That a political dance like the Accord actually can get humans to stop doing whatever it is they're doing that's causing politicians to try to scare us. That would mean getting China, India, etc., etc., to reduce their emissions. Lots of luck with that.

So again, what's the alternative to "sitting on our hands?" I'd suggest sitting on a couch instead. It's more comfortable, and embraced by comfort we might be able to stop worrying and start actually thinking. But, to add another cliche, that's probably a bridge too far. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 04, 2018, 10:07:45 am
Okay, Pieter, tell me what the alternative to "sitting on our hands" might be.

The "Paris Accord?" Utterly worthless. In order for it to have any value at all you first have to conclude:

(1) That there's such a thing as global warming (Nobody seems to be worrying that we're in a period of global cooling, so "climate change" must mean global warming. Right?) So far, in spite of truckloads of politically-based "studies," nobody's been able actually to demonstrate that the globe is warming. That's why the scarier term got changed to the more vague term "climate change."

(2) That humans are causing global warming. If you can't show that global warming is taking place, demonstrating that humans are causing something that isn't taking place is a tough row to hoe. But more politically-based "studies" attempt to do exactly that.

(3) That a political dance like the Accord actually can get humans to stop doing whatever it is they're doing that's causing politicians to try to scare us. That would mean getting China, India, etc., etc., to reduce their emissions. Lots of luck with that.

So again, what's the alternative to "sitting on our hands?" I'd suggest sitting on a couch instead. It's more comfortable, and embraced by comfort we might be able to stop worrying and start actually thinking. But, to add another cliche, that's probably a bridge too far.
Russ, if you don't believe in Global Warming sitting on a couch is probably a good plan for you so by all means go ahead ;)

Another good alternative is going out and shoot pictures.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 04, 2018, 10:38:42 am
Good point. Following is what I understand is known with a high degreee of certainty.

(1) Increased CO2 levels increase plant growth in general, including the crops we grow for essential food.
It also promotes the growth of invasive plant species some of which may require herbicide control.  This is not necessarily bad but we cannot overlook the development of resistance.  Improved cultivation practices will be required here.

Quote
(2) Warming, whatever the cause, results in increased evaporation, which in turn results in increased rainfall, which contributes to increased food production and a greening of the planet, in conjunction with increased CO2 levels.
Only if the precipitation is regular and widely spread.  there is no indication that this will happen though we don't have a lot of data yet.  The Sahel area of Africa seems not to be getting any greater amounts of precipitation than has been historically observed.  Some areas continue to experience drought.  Also, do not overlook violent storms that can release huge amounts of precipitation in very short periods of time cause destruction of crops if they are ill timed.  Increased precipitation can also lead to leeching of important nutrients from the soil if conservation practices are not followed.[/quote]

Quote
(3) Warming periods have occurred frequently in the past, followed by cooling periods. These past changes in climate have had little or nothing  to do with human emissions of CO2.
There has never been the level of human and industrial activity that we are presently seeing.  I don't think this argument holds up at all.

Quote
(4) Warm periods in the past have tended to correlate with the flourishment of past civilizations such as the Roman Empire and various Dynasties in China.
If true, what explains the relative lack of civilization development in various parts of Africa.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 04, 2018, 12:35:13 pm
Climate Change is not new nor earth shaking.

From Ecclesiastes 1:1-11.

1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.



2
Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher,
vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

3
What profit hath a man of all his labour
which he taketh under the sun?

4
One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh:
but the earth abideth for ever.

5
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down,
and hasteth to his place where he arose.

6
The wind goeth toward the south,
and turneth about unto the north;
it whirleth about continually,
and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

7
All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full;
unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

8
All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it:
the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

9
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be;
and that which is done is that which shall be done:
and there is no new thing under the sun.

10
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new?
it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

11
There is no remembrance of former things;
neither shall there be any remembrance of things
that are to come with those that shall come after.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on January 04, 2018, 03:37:34 pm
Another good alternative is going out and shoot pictures.

Actually, I thought that's what Luminous Landscape was supposed to be about.

 :) :) :)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 04, 2018, 04:02:09 pm
Russ, if you don't believe in Global Warming sitting on a couch is probably a good plan for you so by all means go ahead ;)

Another good alternative is going out and shoot pictures.
Well, I would except we seem to be having Global Cooling.  So the best I could do was take a picture of the blizzard through the glass door. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on January 04, 2018, 04:08:52 pm
Good for you, Alan. After being born and raised in Michigan, spending several years in Great Falls, Montana, and more years in Beausejour, Manitoba, my advice, based on experience, is: stay inside. ;D
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 04, 2018, 04:49:08 pm
Well, I do use the grill when I make steaks, even throughout the winter.  I hop in and out.  I think I'll pass tonight though and cook indoors.  I'll reheat a veal parmigiana hero I've frozen.  Staying inside is good advice.  My wife wants to move to Florida.   I wish the climate would warm up here in New Jersey.  The state should switch from nuclear plants to fossil fuels to rush climate change.   
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 05, 2018, 04:08:36 am
Well, I would except we seem to be having Global Cooling.  So the best I could do was take a picture of the blizzard through the glass door.
Ooch, that looks quite "cool", also what we see on television here about the cold spell in NE US and Canada is quite extreme. But they also said the Western US is much warmer than normal (as is large parts of the rest of world), so I think "Global Cooling" might be an overstatement :)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 05, 2018, 11:49:37 am
Well the West is warm because brush fires spread by the Santa Ana winds there have been burning the place down.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 05, 2018, 01:57:34 pm
Well the West is warm because brush fires spread by the Santa Ana winds there have been burning the place down.
Still not interested to buy that bridge I asked you about earlier?  ;)

(post # 434)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on January 05, 2018, 02:00:33 pm
2017 - the Second Hottest Year on Record (but this January must be the coldest in Ontario)

http://e360.yale.edu/digest/its-official-2017-was-the-second-hottest-year-on-record
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 05, 2018, 02:41:43 pm
Among the many dangers predicted by the climate scientists are new, unpredictable and extreme weather events.

Funny. That's EXACTLY what we're seeing.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 05, 2018, 02:57:51 pm
Still not interested to buy that bridge I asked you about earlier?  ;)

(post # 434)
There's nothing on #434 that means anything to respond too.  I already own all the bridges I need.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 05, 2018, 03:02:42 pm
Among the many dangers predicted by the climate scientists are new, unpredictable and extreme weather events.

Funny. That's EXACTLY what we're seeing.
There have always been "new, unpredictable, and extreme" weather events occurring.    That's the nature of weather and climate change that have occurred for 4 1/2 billion years.  Of course, it's handy to blame CO2 if you want to infludence public opinion of people who don;t know better. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 05, 2018, 03:06:23 pm
There's nothing on #434 that means anything to respond too.  I already own all the bridges I need.
That's dissapointing, I thought you would get the joke  ::)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 05, 2018, 03:09:36 pm
2017 - the Second Hottest Year on Record (but this January must be the coldest in Ontario)

http://e360.yale.edu/digest/its-official-2017-was-the-second-hottest-year-on-record
That's an interesting map.  It seems that the Arctic was heating up a lot more than the rest of the world while the Antarctic was cooling down more than the rest of the world.  Why is that?  Also, notice the big blue cooling spot in the Sahara Desert in North Africa.   That's also interesting because there were predictions by Global Warmists that deserts would get hotter, not cooler. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 05, 2018, 03:09:59 pm
That's dissapointing, I thought you would get the joke  ::)
No, I totally missed it. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 05, 2018, 04:31:34 pm
No, I totally missed it.
I have a bridge to sell you (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I%20have%20a%20bridge%20to%20sell%20you)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on January 05, 2018, 06:26:45 pm
Speaking about bridges,
some bridges in New York have been closed due to the recent snow storm. Also many cars were seen stuck coming off of the upper level of the George Washington Bridge,
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on January 05, 2018, 07:52:33 pm
Gotta be global warming, Les. Just ask Algore.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 05, 2018, 10:53:46 pm
I have a bridge to sell you (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I%20have%20a%20bridge%20to%20sell%20you)
I already bought that bridge. Would you like to make me an offer?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on January 05, 2018, 11:02:20 pm
2017 - the Second Hottest Year on Record (but this January must be the coldest in Ontario)

http://e360.yale.edu/digest/its-official-2017-was-the-second-hottest-year-on-record

Referencing my previous post on the PBS piece on the "Day The Dinosaurs Died" that provided time scale perspective on when that event occurred compared to how long we humans have been around (which is a blink of the eye comparatively), I can no longer feel any record of weather condition measured by feeble humans is useful information.

When the big rock that hit and wiped out the dinosaurs, it was the equivalent of 14 billion Hiroshima atom bombs according to scientific research and calculations. How is it the Earth is still here after that? With that in mind I don't believe anyone can record accurately what the weather was like millions of years ago if they couldn't tell us what the temperature was after the big rock hit and wiped out the dinosaurs. There is no proof or evidence on how long it took for the weather to recover and what, when, where and why it did.

Considering all this I get the impression this planet is quite resilient even against extreme weather changes. More resilient than we feeble humans can prove otherwise with our tiny little measuring instruments. 

Do you really think Global Climate Change has the same destructive power of 14 billion atom bombs? I don't.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on January 05, 2018, 11:21:02 pm
A destructive power of 14 billion Hiroshima bombs (15 kilotons in the Hiroshima bomb) is indeed an awesome might that would upset earth's climate for a long time.
For comparison, North Korea’s recent nuclear test was reportedly eight times more powerful (120 kilotons) than the Hiroshima bomb.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 06, 2018, 03:39:43 am
Considering all this I get the impression this planet is quite resilient even against extreme weather changes. More resilient than we feeble humans can prove otherwise with our tiny little measuring instruments.
Our planet will exist for a long time after humans (as we know them now) become extinct, that's not the question and not at risk by the current rising CO2 levels.

The risk is whether we can continue living here as humans and expand our numbers as we're currently growing without making some changes how we use the resources the earth provides for us.

The discussion in this thread is the differences of opinion between a group of people who claim there is no problem and no change is needed and another group who think we need to be more careful and make some changes, especially on how much and which energy we use to keep society running (these are the two extremes, and there are obviously more varying opinions inbetween)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on January 06, 2018, 02:17:24 pm
Our planet will exist for a long time after humans (as we know them now) become extinct, that's not the question and not at risk by the current rising CO2 levels.

The risk is whether we can continue living here as humans and expand our numbers as we're currently growing without making some changes how we use the resources the earth provides for us.

The discussion in this thread is the differences of opinion between a group of people who claim there is no problem and no change is needed and another group who think we need to be more careful and make some changes, especially on how much and which energy we use to keep society running (these are the two extremes, and there are obviously more varying opinions inbetween)

I don't think this discussion or any other discussion online among scientists or citizen scientists really has a grasp of the size and level of risk of the problem they think they can solve by just throttling down one molecule in the atmosphere. There are so many other problems we know we can solve because we have the resources and the will to do so like housing the homeless, taking care of our veterans, feeding the poor, cleaning up Super Fund sites, but yet we don't, can't or won't solve these problems. We need to focus on reducing one molecule, CO2.

We're all going to eventually die from a number of molecules of varying levels of destructiveness as we all decay in some way or another. Focusing on one molecule, CO2, as the cause of the demise of the entire human species presents a scale of magnitude that belongs in a sci-fi movie compared to the size (and reality) and scale of problems we've been able to solve in the past. I'ld rather fix the problems we know we can fix before we tackle making the climate behave the way we want it to.

If Global Climate Change is a real problem, it's just too big to fix compared to the size of other problems we've been able to solve.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 06, 2018, 08:56:44 pm
If Global Climate Change is a real problem, it's just too big to fix compared to the size of other problems we've been able to solve.

So, despite warnings from thousands of scientists who know WAY more about this than we do, we do nothing. 

Because, hey, those scientists all have an agenda.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on January 06, 2018, 09:47:57 pm
Animal agriculture is responsible for at least 14% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, more than the exhaust fumes from all transportation combined, according to conservative estimates by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). World Bank experts Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang have estimated animal agriculture is responsible for 51% of greenhouse gas emissions using a full life-cycle analysis.

Going vegan is the single most impactful thing an individual can do to combat climate change.
Far more effective than more commonly known methods such as driving fuel-efficient cars, recycling, using energy-saving light bulbs or taking shorter showers.
Each day, a person who eats a vegan diet saves:
1,100 gallons of water
45 pounds of grain
30 sq ft of forested land
20 lbs CO2 equivalent
not counting lives of many chickens, rabbitts, and lambs

http://climatevegan.org/why-become-a-climate-vegan/
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on January 06, 2018, 10:41:13 pm
So, despite warnings from thousands of scientists who know WAY more about this than we do, we do nothing. 

Because, hey, those scientists all have an agenda.

I never once said any scientist has an agenda.

But if a scientist says they're research indicates we can literally and physically move a mountain when there's no proof we've ever been able to do such a task in the past, I'm going to suggest we stick to solving problems that affect us now and directly with the available resources and a proven history of accomplishing tasks of similar scale.

We do know how to clean up toxic pollutants and yet we don't do it and let the people suffer who have to live around such a horrid abomination to nature and humans.

Or we could just talk about the weather which basically scientists are doing with Global Climate Change.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 06, 2018, 10:47:23 pm
So, despite warnings from thousands of scientists who know WAY more about this than we do, we do nothing. 

Because, hey, those scientists all have an agenda.
Scientists are, well, scientists.  Even if they are 100% right about the dangers of global warming, they are not economists or politicians.  They don't decide policy.  We live in a democracy.  The people decide how they want their money spent and select priorities.  Some people may feel it's more important to save their sick kid from some disease he's suffering from today than worry about a few inches of higher sea levels 50 years from now.  That's not an unreasonable decision.   In any case, voters through their representatives decide, not scientists. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on January 06, 2018, 11:34:20 pm
The only one time I actually talked to a scientist (in this case a Texas Parks & Wildlife biologist) who provided data that clearly had an agenda and that being as a paid speaker to come up with methods and ideas on mitigating our towns deer population at my local park advocacy meeting six months ago. 

Only I had my own agenda in my line of questioning the biologist that centered around my 2 year relationship with a dominant female deer and her 3 offspring who likes me to dig in her ear and feed her peanuts. I kept asking what other foods I could give them and all of her answers were I was not to do this, peanuts build up toxins in deer digestive systems, corn has very few nutrients and protein, deer carry parasites, lime disease, etc. She was basically describing them almost as if they're considered as filthy vermin and dangerous.

Some of this info was conflicted with what I've seen with the four deer I've befriended. I even fact checked another park's ranger with a degree on a PBS Texas Parks And Wildlife program about white tail deer claiming it illegal to touch fawns because they have no scent and if a human puts their scent on them, the male deer will kill it.

The biologist told me that was a myth. It doesn't happen. OK, both officials are educated with a degree but one is wrong.

So the biologist was not interested in answering my questions on how to care for deer but only about reducing their population. I ended up doing my own research and buying a 50 pound bag of Sportsman's "Deer Nutrition" as an alternative to peanuts at my local feed & seed. It's mainly made up of soy protein and alfalfa meal. The deers devoured it out of my hands.

I learned on my own spending time with these deer that they are cleaner than the pets I helped raised including squirrels, raccoons, possums, cats and dogs. The deer's poop smells like freshly mowed grass, their ear wax doesn't smell like cats and dogs do, their saliva has no smell after the dominant female likes to lick my arm for 15 minutes as a way of putting her scent on me as her property and primary food provider.

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 07, 2018, 11:37:37 am
Tim, I didn't mean to suggest that you said climate scientists have an agenda.  It is continually used here, however, as a reason for scientists "promoting" their global warming "agenda".
What their agenda might be is never made clear.

BTW, I share your admiration of deer.  I have about a dozen living on my property.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on January 07, 2018, 02:09:27 pm
Tim, I didn't mean to suggest that you said climate scientists have an agenda.  It is continually used here, however, as a reason for scientists "promoting" their global warming "agenda".
What their agenda might be is never made clear.

BTW, I share your admiration of deer.  I have about a dozen living on my property.

My main point using the deer biologist as an example is that information can readily be given out and concealed in order to control a situation such as the prevention of harming deer by treating them as pets. The more complicated and detailed the information the more it sounds official and authoritative even though it doesn't make sense. Scientists are good at doing this even though they think they mean well.

My priority is to enjoy my short stay on this beautiful miracle planet doing what I want to do that doesn't require I pay money. The best things in life are free and my town has so many white tail deer that befriending only four is not going to ruin the entire population especially considering Texas has deer farms where they raise them for hunters to shoot. Now does that make sense?

I bet a scientist who is paid to be an expert will find some kind of rationalized way of making it sound like it makes sense by pummeling you with complicated data and scientific language to convince you of their authority on the matter. Hey, they went to school and got a degree what else are they going to do with their education in order to get a paycheck?

Someone who's suppose to be an expert, a biologist, tells me I can't enjoy the deer by treating them like pets and that it's against the law to have them in your house or yard against their will, but yet it's OK to let them raise them on farms so they can shoot them for sport. But are they raising them? Or are they managing them by containment?

The biologist framed what those hunters are doing as "deer population control" to preserve the rest of the herd because white tail deer breed like rabbits. (Whaa?! so how am I hurting them by feeding them?) And do we really need a deer farm to do this? Pretty soon the only information I'm going to get out of this biologist or any scientist is an infinite loop of rationalization using authoritative scientific language where no matter how any of what they're saying makes no sense the expert will always find a way of making joe citizen wrong headed in what he/she wants as part of exercising their freedom in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 07, 2018, 02:18:52 pm
Living in New Jersey, I have a different take on deer.  Sure they're cute but they are a major vector for Lyme disease.  I've had it once cured with antibiotics and my dog almost died from it.  Since deer move through neighborhoods frequently, you can pick it up just being in your back yard.  Texas appears to be free of Lyme.  But the Northeast is a disaster.  Over 50% of the ticks have Lyme and some other bad stuff like Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever and ehrlichiosis. I've pretty much stopped hiking and shooting in the woods it's that bad.  Check the map on the link for where Lyme is prevalent and check out the safety measures to take if you are planning to photograph in the woods.
https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/maps.html

This is a good example of different priorities in climate chnage.  If you live on the shore in low lying areas, you might be a lot for it.  If you live inland, where the sea have no effect, you'd be more concerned with spending public money on other things then worrying about CO2.  I'm sure scientists who study heart disease cures would want more money spent on their stuff than climateologists who would favor spending on CO2 reduction.  In that sense, scientists do have agendas favoring their specialty.

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 07, 2018, 02:41:20 pm
-100F (wind-chill factor) in New Hampshire's Mt. Washington, teing for second place coldest in the world (where's the first?)   http://www.nydailynews.com/newswires/new-york/latest-ski-lifts-closed-wind-chill-hit-100-article-1.3741168

+114F (actual) +47C in Australia https://www.businessinsider.com.au/sydney-weather-records-2018-1

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on January 07, 2018, 02:52:56 pm
Living in New Jersey, I have a different take on deer.  Sure they're cute but they are a major vector for Lyme disease.  I've had it once cured with antibiotics and my dog almost died from it.  Since deer move through neighborhoods frequently, you can pick it up just being in your back yard.  Texas appears to be free of Lyme.  But the Northeast is a disaster.  Over 50% of the ticks have Lyme and some other bad stuff like Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever and ehrlichiosis. I've pretty much stopped hiking and shooting in the woods it's that bad.  Check the map on the link for where Lyme is prevalent and check out the safety measures to take if you are planning to photograph in the woods.
https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/maps.html

This is a good example of different priorities in climate chnage.  If you live on the shore in low lying areas, you might be a lot for it.  If you live inland, where the sea have no effect, you'd be more concerned with spending public money on other things then worrying about CO2.  I'm sure scientists who study heart disease cures would want more money spent on their stuff than climateologists who would favor spending on CO2 reduction.  In that sense, scientists do have agendas favoring their specialty.

The biologist I talked to mentioned the Lyme disease statistics you posted, but she didn't get specific enough and made it sound like the deer cause the Lyme disease instead of saying you have to be bitten by a tick that bit a deer. The deer carry the disease but they don't transfer it to humans.

Texas has ticks everywhere. I grew up as a kid raising the animals I mentioned and ticks were so bad that my brother got one in his ear that had been there a while and had his fill of blood that made the size of a pinto bean. Ah! Life in the Texas country was so much fun and dangerous.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 07, 2018, 03:30:39 pm
Tim,  I'm sure you don't let your brother forget about it either.  🤠
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: LesPalenik on January 07, 2018, 10:51:23 pm
Living in New Jersey, I have a different take on deer.  Sure they're cute but they are a major vector for Lyme disease.  I've had it once cured with antibiotics and my dog almost died from it.  Since deer move through neighborhoods frequently, you can pick it up just being in your back yard.  Texas appears to be free of Lyme.  But the Northeast is a disaster.  Over 50% of the ticks have Lyme and some other bad stuff like Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever and ehrlichiosis. I've pretty much stopped hiking and shooting in the woods it's that bad.  Check the map on the link for where Lyme is prevalent and check out the safety measures to take if you are planning to photograph in the woods.
https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/maps.html

This is a good example of different priorities in climate chnage.  If you live on the shore in low lying areas, you might be a lot for it.  If you live inland, where the sea have no effect, you'd be more concerned with spending public money on other things then worrying about CO2.  I'm sure scientists who study heart disease cures would want more money spent on their stuff than climateologists who would favor spending on CO2 reduction.  In that sense, scientists do have agendas favoring their specialty.

There is a very good chance that the tick population in the northern parts of USA and Canada will decrease next year because of the cold winter.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 08, 2018, 02:48:16 pm
Fair enough. So when does weather become indicative of climate change? Wouldn't we have to discount the warmer Summers that we've had the last couple of years as just weather?

Is it weather or climate? Quite easy to determine, actually, if you ask the alarmists: if it is warmer, it is Global Warming (i.e., climate). If it is colder, it must be Weather. 😉
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 08, 2018, 03:10:43 pm
It seems that males will have more fun with global warming.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/08/great-barrier-reef-rising-temperatures-turning-green-sea-turtles-female
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 08, 2018, 04:31:08 pm
Is it weather or climate? Quite easy to determine, actually, if you ask the alarmists: if it is warmer, it is Global Warming (i.e., climate). If it is colder, it must be Weather. 😉
And if you ask the deniers it's reverse, to me they're both equally religious in spreading their belief.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 08, 2018, 06:02:10 pm
Ooch, that looks quite "cool", also what we see on television here about the cold spell in NE US and Canada is quite extreme. But they also said the Western US is much warmer than normal (as is large parts of the rest of world), so I think "Global Cooling" might be an overstatement :)

Seems like other parts of the world are getting cold too including the Sahara where they had over 15 inches of snow in places.  This is the second year in a row after 40 years of no snow.  Does two years of snow weather mean climate change or weather?  Nice photos if you want to look.  This is a photo site after all.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/901733/Sahara-Desert-snow-Ain-Sefra-Algeria-pictures-photos
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 08, 2018, 10:47:58 pm
... It is continually used here, however, as a reason for scientists "promoting" their global warming "agenda".
What their agenda might be is never made clear...

Would you mind quoting who "here" said scientists have an agenda? We (or at least I) said scientists are human, thus responding to incentives just like the rest of us. Incentives like being published, quoted, interviewed, promoted, getting grants, symposium trips. Falling in line is oh, so human. There are no grants for sceptics, no fancy trips, no faculty positions, no promotions, nada. Instead they are ridiculed and ostracized. It takes almost super-human strength to remain sceptical.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 08, 2018, 11:01:12 pm
Would you mind quoting who "here" said scientists have an agenda? We (or at least I) said scientists are human, thus responding to incentives just like the rest of us. Incentives like being published, quoted, interviewed, promoted, getting grants, symposium trips. Falling in line is oh, so human. There are no grants for sceptics, no fancy trips, no faculty positions, no promotions, nada. Instead they are ridiculed and ostracized. It takes almost super-human strength to remain sceptical.
No jobs at the EPA or Energy Department either.  Well, until Trump.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 08, 2018, 11:07:56 pm
You might be surprised but I agree with the regulators not with Trump's Energy Secretary Rick Perry.  Actually his original plan a year ago to shut down the whole department was a better idea.  Of course, we shouldn't subsidize clean energy either like we do and let free markets operate.  Government shouldn't pick winners and losers. 


"Federal regulators on Monday rejected a rule proposed by Energy Secretary Rick Perry that would have subsidized coal and nuclear power plants in some parts of the United States."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/08/regulators-reject-rick-perrys-plan-to-prop-up-coal-and-nuclear-plants.html
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: tom b on January 08, 2018, 11:09:51 pm
Missed my opportunity,

Sorry, 556 replies with no sense that anyone is listening to each other. It really is embarrassing…

Please let it end,
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 09, 2018, 04:32:47 am
There are no grants for sceptics, no fancy trips, no faculty positions, no promotions, nada. Instead they are ridiculed and ostracized. It takes almost super-human strength to remain sceptical.
Feeling or fact?
Where do all the sceptic scientific papers on CC that some people have quoted in this thread come from?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 09, 2018, 04:34:57 am
Please let it end,
Why? there's no need to read it if you dont like it.

(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-QHXJgSH/0/db15c9f5/O/i-QHXJgSH.jpg) (https://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/My-Smug-Mug/n-SzsWG/i-QHXJgSH/A)

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: tom b on January 09, 2018, 05:42:51 am
Sorry, it's nothing to do with what I agree or disagree with. How many times can you repeat the same things and you think that someone's opinions will be changed by your brilliant, insightful arguments. Really how many times can a few and I mean a few people keep on doing it.

Obviously over 500 times isn't the limit.

This is a photography forum, perhaps you could post your comments on a more appropriate political site.

A challenge to the main participants, add as many images to this site as you have made posts to this link before you post here again.

Just saying,
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 09, 2018, 07:14:34 am
Sorry, it's nothing to do with what I agree or disagree with. How many times can you repeat the same things and you think that someone's opinions will be changed by your brilliant, insightful arguments. Really how many times can a few and I mean a few people keep on doing it.

Obviously over 500 times isn't the limit.

This is a photography forum, perhaps you could post your comments on a more appropriate political site.

A challenge to the main participants, add as many images to this site as you have made posts to this link before you post here again.

Just saying,
Apparently you disagree with the repetition ;)

If you look back I've probably put as many or more pictures on this site as I have made posts in this thread and all the other "political" threads have been supressed.
Nobody is forcing you to look/read here if you don't want to.

And while I don't agree with the viewpoints of all posters here I must say that the discussion at this point is reasonably civil and I find the viewpoints of others interesting to read (even the repetitions in different words). Also the links to articles and other publications are worthwhile, again irrespective if I agree with them or not.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 09, 2018, 07:34:24 am
Sorry, it's nothing to do with what I agree or disagree with. How many times can you repeat the same things and you think that someone's opinions will be changed by your brilliant, insightful arguments. Really how many times can a few and I mean a few people keep on doing it.

Obviously over 500 times isn't the limit.

Hi Tom,

Allow me to disagree.

In the Coffee Corner we exchange casual observations and thoughts, although they may be founded on solid reasoning or evidence (and sometimes not). Climate change does not only affect our personal well-being, or that of our fellow human beings, but can also impact our Photographic opportunities (in various ways).

Changing someone's (entrenched) opinion is not easy, and some folks are simply too selfish and don't give a rat's ass about how other humans (even their own offspring) are impacted by their actions (or lack thereof). Some, especially if ill-informed, may learn a thing or two and change opinion, others did not have a strong or well-founded opinion and are now better able to understand the issues.

Then there are those who are only participating to troll and try to get the thread shut down, yet they often underestimate the intelligence of their opponents. They will never admit that they are wrong, because their goal is not to be educated but to derail.

So, the best we can do is supply (scientifically founded) ammo for those who are openminded enough and willing to learn something from the exchange. I for one have learned that the situation we're facing is even worse than I thought, and the discussions made me do more research to understand the issues and how I can personally contribute to a solution. Even if only locally, I'm playing my part in improving the situation (in my own behavior, politically, and by using my skills for setting up sustainability projects in my hometown). One person does not make a whole lot of difference, but if everybody thinks that way then there will never be a change for the better.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on January 09, 2018, 07:53:52 am
Run for the hills. It's cooler up there. It'll take longer for global warming to get to you.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 09, 2018, 09:33:37 am
Run for the hills. It's cooler up there. It'll take longer for global warming to get to you.

Not cooler just in the hills ...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/sahara-desert-snow-storm-climate-algeria-ain-sefra-africa-weather-latest-a8149226.html

BTW: Weather is not Climate Change, but extreme weather (droughts in some places and more precipitation in other places) is a logical consequence of global warming.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 09, 2018, 09:42:33 am
And on a related note:

Ocean Deoxygenation:
http://www.oceanscientists.org/index.php/topics/ocean-deoxygenation

and

Declining oxygen in the global ocean and coastal waters:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6371/eaam7240.full

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 09, 2018, 11:37:35 am
Hi Tom,

Allow me to disagree.

In the Coffee Corner we exchange casual observations and thoughts, although they may be founded on solid reasoning or evidence (and sometimes not). Climate change does not only affect our personal well-being, or that of our fellow human beings, but can also impact our Photographic opportunities (in various ways).

Changing someone's (entrenched) opinion is not easy, and some folks are simply too selfish and don't give a rat's ass about how other humans (even their own offspring) are impacted by their actions (or lack thereof). Some, especially if ill-informed, may learn a thing or two and change opinion, others did not have a strong or well-founded opinion and are now better able to understand the issues.

Then there are those who are only participating to troll and try to get the thread shut down, yet they often underestimate the intelligence of their opponents. They will never admit that they are wrong, because their goal is not to be educated but to derail.

So, the best we can do is supply (scientifically founded) ammo for those who are openminded enough and willing to learn something from the exchange. I for one have learned that the situation we're facing is even worse than I thought, and the discussions made me do more research to understand the issues and how I can personally contribute to a solution. Even if only locally, I'm playing my part in improving the situation (in my own behavior, politically, and by using my skills for setting up sustainability projects in my hometown). One person does not make a whole lot of difference, but if everybody thinks that way then there will never be a change for the better.

Cheers,
Bart
Well I'm glad you're so sensitive, knowledgeable and care so much for our fellow man while the rest of us insensitive knuckle draggers are too stupid to understand what's going on.  Keep up the good work.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on January 09, 2018, 11:52:43 am
Not cooler just in the hills ...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/sahara-desert-snow-storm-climate-algeria-ain-sefra-africa-weather-latest-a8149226.html

BTW: Weather is not Climate Change, but extreme weather (droughts in some places and more precipitation in other places) is a logical consequence of global warming.

Cheers,
Bart

Stop it you guys. I've gotta stop laughing and get up off the floor.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 09, 2018, 12:05:34 pm
Well I'm glad you're so sensitive, knowledgeable and care so much for our fellow man while the rest of us insensitive knuckle draggers are too stupid to understand what's going on.  Keep up the good work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxq53_ZkmZc

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 09, 2018, 04:40:34 pm
I guess I'm going to have to start editing this thread.  I just removed two comments one by tom_b and the second by Bart that had nothing to do with the topic on hand.  Apparently tom_b did not read the first post of this thread as to what Ray and I are trying to accomplish.  We did get Chris's permission to see if this would work in terms of having an intelligent discussion of the issues.  I feel strongly that this does have an impact on photography both in terms of documenting climate change by capturing interesting images and possibly destroying some natural sites that photographers treasure.  I want the thread to remain open but that will depend on those who visit it to comment.  If you don't have a contribution to the topic, just ignore us and read other threads that you might find more interesting.  It's easy enough to do.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 10, 2018, 12:35:22 am
Frankly, I agreed with tom b's comment that no one is changing anyone else's mind and have said similar things.  His comment is just as valid about this subject as anyone's else and should not have been deleted.  It reflects a very important point about the topic - that positions are hard drawn.  People who post to this thread have made up their minds one way or the other and won't change their opinions.    Nothing changes if nothing changes.  If we are to get out of our rut, a different viewpoint and way of handling the issue is necessary.  tom b's posts reflect the necessity of that happening if we are going to get off the merry-go-round. Otherwise we're just going to spend another 29 pages of posts regurgitating the same old positions.  Yada, yada. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 10, 2018, 07:39:37 am
Frankly, I agreed with tom b's comment that no one is changing anyone else's mind and have said similar things.  His comment is just as valid about this subject as anyone's else and should not have been deleted.  It reflects a very important point about the topic - that positions are hard drawn.  People who post to this thread have made up their minds one way or the other and won't change their opinions.    Nothing changes if nothing changes.  If we are to get out of our rut, a different viewpoint and way of handling the issue is necessary.  tom b's posts reflect the necessity of that happening if we are going to get off the merry-go-round. Otherwise we're just going to spend another 29 pages of posts regurgitating the same old positions.  Yada, yada.

That's a broad generalization. It is certainly true that several of the regular contributors have clear opinions and have not "changed" their minds over time, but so what, no one expected that. So long as people post useful information, which is the point of this thread, that can be very useful to the larger audience of readers (many of whom may not contribute regularly or at all). I don't see this as a debate between two teams that trying to "win" something. As Alan G said, if you don't find the material useful or informative, don't read the thread. If the topic exhausts itself, the thread will end on its own.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 10, 2018, 08:16:59 am
Frankly, I agreed with tom b's comment that no one is changing anyone else's mind and have said similar things.  His comment is just as valid about this subject as anyone's else and should not have been deleted.  It reflects a very important point about the topic - that positions are hard drawn. 
I have to disagree with you!  Here is what I wrote in the first post to this thread:

Quote
Climate change will affect us as photographers by ending some opportunities (disappearance of Arctic and Antarctic photo sites) and open up some new ones (lots of documentary opportunities).  We had a previous thread on this topic in The Coffee Corner that was shut down because the ad hominem attacks got out of hand.  This is a second attempt to focus the topic on science and key issues.  Ray and I posted on the existing thread about Changes in the Coffee Corner and are willing to give this another shot.  Personal attacks won't be tolerated and if we cannot lock the thread, we will contact Chris.

Let's keep this civil and focus on the research and issues that are coming forward.

It was/is my hope that we can continue to post new articles and findings for discussion.  Whether or not these change anyone's mind is not particularly relevant as far as I am concerned.  It is more useful to have place were people can discuss findings or just read about them if they are so inclined.  As Robert Roaldi noted, if nobody posts the thread will die out just as so many other LuLa threads have over the years.  If people want to continue post polemic statements I am just as happy to shut the thread down as that is what happened to several other threads in The Coffee Corner over the past year. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: tom b on January 10, 2018, 08:33:00 am
The role of a moderator is to remain impartial. Ray and Alan have made all too many posts to this thread to claim that title. Maybe they should recuse themselves.

Just thinking,
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 10, 2018, 08:40:58 am
The role of a moderator is to remain impartial. Ray and Alan have made all too many posts to this thread to claim that title. Maybe they should recuse themselves.

Just thinking,
In my mind their only role as moderators is to keep the thread on-topic and civil. At that they're doing a great job.
I see no need for them to be impartial on climate change to fullfill that role, I can't see why they can't contribute to the content of the discussion and keeping the other contributors in check at the same time. I think the difference between on topic content and trolling is quite clear and as far as I'm concerned they could even delete more trolling contributions, but they took on the challenge and do the work, so it's their call.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: tom b on January 10, 2018, 09:22:37 am
The role of a moderator is to remain impartial.

Ray and Alan have put forward continual input and bias for their agendas. I can't recount any other LuLa thread that the moderators have inserted themselves so much into the narrative.

Frustrated and perplexed,
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 10, 2018, 09:35:12 am
This isn't a college lecture. We aren't doing a homework assignment  and have to follow the teachers instructions. We're not children. Mixing it up will make the thread interesting. After all it is a coffee table discussion. As long as there no personal attacks or cursing, I think all posts should be valid and respected.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 10, 2018, 09:56:17 am
Alan G.  You're doing a good job. Being moderator is not easy. As they say, no good deed goes unpunished.

I think the title of this thread which ends with science and issues, makes it clear that other things besides science and science articles apply. Maybe we should start a new thread called "Climate change: science , economics, social and political issues". That would open up the field to a more General discussion then just listing articles which canget pretty boring.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 10, 2018, 10:32:15 am
The role of a moderator is to remain impartial.

Ray and Alan have put forward continual input and bias for their agendas. I can't recount any other LuLa thread that the moderators have inserted themselves so much into the narrative.

Frustrated and perplexed,

Why? Because you say so?

In the past I've seen Michael Reichmann take strong positions in technical debates as well as other "debate" threads where he remained far from impartial to the topic being discussed. I've never had a problem with that, irrespective if I agreed with what he said or not. The current LL site moderators do less so, but that's not the point.

See here for moderator roles (on a forum): (http://www.communityspark.com/the-real-purpose-of-forum-moderators-revealed/)

Quote
The primary role of a forum moderator should be to promote interaction. A forum moderator should be posting new threads and adding new content to the site. They should be helping out members with their queries and they should be keeping threads alive by asking questions.


How can they add new content to the thread if they are not allowed to express their own opinion on the topic?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 10, 2018, 11:47:24 am
.... Frustrated and perplexed,

Then do yourself (and us) a favor and move on.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 10, 2018, 01:42:29 pm
Then do yourself (and us) a favor and move on.
As the moderator, I'm supposed to be impartial but this I can agree with! ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Christopher Sanderson on January 10, 2018, 02:14:36 pm
I asked Ray and Alan to moderate this discussion since they are both passionately interested in it and have contributed to it. My inclination was simply to close it. I certainly did not expect impartiality but I did/do expect fact rather than fiction or diatribe.

So far, generally, this experiment in moderation has been successful - thanks to them - and has allowed the discussion to continue. Those readers that are less interested or expect neutrality are invited to read elsewhere or use the Ignore Boards function (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=121220.0).
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: tom b on January 12, 2018, 01:16:12 am
To quote Kevin:

"Enough is Enough!  The Coffee Corner has always been a place to share a thought or view not covered in our other forum topics and relating to the field of photography.  Lately, it has gotten to be a political and religious platform.  This will be no more.  There are plenty of other platforms to express your political and religious views.  We will also not tolerate the personal attacks on others because of what they say or believe."

This thread is a direct offshoot of the locked  Climate change deniers (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117059.0) thread. To me it fits into Kevin's, "There are plenty of other platforms to express your political and religious views" statement.

Donald Trump tweeted: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." If that is not political I don't know what is.

Obviously my opinion of what constitutes a political view is different from the moderators.

If I have caused offence I apoligise.

Respectfully,






Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 15, 2018, 04:58:33 pm
Ford plans $11 billion investment, 40 electrified vehicles by 2022.  Who needs Paris? This is the way it should be.   No government favorites (hopefully rebates will be gone by then). Just regular free markets incentivizing future products and capital investment.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autoshow-detroit-ford-motor/ford-plans-11-billion-investment-40-electrified-vehicles-by-2022-idUSKBN1F30YZ
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 16, 2018, 02:51:54 am
Who needs Paris?
Without Paris there would be no market for this ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 16, 2018, 09:01:51 am
Here is a nuanced article in The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/science/climate-change-lakes-streams.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fclimate&action=click&contentCollection=climate&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=8&pgtype=sectionfront) on the impact of increased atmospheric CO2 levels on freshwater lakes and streams.  It points out that pH changes (e.g., more acidification) can take place but the impact is still unclear.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 16, 2018, 10:17:05 am
Without Paris there would be no market for this ;)
Paris was only signed a couple of years ago. Green energy has been developing for a very very long time. I was involved in energy management in the 1970s 1980s and 1990s installing Energy Management Systems. But my main point is that America doesn't have to be in Paris for American businesses to develop green Energy Products. That's the myth I was debunking
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 16, 2018, 10:43:25 am
Paris was only signed a couple of years ago. Green energy has been developing for a very very long time. I was involved in energy management in the 1970s 1980s and 1990s installing Energy Management Systems. But my main point is that America doesn't have to be in Paris for American businesses to develop green Energy Products. That's the myth I was debunking
Does this also "debunk" the myth that you killed off much of your internal market? I don't think so, US companies will have a much tougher time due to less internal US demand.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 16, 2018, 12:35:27 pm
Does this also "debunk" the myth that you killed off much of your internal market? I don't think so, US companies will have a much tougher time due to less internal US demand.
Countries do better in a free-market consumer demand driven economy rather than a top-down structure of government regulation and rebates. Didn't we learn that from the Soviets Cubans and Venezuelans? 

Meanwhile the American Tesla and Chevy Volt are both losing money because there's no consumer demand even or in spite of the government rebates. Car companies in America are now investing For future electric cars but they are worried that they really won't be any consumer demand for them. Of course China is mandating that their cars become electric and we'll see that in Europe as well. So American car manufacturers will build to that demand if not an American demand.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 16, 2018, 01:05:58 pm
Countries do better in a free-market consumer demand driven economy rather than a top-down structure of government regulation and rebates. Didn't we learn that from the Soviets Cubans and Venezuelans?
I agree, so Mr. Trump better stops the support for the coal industry. Picking that as a winner seems a disaster, not only as a climate issue.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 16, 2018, 03:11:59 pm
I agree, so Mr. Trump better stops the support for the coal industry. Picking that as a winner seems a disaster, not only as a climate issue.

Removing regulations on coal unilaterally imposed by the last president is not picking winners and losers. Trump also removed regulations on oil and natural gas drilling and the XL oil pipeline which are competitors of coal.  Now, let free "laissez faire" markets work.  Coal will continue to be marginalized and replaced by natural gas which is cleaner and cheaper.  But that will be a normal economic process not one imposed by a "green" president who thinks his ideas of how our economy should work are paramount and who supports certain "green" industries and companies with special rebates and discounts.     
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 16, 2018, 05:17:08 pm
Removing regulations on coal unilaterally imposed by the last president is not picking winners and losers. Trump also removed regulations on oil and natural gas drilling and the XL oil pipeline which are competitors of coal.  Now, let free "laissez faire" markets work.  Coal will continue to be marginalized and replaced by natural gas which is cleaner and cheaper.  But that will be a normal economic process not one imposed by a "green" president who thinks his ideas of how our economy should work are paramount and who supports certain "green" industries and companies with special rebates and discounts.     

Found an interesting article on Coal (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/15/trumps-love-affair-with-coal-215710)

Quote
Trump began by hiring coal-friendly aides like Pruitt, who had repeatedly teamed up with fossil-fuel interests to sue President Barack Obama’s EPA when he was Oklahoma attorney general, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, the founder of a coal company that once had a deadly disaster in one of its mines. Trump’s nominee to be Pruitt’s deputy is a coal lobbyist; his nominee to be assistant labor secretary for mine safety and health ran a mining company with a checkered safety record.

The result has been a flurry of coal-friendly actions. Pruitt is taking aim not only at Obama’s carbon plan for the power industry but a host of other rules limiting mercury, soot, smog and other discharges from coal operations. The president defied the world by withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, specifically complaining that it was unfair to American coal. His administration has also lifted Obama’s moratorium on coal leases on federal land, ended Obama’s restrictions on financing coal projects overseas, and shut down a study of the health effects of coal mining that blasts away entire mountains. His energy secretary, Rick Perry, recently proposed new subsidies for coal plants that keep stockpiles of coal handy, galvanizing opposition from an odd coalition of renewable energy advocates, environmentalists, Koch Industries and other oil and gas interests, manufacturers and other electricity consumers.

At a hearing last week, a Democratic congressman asked Perry why he was pushing a plan that could prop up outdated coal plants and increase costs to ratepayers. The secretary’s response summed up the administration’s approach to coal: “I think you take costs into account, but what’s the cost of freedom? What’s the cost to keep America free? I’m not sure I want to leave that up to the free market.”
(bolded emphasis mine)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 16, 2018, 08:14:48 pm
Global warming:

Temperatures Plunged to -88.6°F in Parts of Russia.

http://time.com/5104412/extreme-cold-temperatures-yakutia-russia/

Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 16, 2018, 10:41:06 pm
Found an interesting article on Coal (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/15/trumps-love-affair-with-coal-215710)
 (bolded emphasis mine)
Rick Perry is a jerk. Even other administrations groups opposed his buying coal to "help keep America free."  He had a better idea when he wanted to shut down the Energy Department completely.  We probably could shut down half the Federal government and their "work" and wasteful spending wouldn't be missed.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 17, 2018, 03:00:45 am
Rick Perry is a jerk. Even other administrations groups opposed his buying coal to "help keep America free."  He had a better idea when he wanted to shut down the Energy Department completely.  We probably could shut down half the Federal government and their "work" and wasteful spending wouldn't be missed.
Glad we agree on that one Alan :)

But how about "a host of other rules limiting mercury, soot, smog and other discharges from coal operations."  You were rightfully upset when Volkswagen polluted your clean air, but it's OK for the coal industry to do the same (and worse)? 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 17, 2018, 03:11:44 am
Global warming:

Temperatures Plunged to -88.6°F in Parts of Russia.

http://time.com/5104412/extreme-cold-temperatures-yakutia-russia/

Interesting read :) (https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_vs_weather.html)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 17, 2018, 06:59:35 am
Global warming:

Temperatures Plunged to -88.6°F in Parts of Russia.

So?

What are you suggesting? That weather extremes are becoming more frequent?
Or that there is no global warming in that part of Russia?

I looked it up for you and attached a chart of the temperatures (in °Celsius) as recorded by the Yakutia weather station. Unfortunately, I couldn't find older data, so it's not possible to extract a multi-decadal climate trend (which would allow to see solar activity cycles and such). It looks like the weather was even colder (-60 °F / -51 °C) there in 2012 (January 13th, 11:30PM), I don't know where the temperature mentioned in the article was recorded.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 17, 2018, 08:02:47 am
As I said, when it is colder, it is weather... when it is warmer, it is climate 😉
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 17, 2018, 09:22:44 am
As I said, when it is colder, it is weather... when it is warmer, it is climate 😉
As I said before when you posted something like this, you're mistaken: Long term data (averaging 10-20-30 yrs) is climate, short term data (averaging a day/week/month) is weather. Warmer and colder has nothing to do with it.  Just read the link I gave in post 595, that explains it.

Or maybe this one is clearer for you ;) (http://mocomi.com/weather-and-climate/)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 17, 2018, 11:13:18 am
As I said, when it is colder, it is weather... when it is warmer, it is climate 😉

We know that you are probably intelligent enough to understand the difference between long-teerm trends in climate and day to day variations in weather. That very topic has been discussed here and elsewhere many times, it is by now a given. So why the trolling? Is it just to get peoples' backs up and derail the thread?

If you have documentary evidence that there is no climate warming (or cooling) or that human activity is not contributing (or is), then please just present that so the rest of us can read it.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 17, 2018, 11:27:24 am
Glad we agree on that one Alan :)

But how about "a host of other rules limiting mercury, soot, smog and other discharges from coal operations."  You were rightfully upset when Volkswagen polluted your clean air, but it's OK for the coal industry to do the same (and worse)? 
I'm not in favor of polluting the air or water.  I breathe and drink too.  I spend $100 a year on carbon filters for my home drinking water, use natural gas to heat instead of oil, and have an electric "fake" fireplace.  I use the finest and most expensive mesh air filters in my HVAC system to sweep pollen, dust, and other particulates out of the house. I'm not that familiar with the changes the EPA wants to make.  But I understand the Supreme Court shot down Obama's unilateral rules as overstepping the law granting his EPA authority.  It's currently in the courts.   Also, Obama's EPA declared CO2 a pollutant so he could implement Climate Change rules and sign up with Paris. As Ray will surely remind us, CO2 is not a pollutant. In any case, what Obama did in joining Paris is a violation of our Constitution. The Senate must approve all foreign treaties.  Had they done so, Trump couldn't pull out of Paris without Senate approval.   

It seems counter-productive to be more concerned with what happens with America's coal fired electric plants than China's.  Paris gave China a pass and does not have to meet any standards until 2030.  In addition, they will be building 800 new coal fire electric plants throughout the world over the next ten years to add to pollution and CO2.  800!  That's about 3 plants every two weeks!  So you appear less concerned about the pollution China is adding to the world at the same time that America is reducing its coal-fired electric production, currently at 30% of the plants from 50% only a few years ago.

I think the overriding issue is that Obama went too far in regulating all American businesses, not only energy.  His regulations and tax concepts put the rest of the world and special interests in America ahead of keeping our economy lean and charging.  Of course Europeans like that because it keeps them more competitive.    That's why they hate Trump for pulling out of Paris, dropping TPP, NATO 2%, etc.  He puts America first.  He ran on reducing regulations and won the election.  The pendulum swings both ways.  If he goes too far the other way, the electorate will pull the country back.



Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 17, 2018, 12:09:57 pm
I'm not in favor of polluting the air or water.  I breathe and drink too.  I spend $100 a year on carbon filters for my home drinking water, use natural gas to heat instead of oil, and have an electric "fake" fireplace.  I use the finest and most expensive mesh air filters in my HVAC system to sweep pollen, dust, and other particulates out of the house. I'm not that familiar with the changes the EPA wants to make.  But I understand the Supreme Court shot down Obama's unilateral rules as overstepping the law granting his EPA authority.  It's currently in the courts.   Also, Obama's EPA declared CO2 a pollutant so he could implement Climate Change rules and sign up with Paris. As Ray will surely remind us, CO2 is not a pollutant. In any case, what Obama did in joining Paris is a violation of our Constitution. The Senate must approve all foreign treaties.  Had they done so, Trump couldn't pull out of Paris without Senate approval.   

It seems counter-productive to be more concerned with what happens with America's coal fired electric plants than China's.  Paris gave China a pass and does not have to meet any standards until 2030.  In addition, they will be building 800 new coal fire electric plants throughout the world over the next ten years to add to pollution and CO2.  800!  That's about 3 plants every two weeks!  So you appear less concerned about the pollution China is adding to the world at the same time that America is reducing its coal-fired electric production, currently at 30% of the plants from 50% only a few years ago.

I think the overriding issue is that Obama went too far in regulating all American businesses, not only energy.  His regulations and tax concepts put the rest of the world and special interests in America ahead of keeping our economy lean and charging.  Of course Europeans like that because it keeps them more competitive.    That's why they hate Trump for pulling out of Paris, dropping TPP, NATO 2%, etc.  He puts America first.  He ran on reducing regulations and won the election.  The pendulum swings both ways.  If he goes too far the other way, the electorate will pull the country back.
We're not talking about CO2, China or Obama, we're talking about the contradiction between the current government putting "America First" while at the same time allowing the coal industry to resume to put harmful quantities of mercury, soot, smog and other polluting substances in the environment.
I don't mind "America First", as you say it's what every country does to some extend but these measures look more to me like "Big Money First" and is doing actual harm to the general population and puts them last. I know this has little to do with climate change, but it is a serious matter about environmental pollution in general, where there seems to be a much greater acceptance that emmissions need to go down and not up.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 17, 2018, 12:40:39 pm
We're not talking about CO2, China or Obama, we're talking about the contradiction between the current government putting "America First" while at the same time allowing the coal industry to resume to put harmful quantities of mercury, soot, smog and other polluting substances in the environment.
I don't mind "America First", as you say it's what every country does to some extend but these measures look more to me like "Big Money First" and is doing actual harm to the general population and puts them last. I know this has little to do with climate change, but it is a serious matter about environmental pollution in general, where there seems to be a much greater acceptance that emmissions need to go down and not up.
I explained it in my last post.  Voters felt that we're being over-regulated, hurting our economy and reducing our freedoms.  Trump ran on reversing that trend which he is doing.  Hopefully he'll keep a balance between a stronger economy and freedoms and our health. If he doesn't, then future presidents and Congress can adjust the rules.   After all, no regulation gives 100% safety.  If they did, we would have to ban cars that kill 40,000 Americans every year.  There's always a tradeoff of freedom and heathy economy vs. safety.  Regulation costs money. Where I live in New Jersey, they will not put in a traffic light at an intersection until the number of accidents and deaths rise above a certain level.  It's just too expensive to put in traffic lights everywhere.  I'm sure it works similarly in your country.   
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 17, 2018, 02:18:49 pm
Of course America has standards. Do you think we thrrow garbage in the street? California has created emission standards for automobiles for decades that have changed the way cars are manufactured throughout the world. Except for Europea that's cheated for last 10 years.

I explained it in my last post.  Voters felt that we're being over-regulated, hurting our economy and reducing our freedoms.  Trump ran on reversing that trend which he is doing.  Hopefully he'll keep a balance between a stronger economy and freedoms and our health. If he doesn't, then future presidents and Congress can adjust the rules.   After all, no regulation gives 100% safety.  If they did, we would have to ban cars that kill 40,000 Americans every year.  There's always a tradeoff of freedom and heathy economy vs. safety.  Regulation costs money. Where I live in New Jersey, they will not put in a traffic light at an intersection until the number of accidents and deaths rise above a certain level.  It's just too expensive to put in traffic lights everywhere.  I'm sure it works similarly in your country.

So car emmission standards are fine, but the coal industry can start polluting with mercury (and other seriously harmful substances)?
Indeed you need a tradeoff but I seriously question if this is a balanced way of environmental protection.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 17, 2018, 02:53:30 pm
So car emmission standards are fine, but the coal industry can start polluting with mercury (and other seriously harmful substances)?
Indeed you need a tradeoff but I seriously question if this is a balanced way of environmental protection.
You created a straw man.  We're not starting to pollute with mercury.  Coal has always emitted mercury when it burns. You'd have to shut down all coal use to stop that.  By the way, the amount released has been argued that it doesn't effect health because of the small amounts compared to what the environment naturally produces.  The fact is coal scrubbers and other pollution devices have been added to coal burning plants to reduce pollution to an acceptable amount.  Obviously, it's not as clean as solar or wind?   But stopping its use would create major economic and health issues with Americans and other people in the world who use coal.  How would they provide electricity to their homes, provide heat (in China), produce steel, etc.  America has reduced it's coal used for electic production by 40%.  That will continue under Pruitt and Trump. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 17, 2018, 02:58:18 pm
So car emmission standards are fine, but the coal industry can start polluting with mercury (and other seriously harmful substances)?
Indeed you need a tradeoff but I seriously question if this is a balanced way of environmental protection.
While America has reduce it's reliance on coal by 40%, I've yet to hear any complaints from you against the Chinese as they will build 800 coal fired plants in other parts of the world that will pollute  and increase CO2 equal to what they now produce in their own country.  Why are you silent regarding what China will do? 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 17, 2018, 03:27:11 pm
America has reduced it's coal used for electic production by 40%.  That will continue under Pruitt and Trump.
It's turning: The US will burn and produce more coal this year than in 2016, the Energy Information Administration said Tuesday. (https://www.platts.com/latest-news/coal/houston/us-coal-production-consumption-to-increase-in-21559830)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 17, 2018, 03:28:34 pm
Why are you silent regarding what China will do?
There's very few Chinese here on LuLa to have a discussion with on this topic ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 17, 2018, 04:49:25 pm
It's turning: The US will burn and produce more coal this year than in 2016, the Energy Information Administration said Tuesday. (https://www.platts.com/latest-news/coal/houston/us-coal-production-consumption-to-increase-in-21559830)
I was referring to electricity production.  Electric plants use to be 50% powered by coal, now it's 30%, or a 40% reduction.  The switchover to natural gas will continue for electricity production.  Coal production overall may be up due to other industry use and exports.  The Chinese are going to need even more coal for those 800 coal fired plants they're building.  :)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 18, 2018, 02:28:01 am
I was referring to electricity production.  Electric plants use to be 50% powered by coal, now it's 30%, or a 40% reduction.  The switchover to natural gas will continue for electricity production. 
Did you even read the article before commenting? I don't think so since the second paragraph says:
In its first Short-Term Energy Outlook of the year, the EIA estimates electric power sector coal consumption will increase by 6%, or 41 million st, year over year to 720 million st on higher natural gas prices and increased electricity generation. 

The Chinese are going to need even more coal for those 800 coal fired plants they're building.  :)
And this isn't true either (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33092)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 18, 2018, 05:58:38 am
The Chinese are going to need even more coal for those 800 coal fired plants they're building.  :)

Politics aside, this is one of the goals of the Paris agreement: trying to prevent developing countries (e.g. India, African countries, etc.) from fueling their growing energy needs with fossil fuel powered energy (e.g. running on coal from the USA and Australia). Because those developing countries do not have the financial means to be able and skip that old (but relatively cheap in the short term) type of power generation, the participating countries (with now 1 exception) agreed to facilitate the funding and transfer of know-how that will enable those countries to start using renewable energy instead.

And it even makes economic sense for Western countries, it will create a larger wealthy and politically more stable market to sell products to (just like the Marchall plan after WWII did). And it reduces the need to fight the negative effects of climate change in one's home country. So it's a win-win-win situation.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 18, 2018, 10:33:56 am
Politics aside, this is one of the goals of the Paris agreement: trying to prevent developing countries (e.g. India, African countries, etc.) from fueling their growing energy needs with fossil fuel powered energy (e.g. running on coal from the USA and Australia). Because those developing countries do not have the financial means to be able and skip that old (but relatively cheap in the short term) type of power generation, the participating countries (with now 1 exception) agreed to facilitate the funding and transfer of know-how that will enable those countries to start using renewable energy instead.

And it even makes economic sense for Western countries, it will create a larger wealthy and politically more stable market to sell products to (just like the Marchall plan after WWII did). And it reduces the need to fight the negative effects of climate change in one's home country. So it's a win-win-win situation.

Cheers,
Bart
That's a noble cause. Then Paris should not have given China a pass to allow them to build 800 coal fired electric plants  over the next ten years in those African and other poor countries around the world.  Meanwhile, Paris is asking America to subsidize green energy in those nations at our expense while China goes on its merry way making trillions building the coal plants that causes global warming.  It's perverse. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 18, 2018, 10:52:43 am
Did you even read the article before commenting? I don't think so since the second paragraph says:
In its first Short-Term Energy Outlook of the year, the EIA estimates electric power sector coal consumption will increase by 6%, or 41 million st, year over year to 720 million st on higher natural gas prices and increased electricity generation. 
And this isn't true either (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33092)
A minor one year increase in coal use for electricity production means little.  It was caused by a small increase in natural gas prices.  The fact is in America, coal is being replaced by natural gas in electric plants which produces less schmutz. Generally, natural gas prices will continue to decrease due to heavy fracking in America.  So coal will continue to be replaced over the long term. 

Regarding your Chinese table, it has nothing to do with the 800 coal-fired plants.  The table refers to Chinese domestic use of coal and other energy.  Since China will build the 800 plants in other countries around the world, the coal used there will not appear in their domestic use tables but rather in the countries where the plants are located. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 18, 2018, 11:11:04 am
A minor one year increase in coal use for electricity production means little.  It was caused by a small increase in natural gas prices.  The fact is in America, coal is being replaced by natural gas in electric plants which produces less schmutz. Generally, natural gas prices will continue to decrease due to heavy fracking in America.  So coal will continue to be replaced over the long term.
I'm glad you agreed your statement was incorrect ;)  Also I'm not so sure it's small and only for one year. The price of natural gas will most likely continue to increase (and thereby increase the amount of coal powered electricity generation) as more US fracked gas is capable of being exported and fetching higher prices overseas than locally in the US.

Regarding your Chinese table, it has nothing to do with the 800 coal-fired plants.  The table refers to Chinese domestic use of coal and other energy.  Since China will build the 800 plants in other countries around the world, the coal used there will not appear in their domestic use tables but rather in the countries where the plants are located.
OK, and how many older and less efficient wood and coal fired energy use are these displacing? You keep fretting about the increases and always dismiss the corrosponding reductions, we've told you that many times in this and the poofed threads. Also all the countries where these are built are still part of the Paris agreement (I assume none of the 800 are built in the US ;) ), so you have to look at all these individual country plans to see if there is a problem or not, and if there is a problem these countries will have to take countermeasures or lose support. So I think yelling "What about these 800 plants" is only populist propaganda and far from a serious concern because it's only looking at one aspect and not the total picture.

I can already predict your answer, "China is bamboozling the world and lying about their Coal use and CO2 emissions", my answer to that is that I don't believe that :) Secondly I'm not Chinese, don't live there and don't have any influence there, so if you really believe they are crooked find a Chinese to talk to, and don't blame me for what you think they are doing wrong.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 18, 2018, 12:37:44 pm
I'm glad you agreed your statement was incorrect ;)  Also I'm not so sure it's small and only for one year. The price of natural gas will most likely continue to increase (and thereby increase the amount of coal powered electricity generation) as more US fracked gas is capable of being exported and fetching higher prices overseas than locally in the US.
OK, and how many older and less efficient wood and coal fired energy use are these displacing? You keep fretting about the increases and always dismiss the corrosponding reductions, we've told you that many times in this and the poofed threads. Also all the countries where these are built are still part of the Paris agreement (I assume none of the 800 are built in the US ;) ), so you have to look at all these individual country plans to see if there is a problem or not, and if there is a problem these countries will have to take countermeasures or lose support. So I think yelling "What about these 800 plants" is only populist propaganda and far from a serious concern because it's only looking at one aspect and not the total picture.

I can already predict your answer, "China is bamboozling the world and lying about their Coal use and CO2 emissions", my answer to that is that I don't believe that :) Secondly I'm not Chinese, don't live there and don't have any influence there, so if you really believe they are crooked find a Chinese to talk to, and don't blame me for what you think they are doing wrong.
Pieter, It could well be that there is no way to prove coal will continue to decline in electricity production.  But the chances are it will.  In any case, America has reduced it's use by 40% in ten years.  See the attached chart.  It's pretty dramatic showing how coal has dropped so much in the past ten years as natural gas has filled it's position. That's due to fracking.  Fracking has also created about 4 million barrels of additional oil a day for us.  It's getting us close to oil independence.  That could help prevent us from sticking our nose into the Middle East, something many would approve of.
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/electricity_generation_energy_source_lg.jpg&imgrefurl=https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page%3Delectricity_in_the_united_states&h=400&w=582&tbnid=LQM_64AJPkitqM:&tbnh=144&tbnw=211&usg=__tFnsOxHH1pYetBQns_8Y92mcYbw%3D&vet=10ahUKEwjX9qf_guLYAhUCv1MKHXo6CqIQ9QEILTAA..i&docid=WoFHAf9DPlHdkM&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX9qf_guLYAhUCv1MKHXo6CqIQ9QEILTAA

Regarding the 800 coal fired electric plants, they are not being installed to get rid of the burning of wood to heat little huts.  The 800 will create larger economies in those African and other poor nations.  That mean more reliance on electricity for production as well as higher standards of living and attendant fuel needs.  The 800 plants will not only replace the wood burning but increase  the CO2 in the world to an amount equal to a lot of what China produces now.  The way the Paris agreement works, all those little countries do not have to do anything to meet any real standards.  So they can increase the CO2 production while the rest of the modern countries like yours and mine, but not China, have to subsidize green with the food money we use for our own tables.  That's Chinese bamboozlement.  Paris bought the Brooklyn Bridge from the Chinese.  Trump may be many things.  But he's not stupid about a bad business deal.  That's why he pulled out.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 18, 2018, 01:40:23 pm
The way the Paris agreement works, all those little countries do not have to do anything to meet any real standards.  So they can increase the CO2 production while the rest of the modern countries like yours and mine, but not China, have to subsidize green with the food money we use for our own tables. 
That's not true as far as I understand the Paris agreement. All these countries have to take measures to meet their published greenhouse gas reduction plans and report the progress. If they don't they lose the support from countries that pledged to help.
I understand the US pulled out because they don't want to support other developing countries in this matter. I don't like that decision but can't do anything about it, but using misinformation about the agreement reached to justify pulling out is simply not credible.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: RSL on January 18, 2018, 01:44:48 pm
It's simply no use arguing about religious doctrine, Alan.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 18, 2018, 02:44:13 pm
It's simply no use arguing about religious doctrine, Alan.
Indeed, the religious deniers don't want to hear anything else than their own beliefs  ;)

And b.t.w. understanding the Paris agreements has nothing to do with believing in climate change or not, it's simply a matter of reading and comprehension skills.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 18, 2018, 03:15:32 pm
That's not true as far as I understand the Paris agreement. All these countries have to take measures to meet their published greenhouse gas reduction plans and report the progress. If they don't they lose the support from countries that pledged to help.
I understand the US pulled out because they don't want to support other developing countries in this matter. I don't like that decision but can't do anything about it, but using misinformation about the agreement reached to justify pulling out is simply not credible.
Trump pulled out because of China.   While they'll be overtaking us soon as the richest country in the world,  Paris requires they don't have do anything until 2030 while we have to feed our families less.   Paris is a bad business deal and won't accomplish anything on any case.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 18, 2018, 03:28:29 pm
Trump pulled out because of China.   While they'll be overtaking us soon as the richest country in the world,  Paris requires they don't have do anything until 2030 while we have to feed our families less.   Paris is a bad business deal and won't accomplish anything on any case.
Clenching straws Alan, you're adhering to my prediction from a few posts ago. Continuously repeating China doesn't have to do anything has been debunked many times here but as Russ said it's a religion, so I'll stop to argue against your belief. Amen!
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 18, 2018, 07:34:58 pm
No major advanced industrialized country is on track to meet its pledges to control the greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change. So much for Paris Accord Promises.  Plain old PAP.
https://www.nature.com/news/prove-paris-was-more-than-paper-promises-1.22378
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Robert Roaldi on January 19, 2018, 07:41:56 am
All of these issues boil down to costs vs benefits. This fracking research story popped up today: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/01/18/scientists-have-figured-out-how-fracking-causes-earthquakes-in-alberta_a_23337436/?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/01/18/scientists-have-figured-out-how-fracking-causes-earthquakes-in-alberta_a_23337436/?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage). Fracking has been successful, for a brief period, in finding more US (and Canadian) oil, but at what longer term cost? When will that cost be greater than more expensive forms of energy delivery?

This kind of cost, local earthquakes, is the kind of cost that's really easy to bear for those not living near the affected area. Going from past history, when it comes to making a buck, people are more than willing to put up with other peoples' troubles.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 19, 2018, 12:28:25 pm
In addition to reports out today about this year being one of the hottest ever there are some other interesting stories:

More rain in the Arctic may lead to fewer musk oxen:  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/science/musk-oxen-climate-change.html?hpw&rref=science&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

Warm and wet weather in Khazakstan may be implicated in the large number of deaths in 2015 of an antelope species:  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/science/saiga-deaths-bacteria.html?hpw&rref=science&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well  Good news is that the latest population counts shows that the numbers are increasing

As always these are causal relations that may or may not be linked to climate change.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 19, 2018, 01:40:41 pm
Alan G, can you find any articles where warmer weather is helping some species?
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 19, 2018, 02:04:20 pm
Here's some goods news about warning.
https://washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/09/14/some-good-news-about-global-warming-for-once-plants-are-speeding-up-their-use-of-carbon/
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 19, 2018, 02:14:59 pm
The part good news was on more vegetation.   This article shows how the Sahel Desert area will get more rain benefiting 100 million people.
https://face2faceafrica.com/article/global-warming-may-good-news-africas-driest-regions
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 19, 2018, 02:31:27 pm
More good news
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketplace.org/amp/2012/12/07/business/global-warming-good-news-russian-shipping
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 22, 2018, 10:03:02 pm
US adds tariffs for imported solar cells due to "dumping".
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2018/january/president-trump-approves-relief-us
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 23, 2018, 06:47:02 am
Here's some goods news about warning.
https://washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/09/14/some-good-news-about-global-warming-for-once-plants-are-speeding-up-their-use-of-carbon/

Hi Alan,

Thanks for posting that link to an interesting article. It's interesting, but it is not necessarily good news.

It depends on which plants/trees are capturing more CO2 (decaying plants release their Carbon again, trees store it for a longer period), and the more efficient use of water means that there will be a reduced cooling effect from evapotranspiration.

But, when viewed in isolation, it's interesting to see how nature tries to cope with changing CO2 levels.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on January 23, 2018, 07:00:25 am
US adds tariffs for imported solar cells due to "dumping".
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2018/january/president-trump-approves-relief-us

Assuming that the Chinese are actually dumping their PV panels (instead of just being cheaper), it also means that renewable solar/PV) energy gets more expensive for US citizens and there will be people out of a job for installation.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 23, 2018, 08:19:20 am
Assuming that the Chinese are actually dumping their PV panels (instead of just being cheaper), it also means that renewable solar/PV) energy gets more expensive for US citizens and there will be people out of a job for installation.

Cheers,
Bart
Actually, according to another article I read, China only provides about 7% with most coming from Indonesia, Korea, etc.  I agree that cheap imports reduces costs for consumers. When was the last time you bought a Dutch camera? :)  On the other hand, America manufacturers and workers of solar panels are going to get a boost.  Cheap imports are good if you still have a job; not so good if they put you out of work.  Another article I read says that this tariff will only add about 3% to home owners and maybe 10% elsewhere to install systems.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 23, 2018, 08:24:32 am
Hi Alan,

Thanks for posting that link to an interesting article. It's interesting, but it is not necessarily good news.

It depends on which plants/trees are capturing more CO2 (decaying plants release their Carbon again, trees store it for a longer period), and the more efficient use of water means that there will be a reduced cooling effect from evapotranspiration.

But, when viewed in isolation, it's interesting to see how nature tries to cope with changing CO2 levels.

Cheers,
Bart
May intent is to show that global warming has good points and bad points.  Unfortunately, the media and interested parties have pushed only the bad points.  In order to make a reasoned decision on dealing with any change, we have to study all effects.  Otherwise we're going to arrive at the wrong solution to the issue and produce arguments from deniers that the whole issue is bogus.  It appears to many that the pushers have their thumb on the scale. 
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 23, 2018, 06:12:09 pm
In order to make a reasoned decision on dealing with any change, we have to study all effects.

And see clearly the future, long before it gets here.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 24, 2018, 07:59:41 am
The always interesting Eduardo Porter has a nice column in the New York Times today about the difficult choices in addressing climate change:  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/business/economy/fighting-climate-change.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fbusiness&action=click&contentCollection=business&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Klein on January 24, 2018, 08:14:49 am
The always interesting Eduardo Porter has a nice column in the New York Times today about the difficult choices in addressing climate change:  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/business/economy/fighting-climate-change.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fbusiness&action=click&contentCollection=business&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront
Alan G: No country is really doing anything to meet it's Paris commitment.  See my previous post copied below.  The author of the NYT article you quoted suggests world-wide carbon and other taxes, more an attempt to redistribute the wealth from richer people and countries to poorer people and countries, another Socialist scheme.   It won't work in any case because each country will selfishly take care of itself like is happening currently.  All the noise against Trump for pulling out of Paris is just finger pointing.  These countries are doing little too.

No major advanced industrialized country is on track to meet its pledges to control the greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change. So much for Paris Accord Promises.  Plain old PAP.
https://www.nature.com/news/prove-paris-was-more-than-paper-promises-1.22378
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 24, 2018, 08:51:07 am
Alan G: No country is really doing anything to meet it's Paris commitment.  See my previous post copied below.  The author of the NYT article you quoted suggests world-wide carbon and other taxes, more an attempt to redistribute the wealth from richer people and countries to poorer people and countries, another Socialist scheme.   
Some countries are doing a lot to address climate change in terms of building out solar and wind energy infrastructure.  Regarding you comment on carbon taxes as being socialist, this has been supported by a number of conservative economists as the best way to address the problem.  ExxonMobil support it as does the Niskanen Center at the Cato Institute.  Here's a summary of others who support it:  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/opinion/guess-whos-for-a-carbon-tax-now.html
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Kevin Raber on January 24, 2018, 09:51:15 am
NOTICE IS GIVEN  . . . .

Relevant to the NOTICE IS SERVED post I just made I am now letting everyone know that this topic has outlived its usefulness.  This time tomorrow this topic will be locked for good.  Any attempt to start a new topic that doesn't follow the forum guidelines will be locked and deleted.

While I will acknowledge Global Warming is a large concern for me and all of us, this is not the place to address it.  I have seen the effects of Global Warming over the years on many trips to the Polar Regions. 

I suggest that we look at this issue from a photographic point of view moving forward and not a political one.

Politics on Luminous-Landscape is finished.  Let's get back to photography.
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Christopher Sanderson on January 24, 2018, 10:06:03 am
I want to thank Alan Goldhammer and Ray for having taken on the unrewarding task of moderating this discussion.

Since the thread will be locked and closed, there is no longer need of their moderation.

Moderation of the Coffee Corner will now revert to simple thread deletion for non-photographic topics.

Chris
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: pegelli on January 24, 2018, 10:17:57 am
Relevant to the NOTICE IS SERVED post I just made I am now letting everyone know that this topic has outlived its usefulness.  This time tomorrow this topic will be locked for good.  Any attempt to start a new topic that doesn't follow the forum guidelines will be locked and deleted.
One request Kevin or Chris, can you pls. leave the thread "visible" after locking? There were some threads deleted and useful links lost (next to tons of bullshit). Would be nice if we can preserve the links in here for future reference.

And thanks for bearing with us so long (I know you were gritting your teeth all along) and thanks to Alan G and Ray for moderating the thread, not an easy task and they did well  :)
Title: Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
Post by: Kevin Raber on January 24, 2018, 10:18:51 am
The thread will remain visible.