Skepticism about Climate Change

[pegelli]

I wonder why the boat goes there.  Oh well.  Thanks for the info.

I think the boat moors there and then they will bus or train you to Berlin and back. Berlin doesn't have a connection and port where they can receive seagoing Baltic sea vessels.

[Alan Klein]

Alan, you should become a second hand car salesman, showing off the worst performance as the best since sliced bread.

I'm not dragging you down, just calling you out on the worst performance in warming gas emissions. I agree it's not popular to go against Trumpists, but it has to be done

People are aspiring to your standard of living, but not to your inefficient use of energy and high emissions

You might be at the forefront of clean energy, but you need to do a lot more because you're still a laggard if you look at the bottom line result

China is allowed to wait because they're still far behind other countries like the US in emissions (per capita), and they are taking measures to reduce (which you conveniently forget every time), but they are also allowed to increase in other areas to further develop their economy. Something other countries (incl. the US) have already done by spewing many tons of CO2 in the air which allready increased the concentration above the equilibrium amount.

But you still sidestepped my earlier question, but I guess you'll never answer it.

Well, I'm sorry we're still a laggard in your book.  But we are better than all the other countries in the world in total and per capita clean energy production and use except Germany.  But you know those Germans.   

Regarding per capita vs. total CO2 production between us and China, we have a basic disagreement that we can't resolve.   We'll have to leave it there.  But I never said their use can't go up on a per capita basis. Why are you saying that?  In fact, I suspect theirs will go up a lot faster while we will go down.  But the earth is concerned with total CO2.  If China increases theirs by 100% over 1,400,000,000 people to match America's per capita, the total CO2 will be higher even if everyone else in the world reduces their production.  So you have to be concerned with total.  Other wise you won't have any effect on climate change.  (By the way, I'm making my points with the understanding that I don't buy into the whole Climate Change argument.  However, even if true, the Paris Plan won't work because you've excluded China until 2030.)

[pegelli]

Regarding per capita vs. total CO2 production between us and China, we have a basic disagreement that we can't resolve.   We'll have to leave it there.  But I never said their use can't go up on a per capita basis. Why are you saying that?  In fact, I suspect theirs will go up a lot faster while we will go down.  But the earth is concerned with total CO2.  If China increases theirs by 100% over 1,400,000,000 people to match America's per capita, the total CO2 will be higher even if everyone else in the world reduces their production.  So you have to be concerned with total.  Other wise you won't have any effect on climate change.  (By the way, I'm making my points with the understanding that I don't buy into the whole Climate Change argument.  However, even if true, the Paris Plan won't work because you've excluded China until 2030.)

This is a strawman argument, you're first creating a caricature and then critisizing that! Under the Paris agreement China will not go up by 100%, so that's a non issue you don't have to worry about.
And of course I'm worried about the total, but the only way to have a fair distribution between countries and regions and to judge one group (country) vs. another group (or country) is to take the number of people into account. Same logic as with the US electoral college, I don't think you would agree with "a state is a state, so Delaware should have as many seats in the electoral college as Texas and California". That's why you can't just look at total by country. And then when the numbers suit you (clean energy per capita) it's suddenly a meaningful measure. You can't have it both ways. I'm sure you won't agree and that's fine, everybody is entitled to their opinion. I just think yours doesn't make a lot of sense.

And pls. stop saying we have excluded China because that's more fake news and FOX sponsored lies, the Paris agreement has allowed China a modest increase while at the same time they are implementing other reduction measures. Why do you always forget to tell a balanced story about China, and only point at the negatives.

[Alan Klein]

1.If you mean that, then you're okay with China and India using coal-powered energy? 

2. Not really, it's just that you got a head start on developing countries, or countries with fewer opportunities or fewer means. It's those same countries that you, in earlier posts, wanted to deny the possibility to grow using cheap energy.

3. It's a good thing that countries like China are bringing the production/investment cost of e.g. PhotoVoltaic cells down, so it will soon be a cheaper alternative to fossil fuelled energy, thus rendering the Coal industry mostly obsolete (except for emergency and backup situations). In fact, China has halted some of the Coal plant construction plans to build more Wind-powered energy generation sites in 2018, because it has become more economical.

4. It doesn't. It does do two things, it recognizes the need for China to produce lots of power (more than current Renewables can generate) and it urges China to increase the share of Renewables in their energy generation mix. It also urges China to use cleaner fossil fuel complementary power by replacing old installation by cleaner more modern ones. China doesn't wait until 2030 at all. It is also ramping up Nuclear power stations to meet the rapidly growing power requirements of the country.


5. Again, China also has the largest population, by far. India is also not small. So a more meaningful metric is to view pollution as produced per Capita, but you don't like that because it shows how poor a performer the USA is.

6. Why, as explained above. All countries that have signed the Paris Agreement are facing different challenges and have different opportunities, and the accord honors those specific possibilities and constraints. It is quite fair, and that's why virtually all countries signed (except Syria and Nicaragua, and now the USA). Trump's remarks about wanting to negotiate a better deal demonstrates that he doesn't understand what he is talking about. The Paris Agreement is not 'a deal', it's a commitment to creating a better future, for all.

7. The Chinese economy is currently the third largest if you look at GDP (1. USA, 2. The European Union, 3. China), and they have a huge internal market to serve and feed. Clever countries see an opportunity to sell to the Chinese market, other countries try to frustrate the Chinese. These countries have good a memory for who their friends are. They like to sign Trade Agreements with the EU, like Japan just did, and are actively seeking knowledge about conservation of energy use and improving their energy production capacity. The USA signals that they prefer Coal based solutions and trade deals that are better for the USA alone, so the Chinese will look elsewhere for a while. The USA is closing doors that others are opening and are embracing new opportunities. Isolationism is a thing of the past.

Cheers,
Bart

Answers:
1. Yes.  Of course, China is choking to death on their own coal.  So they're changing it not because of Paris, but because they need to breathe.  Meanwhile, they'll provide work for their coal production construction companies by building 800 coal fired plants in other parts of the world so the rest of the world chokes more and total world CO2 production remains the same or goes up.  Thanks Paris for that good plan.

2. I never said I denied any other country the right to grow.  They can do what they want.

3. I never said I was opposed to clean energy.  After all, I enjoy breathing too.   I said that we should let free markets determine direction and let it develop with minimal government  interference.

4.  See  Answer 1.

5. America is not a poor performer. We do better than all countries except Germany.  We just provide the best for our people rather than killing 20 million of them like China. 

6.  Nice speech.  But America pays under Paris while some others don't.  Bad deal for America.  Bad deal for you too. 

7. The European Union is not a country even if the gnomes in Brussels think it is.  Certainly the Brits would agree with me.  China is the second largest country, not the third.  America doesn't need the Paris Accord to trade with other nations or create, produce and sell clean energy products.  We're already doing that with Tesla cars and batteries, Ford electric cars, General Electric generators for wind, more efficient jet engines from GE and Pratt and Whitney, etc.  I'm sure you will also be glad to sell us your technology regarding containment of rising sea levels.  You're experts in that field.  Nations are not going to cut the noses off to spite their faces just because Trump pulled out of Paris.  Life and trade will go on.  People are greedy that way, you know. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

So, after all this time, Bart, and after so many posts on the issue, you think I've been denying that climate change is happening?  ;)

You are dodging the question, which was about global warming, not climate change. Besides, when scientists, which you clearly are not (but neither am I, although I've dealt with them a lot), talk about climate change, they talk about the deviations from the trend (like the chart with seasonal anomalies I showed a few posts earlier).

My skepticism is about issues such as the claimed, alarmist, harmful effects of the current slight warming of around 0.8 degrees centigrade during the past century, and the claimed certainty that human emissions of CO2 are the main driving force behind such changes in average global temperature.

So if, according to you, CO2 is not the main driving force, then what is it?????? Or are you just skeptical for the sake of it, without foundation?

Hint, it's not the Milankovitch cycles, it's also not volcanic activity, because they add to a cooling effect opposite to what we're actually observing. For more background info (with Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced tabbed explanations) see:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-basic.htm

It's also not coming from an unknown source, but it is rather well aligned with the excessive emissions of Greenhouse gasses, which are caused by anthropogenic activities (like e.g. burning of fossil fuel, local changes to the surface albedo, deforestation, etc.). We can measure that and analyze the ratios between Carbon isotopes (12-C, 13-C, and  14-C), and with Oxygen, which shows human activity as the cause. Greenhouse gas is known to raise temperature since the discovery of that property in the 19th century, which is why we have higher average temperatures and less variation than on our moon (which is at the same distance to the sun, on average).

For more background info (with Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced tabbed explanations) see:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

I'm surprised no one saw this yet that the Larsen C Ice Shelf in the Antarctica finally broke off.  Of course, there will be those who blame Global Warming.

http://www.projectmidas.org/blog/calving/

Of course, they won't say that ice shelves grow and break off and the original shelf continues to grow and will break off again. That's a normal process. How can anyone assume it's due to climate changing? Maybe the ice shelf was 50% smaller 25000 years ago. How would anyone know? So now it got bigger and couldn't hold together and calved. Big deal. Maybe we can float it to North Africa and melt it over the Sahara to grow figs.

[LesPalenik]

Not only contribute the airplanes to the pollution and the global warming, but the warmer temperatures make it more difficult for the planes to take off.
Could be that that's also one of the reasons behind the airlines charging lately for the extra luggage and thus hoping to reduce the total weight of the airplanes.

Steadily rising mean and extreme temperatures as a result of climate change will likely impact the air transportation system over the coming decades. As air temperatures rise at constant pressure, air density declines, resulting in less lift generation by an aircraft wing at a given airspeed and potentially imposing a weight restriction on departing aircraft.

A variety of climate impacts on the aviation industry are likely to occur in the coming decades, and the sooner climate change is incorporated into mid- and long-range plans, the more effective adaptation efforts can be.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-017-2018-9

[Ray]

I'm surprised no one saw this yet that the Larsen C Ice Shelf in the Antarctica finally broke off.  Of course, there will be those who blame Global Warming.

http://www.projectmidas.org/blog/calving/

Of course, they won't say that ice shelves grow and break off and the original shelf continues to grow and will break off again. That's a normal process. How can anyone assume it's due to climate changing? Maybe the ice shelf was 50% smaller 25000 years ago. How would anyone know? So now it got bigger and couldn't hold together and calved. Big deal. Maybe we can float it to North Africa and melt it over the Sahara to grow figs.

An excellent idea, but I'm not sure one could tow those icebergs using wind and solar powered ships. 

Actually, Australia is a much closer destination for towing icebergs from the Antarctic, and also has lots of dry, arid land which would benefit greatly from the huge supply of fresh water from off-shore icebergs.

As we all know, apart from those AGW alarmists who are in denial, elevated levels of CO2 help water-stressed plants the most.

A sensible and practical approach to make full use of the benefits of our CO2 emissions, and also help alleviate the psychological trauma experienced by the AGW alarmists, would be to irrigate the Australian deserts from off-shore melting icebergs, and employ no-till agricultural techniques which have the effect of gradually sequestering carbon in the soil, making the soil richer and a better source of high-nutrient, organic food, whilst also increasing world food supply.

That would be a win/win for everyone. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Live near the beach? Coral reef expert Charlie Veron has some advice for you

Charlie Veron is the world's leading expert on coral reefs.
His prognosis for the future of the Great Barrier Reef,
and the world, is dire.

http://www.theage.com.au/good-weekend/charlie-veron-the-dire-environmental-prognosis-we-cannot-ignore-20170711-gx8tqr.html

QUOTE: But most of his collection concerns marine biology and coral, a topic Veron knows more about than anybody on the planet. Dubbed the "Godfather of Coral", Veron has, over his 50-year career, redefined our understanding of reefs, the way they grow and reproduce, the way they evolve, and now, most poignantly, the way they are dying. He has identified more than 20 per cent of the world's coral species, and has been likened by David Attenborough to a modern-day Charles Darwin.

QUOTE: Veron has variously referred to Carmichael as "evil", "beyond logic" and "appallingly stupid". The larger problem is not the mine, as bad as that is. It's Australia, it's the world; it's our complacency, our distrust of science and, of course, it's our politicians. "We are being led by idiots," Veron says. Former federal environment minister Greg Hunt is "the most stupid man you could ever hope to meet". Tony Abbott is a "moron"; Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, who has also backed the mine, "just awful". Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, he says, is the worst of the lot. "A few years ago I talked to him for two hours about climate change, and he had a great grasp of it. Then he turns around and does nothing. To me, that is truly criminal."

Coral reef expert Charlie Veron is clear about his internationally renowned observations. Let's get rid of the 'morons' and politicians that deny the real cause of the current Global warming, counterproductive human activities (mainly excess CO2 emissions). Not acting is the worst possible option.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Live near the beach? Coral reef expert Charlie Veron has some advice for you

Charlie Veron is the world's leading expert on coral reefs.
His prognosis for the future of the Great Barrier Reef,
and the world, is dire.

http://www.theage.com.au/good-weekend/charlie-veron-the-dire-environmental-prognosis-we-cannot-ignore-20170711-gx8tqr.html

QUOTE: But most of his collection concerns marine biology and coral, a topic Veron knows more about than anybody on the planet. Dubbed the "Godfather of Coral", Veron has, over his 50-year career, redefined our understanding of reefs, the way they grow and reproduce, the way they evolve, and now, most poignantly, the way they are dying. He has identified more than 20 per cent of the world's coral species, and has been likened by David Attenborough to a modern-day Charles Darwin.

QUOTE: Veron has variously referred to Carmichael as "evil", "beyond logic" and "appallingly stupid". The larger problem is not the mine, as bad as that is. It's Australia, it's the world; it's our complacency, our distrust of science and, of course, it's our politicians. "We are being led by idiots," Veron says. Former federal environment minister Greg Hunt is "the most stupid man you could ever hope to meet". Tony Abbott is a "moron"; Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, who has also backed the mine, "just awful". Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, he says, is the worst of the lot. "A few years ago I talked to him for two hours about climate change, and he had a great grasp of it. Then he turns around and does nothing. To me, that is truly criminal."

Coral reef expert Charlie Veron is clear about his internationally renowned observations. Let's get rid of the 'morons' and politicians that deny the real cause of the current Global warming, counterproductive human activities (mainly excess CO2 emissions). Not acting is the worst possible option.

Cheers,
Bart

  Regular changes in climate unrelated to man have been occurring since the Earth formed over 4 billion years ago.  It's caused destruction of reefs in some areas and creation of reefs in other areas.  The current Great Barrier Reef wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Global Warming.  The last Ice Age melting 10-20,000 years ago allowed the oceans to rise to provide sea water where the reef now grows.  The reef existed there in some form before the Ice Age.  It was then killed by the Ice Age when Global Cooling occurred.  It lowered the sea levels so reefs died.  So it's an on-going process that's been effected by Climate Change (warming and cooling) for millennia.

I'm not saying it's not important to Australia and the tourist trade.  I'm a scuba diver who appreciates diving reefs.  But the idea the reefs are not going to change and we have to somehow control the climate to stop that at all cost doesn't comport with history of reefs.   

Let's get off of politics for a moment.  In keeping with the fact this is a photo site, here's my 30 year old Ektachromes taken while I scuba dived with a Nikon Nikonos IV of reefs in Florida in Key Largo and off Fort Lauderdale.  Pennecamp Park off of the Florida keys is the first underwater national park anywhere.  The above water shots were taken with the same camera.  It's a 5 minute YouTube video with music - Key Largo and another song to spiced it up.  Some of the shots were taken at night with a strobe.  Reefs are amazing at night.  That's when the polyps come out in their amazing colors.  Iridescent microorganisms invisible in the water otherwise, glow to life and dance around your hand as you move it creating an out-of-world view.  The handsome guy with the mustache in a couple of shots is a much, much younger me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T56A_kRqilA

Here's a few slides of Bimini, on FLICKR, not a movie.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157627032961729

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

  Regular changes in climate unrelated to man have been occurring since the Earth formed over 4 billion years ago.  It's caused destruction of reefs in some areas and creation of reefs in other areas.  The current Great Barrier Reef wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Global Warming.  The last Ice Age melting 10-20,000 years ago allowed the oceans to rise to provide sea water where the reef now grows.  The reef existed there in some form before the Ice Age.  It was then killed by the Ice Age when Global Cooling occurred.  It lowered the sea levels so reefs died.  So it's an on-going process that's been effected by Climate Change (warming and cooling) for millennia.

Sorry Alan, I tend to attach more value to the founded opinion of world's most important expert on Coral Reefs instead of yours.

The optimum temperature for most coral reefs is 26–27 °C (79–81 °F), and few reefs exist in waters below 18 °C (64 °F). It is known that coral reefs only tolerate a small (in the order of 1 degree Celsius) change in temperature over the seasonal maximum, and then it can take several years to a decade to recover if temperatures are restored and the microscopic algae return, algae which are a symbiotic food source for the polyps that form the reef. Two or more subsequent years of rapid temperature increase (like the current warming does) may result in irreversible bleaching. Global warming causes a constant increase of temperature and ocean acidification, and it is going too fast for the coral reefs to adapt to.

I'm not saying it's not important to Australia and the tourist trade.  I'm a scuba diver who appreciates diving reefs.  But the idea the reefs are not going to change and we have to somehow control the climate to stop that at all cost doesn't comport with history of reefs.

   

Source on the 'history of reefs'?

BTW, Coral reefs are not just nice for tourism. Shallow coral reefs form some of the most diverse ecosystems on Earth. They occupy less than 0.1% of the world's ocean surface, about half the area of France, yet they provide a home for at least 25% of all marine species. Loss of coral means loss of marine life, and of an important source of food and medicine for future generations.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Bart, you totally missed my point. The Great Barrier Reef and other reefs have been born into existence and died out again numerous times due to changing Global Climate. That's without any interference from man. You think that man is somehow going to stop climate from changing is just hubris.  We're not God.  The Earth has been warming since the last ice age ended twelve thousand years ago without man's interference. And we'll be going into another Ice Age also without man's control. These will effect the reefs in the future just as its effecting reefs now.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart, you totally missed my point. The Great Barrier Reef and other reefs have been born into existence and died out again numerous times due to changing Global Climate. That's without any interference from man. You think that man is somehow going to stop climate from changing is just hubris.

And you are missing that previous periods of climate change were caused by natural phenomena, like changes in solar orbits and or volcanic activity. The current Global Warming is caused by human activity. So this time around, humans are killing the Coral Reefs and all the life they support. And this is just one effect of Global Warming, there are many other reasons for not wanting such rapid Global Warming.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Let's assume you're right.   That the Great barrier reef is effected by human activity.   That sea temperatures are going up killing it.     Well,  that means that areas Of the world where the sea had been too cold to support reefs,  will now get warm enough so new reefs will form there.   The whole universe is being born and dying and everything in it as well.   We're not that powerful.   Our view of time and global changes are too tiny.

[pegelli]

Let's assume you're right.   That the Great barrier reef is effected by human activity.   That sea temperatures are going up killing it.     Well,  that means that areas Of the world where the sea had been too cold to support reefs,  will now get warm enough so new reefs will form there.   The whole universe is being born and dying and everything in it as well.   We're not that powerful.   Our view of time and global changes are too tiny.

Nice theory, but the rate of change is too fast for other reefs to be formed during the time the temperature is in the right range. Feel free to kid yourself but I don't buy it.

[Alan Klein]

A reef is not one organism.  Its millions growing over a long time. All it takes are a couple of polyps to start a new reef and begin reproducing.  Meanwhile there are  other reefs around the world that are doing fine.   Its not only reefs.   As the climate changes,  areas that were inhospitable before now become great areas for species of all types to expand and grow.

This is just another scare tactic for global warning

[Farmer]

No other reef really compares.

From Wikipedia:

The Great Barrier Reef is the world's largest coral reef system composed of over 2,900 individual reefs and 900 islands stretching for over 2,300 kilometres (1,400 mi) over an area of approximately 344,400 square kilometres (133,000 sq mi).

That's bigger than every state in the US other than Alaska, Texas, California, and Montana.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

A reef is not one organism.  Its millions growing over a long time. All it takes are a couple of polyps to start a new reef and begin reproducing.

Which is, of course, a gross over-simplification of how an intricate ecosystem works. It is not only a preferred temperature of 26–27 °C (79–81 °F), but it also requires a certain shallowness (of the coastline) for the correct spectrum of light to reach the algae to allow photosynthesis and it requires an ocean-acidity level that prevents the calcium deposits to dissolve or grow too slow. It also requires a certain salinity and a lack of other algae that grow too fast with runoffs from land fertilization, to name only a few factors (not even mentioning other threatening factors like human (naval) and certain animal (e.g. sea-star) activity).

There are reasons for the existence of Coral Reefs at some (but not all) tropical latitudes. The conditions have to be just right.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Which is, of course, a gross over-simplification of how an intricate ecosystem works. It is not only a preferred temperature of 26–27 °C (79–81 °F), but it also requires a certain shallowness (of the coastline) for the correct spectrum of light to reach the algae to allow photosynthesis and it requires an ocean-acidity level that prevents the calcium deposits to dissolve or grow too slow. It also requires a certain salinity and a lack of other algae that grow too fast with runoffs from land fertilization, to name only a few factors (not even mentioning other threatening factors like human (naval) and certain animal (e.g. sea-star) activity).

There are reasons for the existence of Coral Reefs at some (but not all) tropical latitudes. The conditions have to be just right.

Cheers,
Bart

You're cherry picking one sentence to make a false point.   L Please reread what I posted. It includes all the parameters necessary for reefs to grow in other places as the temperature warms up. Places that were inhospitable before,  now become  okay to grow reefs.

[Ray]

Live near the beach? Coral reef expert Charlie Veron has some advice for you

Charlie Veron is the world's leading expert on coral reefs.
His prognosis for the future of the Great Barrier Reef,
and the world, is dire.

Bart,
That's an excellent example of someone who has a strong emotional bias. Well done! 

Charlie Veron has qualifications in reptilian physiology, insect neurobiology and coral taxonomy, not climatology. He should stick to what he knows.

“In the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a good future for the human race. That's our past.”—Michael Crichton, “Environmentalism as Religion,” (A lecture at the Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA, September 15, 2003).

"Being a professional scientist: professional means that one gets paid; one does science for money, for prestige, for a career. By contrast, skeptics are usually amateurs, which means that they do science for the love of it. However, many amateurs are retired professionals. Being professional also means that one is very busy doing the experiments, giving lectures, visiting conferences, applying for funds, writing papers and talking with like-minded people. In other words, there is little time left to study the wider perspectives of science, the inter-disciplines. Amateurs often have such time, gaining that important wide perspective."

Here's another interpretation of the main cause of the recent bleaching of the GBR.

"It is puzzling why the recent 2017 publication in Nature, Global Warming And Recurrent Mass Bleaching Of Corals by Hughes et al. ignored the most critical factor affecting the 2016 severe bleaching along the northern Great Barrier Reef – the regional fall in sea level amplified by El Niño. Instead Hughes 2017 suggested the extensive bleaching was due to increased water temperatures induced by CO2 warming."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/05/falling-sea-level-the-critical-factor-in-2016-great-barrier-reef-bleaching/