Discussion: Global Warming, Emission Standards, and Other Environmental Issues

[Doctor Evo]

Ironically, the very thing which allows environmentalism to exist is the thing they usually express a distaste for.

...which is?

To the poster who claimed "climate change" is a new term, that is not accurate. That term was used in the 70s to describe the global cooling scare.

I don't think anybody made that claim.

I have a feeling that you may be referring to one of my posts. If this is the case, you have severely misinterpreted what was being said.

(EDIT: Though I suppose one of SV Fan's posts seems to vaguely imply that this was the case.)

The humorous part of all this was how the same predictions and fears were being used to describe how bad a cooling climate would be. Apparently if the climate cools or warms we are doomed. t: Since the climate is going to do something...I guess we are doomed!

Note how any natural disaster of the time was blamed on "global cooling". Droughts, floods, bad harvests...pretty much the same as what is going on now.

More: http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ew ice age coming hubert lamb&pg=4365,2786655 ("New Ice Age Coming!")

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=A7-hzOuI2KQC&dat=19740815&printsec=frontpage (page 8 "Drought blamed on changing climate")

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAAIBAJ&pg=3188,5753870&dq=hubert-lamb&hl=en ("Little Ice Age Predicted for Britain")

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicago...-r-r-r:+New+Ice+Age+on+way+soon?&pqatl=google ("New Ice Age on the Way soon")

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washing...r&desc=U.S.+Scientist+Sees+New+Ice+Age+Coming ("US Scientist See New Ice Age Coming")

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes...ng---It's+Already+Getting+Colder&pqatl=google ("New Ice Age Coming---It's Already Getting Colder")

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/csmonit...mate+expert+predicts+new+Ice+Age&pqatl=google ("British climate expert predicts new Ice Age")

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-01-19.pdf (I love this one....some scientists were preparing to blame us for the cooling. Naturally they are campaigning for government funding. Interesting how the article starts with "changes in climate are inevitable" before eventually falling into "blame humans". They even point out that warm climate is good...won't get that out of them now! )

Most of these articles cite the work of a gentleman named Lamb. Even a cursory glance at his methodology reveals some crucial scientific and statistical problems.

Secondly, part of the reason that scientists were worried about an ice age was a short-term cooling trend coupled with geologic evidence that we should, by all accounts, have been entering another glacial period. It was not an entirely unreasonable conclusion, given what was known at the time and the data which were available.

Third, one of the articles cites a key issue that is far more important than the magnitude of the temperature itself: stability (or variation). This is why your argument that "the climate is going to do something," is nonsense: while strictly true, the statement oversimplifies the problem to such a degree that it borders on intellectual dishonesty (or betrays a striking ignorance of both physical and biological science).

I'm fascinated by this human trait myself. Religion depends upon this. Environmentalism has the same message "The world will end because of man's sins" so I assume environmentalism is just replacing conventional religion in our minds. We apparently need that message to feed our egos. That message is based on the idea that we are the most important and powerful species on the planet...none of the other species can effect the fate of planet except us. That makes our ego happy.

I know you think that you're being profound, but this argument amounts to nothing more than a psychological parlor trick, and it's certainly not original.

First of all, the scientists most concerned with anthropogenic impacts on the global climate would be the first to acknowledge the historical role of other organisms - cyanobacteria, for example - in affecting global climate and atmospheric composition.

Secondly, "that message" most certainly does NOT rely on the idea that we are the most important and powerful species on the planet (how ridiculous) - it merely relies upon the idea that we can affect global climate. Nothing more, nothing less. Considering we wouldn't have been the first organisms to do so in earth's history, it is not at all a stretch.

Having read a bit about climate history, warming is generally much better for humans than cooling.

More oversimplification - with just a *hint* of misdirection. Nice.

We are lucky to be living in a time when the climate was recovering from the Little Ice Age. That was a suck time to be alive. Thank god the climate started warming in the mid-1800s...long before our CO2 emissions could have been the cause of course.

That doesn't preclude the possibility of CO2 acting in a capacity such that it accelerates warming. It doesn't have to be the proximal cause in order for it to be a severe problem.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Is it? What is the problem? We are talking about a trace gas in the atmosphere (0.04%) that is essential for life on this planet. We are also currently at one of the lowest levels of CO2 in the history of the planet.
http://www.americanthinker.com/#1 CO2EarthHistory.gif

If anything we are currently experiencing CO2 starvation since most of the lifeforms on the planet evolved during periods of much higher CO2 concentrations. Note that during one ice age, CO2 levels were above 4000ppm. That's a pretty big blow to the theory that CO2 drives temperature. (We are now at about 400ppm)

1) Ocean acidification - proven to have been caused by anthropogenic CO2, and which could have impacts on ecosystems even MORE profound than those associated with AGW.

2) The fact that it is a trace gas doesn't mean that it can't have a disproportionately large impact.

3) Your argument concerning "CO2 starvation" relies upon the idea that most extant lifeforms on the planet evolved during periods of much higher CO2 concentrations. This is almost certainly NOT the case.

4) I don't think anyone has suggested that CO2 is the sole driver of global climate. Yet again, you have presented an oversimplification. These may work when arguing with the scientifically illiterate, but anyone with even a modest background in the physical and/or biological sciences will see right through them.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

...which is?

Affluence. Societies in poverty do not care one wit about the environment. When a society becomes prosperous, then environmentalism can exist.

Most of these articles cite the work of a gentleman named Lamb. Even a cursory glance at his methodology reveals some crucial scientific and statistical problems.

I certainly was not making the case that scientists are infallible...quite the opposite in fact. The idea that "the science is settled" is one of the main sins of the AGW movement. Scientists in other fields don't make that claim because it is impossibly inaccurate, illogical, and smacks of political motivation. These scientists for example: http://scitechdaily.com/study-suggests-andromeda-crashed-into-the-milky-way-10-billion-years-ago/

Secondly, part of the reason that scientists were worried about an ice age was a short-term cooling trend coupled with geologic evidence that we should, by all accounts, have been entering another glacial period. It was not an entirely unreasonable conclusion, given what was known at the time and the data which were available.

I agree that scientists were going by what they knew at the time and did not claim "the science is settled". Suddenly their predictions were wrong and they had to rethink. Nowadays, the predictions are wrong again...but those espousing AGW theory the most do not seem willing to rethink their views. (Which some of them actually refer to as "the cause" ) Falsifiability is not allowed into the room.

Third, one of the articles cites a key issue that is far more important than the magnitude of the temperature itself: stability (or variation). This is why your argument that "the climate is going to do something," is nonsense: while strictly true, the statement oversimplifies the problem to such a degree that it borders on intellectual dishonesty (or betrays a striking ignorance of both physical and biological science).

Ah the mythical "stability"....apparently you believe the climate is supposed to maintain one state? Climate history does not support this.

I know you think that you're being profound, but this argument amounts to nothing more than a psychological parlor trick, and it's certainly not original.

I know it's not origial. The similarities between conventional religion and environmentalism have been apparent for some time and I'm certainly not the only one to notice.

There is sin, there is absolution. There are evangelists, there are heretics (who must die!). There is sacrifice. There is prophecy. There is Puritanism. Oh and most of all there is DOOM! There is faith...nothing can prove it wrong. Any weather event is used as support for the theory....warmer...colder...it all counts apparently. A warm summer is immediately touted as a "See? We were right!"...but a cold winter is either ignored (like this last winter....coldest in the northern hemisphere since the 1960s) or used as evidence for AGW ("Cold weather is part of the theory too!"). Declining tornado and hurricane numbers don't match the predictions....and that fact is ignored to the extent that the exact opposite is claimed. Not exactly trustworthy behavior.

Yeah...the human obsession with "doom" fascinates me and I do tend to mock religion. I'm in the process of counting the number of movies released this year which rest in the "doom" category....impressive list so far.....we can't get enough.

First of all, the scientists most concerned with anthropogenic impacts on the global climate would be the first to acknowledge the historical role of other organisms - cyanobacteria, for example - in affecting global climate and atmospheric composition.

Secondly, "that message" most certainly does NOT rely on the idea that we are the most important and powerful species on the planet (how ridiculous) - it merely relies upon the idea that we can affect global climate. Nothing more, nothing less. Considering we wouldn't have been the first organisms to do so in earth's history, it is not at all a stretch.

I need a definition for "we can effect the climate". That trick was used against some scientists when asking their opinion on AGW theory. A butterfly flapping its wings effects the climate. The effect is real but so insignificant that it's not worth discussing.

Now...to support your claim here...which major climate events in the past do you claim were caused by a species on this planet? Because this is the claim of the IPCC: Most of the observed increase in global average
temperatures since the mid-20th century is very
likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic
greenhouse gas concentrations. (Which immediately makes me question why the current warming trend began 100 years earlier)

So let's not quibble here...the claim is that we are the primary driver of the climate now...and that we must quickly stop what we are doing or we and all the other species are doomed. Us...the mighty human race....master of the planet and all we survey. ...Just like the other religions....the earth is doomed because of man's sins. Aren't we special?

More oversimplification - with just a *hint* of misdirection. Nice.

That's the reality. Warmer is better for us. (They were willing to admit this during the global cooling scare in the 70s) And the most life which ever existed on this planet existed when it was MUCH warmer than today.

That doesn't preclude the possibility of CO2 acting in a capacity such that it accelerates warming. It doesn't have to be the proximal cause in order for it to be a severe problem.

Hmmm..."doesn't preclude the possibility" does not sound like a good basis for dramatically altering the behavior of the human race.

Lots of problems with that idea. First each CO2 molecule exerts less of a greenhouse effect than the molecule previous. Which means added CO2 after a certain point will have little effect. (That's going by the theory)

Then there are those who have a different view of the theory altogether.

http://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-warming-caused-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide-study-says

https://attachment.fbsbx.com/file_d...inline=1&ext=1373411956&hash=ASv1T8PZ3F_ULTXw

Lack of correlation is a problem too. Correlation of course does not prove causation, but if you are going to claim CO2 emissions cause rising temps, you'd better at least have correlation. So why did temps begin to rise in the mid-1800s before our emissions? Why the sharp rise in the decades before 1940 before our emissions rose rapidly? Why did temps FALL from the 50s to the 70s when our emissions rose rapidly? Why have temps stopped rising today (and may even be falling) even though our emissions are accelerating at a more rapid pace than ever? (All this assumes our temp records are accurate...which is not a sure thing at all)

Then there is the "problem" part. When do these problems start happening? As with most doomsday predictions..."any time now". Of course, plants are loving it...it's not a "problem at all for them: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003400/a003451/index.html
and
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8452483656067190.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

1) Ocean acidification - proven to have been caused by anthropogenic CO2, and which could have impacts on ecosystems even MORE profound than those associated with AGW.

"Proven"? I don't think so.

"Could"? That's not much to back the insistence that the human race should dramatically alter their lifestyle.

2) The fact that it is a trace gas doesn't mean that it can't have a disproportionately large impact.

Ok....where is the proof? Like I said, CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today during an ice age. And again...the correlation between CO2 emissions and temps are lousy.

3) Your argument concerning "CO2 starvation" relies upon the idea that most extant lifeforms on the planet evolved during periods of much higher CO2 concentrations. This is almost certainly NOT the case.

First...someone should point out that we rely on proxy records for past CO2 levels and they may or may not be accurate. (This would effect both our claims here)

As I posted above, the extant plant life on this planet is flourishing. (Not surprising since one of the first things you do when building a greenhouse is to add CO2) Today's life certainly did not spring out of nowhere....we are all related to life that evolved on this planet millions of years ago.

4) I don't think anyone has suggested that CO2 is the sole driver of global climate. Yet again, you have presented an oversimplification. These may work when arguing with the scientifically illiterate, but anyone with even a modest background in the physical and/or biological sciences will see right through them.

When is someone going to tell the IPCC to be more accurate in their claims then? You can't sit idly by and let doomsayers exaggerate and then claim you don't agree with them later.

Tell me what you think of this recent doomsday claim: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/...te-change-may-kill-half-of-earths-plant-life/

 

[Doctor Evo]

Affluence. Societies in poverty do not care one wit about the environment. When a society becomes prosperous, then environmentalism can exist.

That doesn't support the idea that environmentalists have disdain for affluence. They tend to have disdain for excess, which isn't necessarily the same thing.

I certainly was not making the case that scientists are infallible...quite the opposite in fact. The idea that "the science is settled" is one of the main sins of the AGW movement. Scientists in other fields don't make that claim because it is impossibly inaccurate, illogical, and smacks of political motivation. These scientists for example: http://scitechdaily.com/study-suggests-andromeda-crashed-into-the-milky-way-10-billion-years-ago/

The point I was making is that a large proportion of your sources cited one ill-conceived study. There needs to be a distinction between scientific consensus and popular interpretation, and I feel that's lacking here.

I agree that scientists were going by what they knew at the time and did not claim "the science is settled". Suddenly their predictions were wrong and they had to rethink. Nowadays, the predictions are wrong again...but those espousing AGW theory the most do not seem willing to rethink their views. (Which some of them actually refer to as "the cause" ) Falsifiability is not allowed into the room.

What predictions are wrong? What is the nature of these predictions within the overall context of AGW theory?

For example, predictions regarding the overall effects of anthropogenic climate change have little bearing on the theory underlying its causes. Though I will agree that they have some level of importance regarding our response.

Ah the mythical "stability"....apparently you believe the climate is supposed to maintain one state? Climate history does not support this.

What do you mean, "the mythical 'stability'"? Nobody argues that the climate is static, and neither am I.

The simple fact is that - within an evolutionary and ecological context, and for the specific purposes of this discussion - short-term variability is more important than long-term trends. Additionally, rate of change - as opposed to the simple magnitude of change - can have huge implications for ecological stability and the persistence of populations through time.

This is Ecology and Evolution 101.

I know it's not origial. The similarities between conventional religion and environmentalism have been apparent for some time and I'm certainly not the only one to notice.

There is sin, there is absolution. There are evangelists, there are heretics (who must die!). There is sacrifice. There is prophecy. There is Puritanism. Oh and most of all there is DOOM! There is faith...nothing can prove it wrong.

Correction: there exists no data which has been able to falsify AGW theory. That doesn't mean that it CAN'T be falsified. You seem to be intentionally blurring this distinction.

Any weather event is used as support for the theory....warmer...colder...it all counts apparently. A warm summer is immediately touted as a "See? We were right!"...but a cold winter is either ignored (like this last winter....coldest in the northern hemisphere since the 1960s) or used as evidence for AGW ("Cold weather is part of the theory too!").

Increased variability was predicted. I think you need to familiarize yourself with AGW theory a little bit more before you make such criticisms.

Declining tornado and hurricane numbers don't match the predictions....and that fact is ignored to the extent that the exact opposite is claimed. Not exactly trustworthy behavior.

Who is claiming the opposite? For that matter, I'm not sure what you're saying the "opposite claim" is.

I need a definition for "we can effect the climate". That trick was used against some scientists when asking their opinion on AGW theory. A butterfly flapping its wings effects the climate. The effect is real but so insignificant that it's not worth discussing.

You basically just answered your own question. The effect must be measurable. There's no way to measure the effect of a butterfly flapping its wings on the climate. There's also no reasonable mechanism by which this would occur.

(See also: the butterfly effect is pseudo-philosophical bull*****.)

Now...to support your claim here...which major climate events in the past do you claim were caused by a species on this planet?

Not a species, but taxonomic groups: cyanobacteria, for instance, creating an oxygen-rich atmosphere, reducing atmospheric methane levels and eventually leading to the first ice-age.

http://www.indiana.edu/~g105lab/1425chap11.htm

Happy reading.

Because this is the claim of the IPCC: Most of the observed increase in global average
temperatures since the mid-20th century is very
likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic
greenhouse gas concentrations. (Which immediately makes me question why the current warming trend began 100 years earlier)

Again: we don't have to be the initial cause in order to have severely exacerbated the problem.

So let's not quibble here...the claim is that we are the primary driver of the climate now...and that we must quickly stop what we are doing or we and all the other species are doomed. Us...the mighty human race....master of the planet and all we survey. ...Just like the other religions....the earth is doomed because of man's sins. Aren't we special?

Why is this claim inherently egotistical? I've never understood this rather perverse view of the situation. Again, this amounts to nothing more than a psychological parlor trick. It does nothing to address the issue at hand, and it does not change the reality of the situation.

That's the reality. Warmer is better for us. (They were willing to admit this during the global cooling scare in the 70s)

Again, an oversimplification: it ignores the temporal scale of the change, it ignores the problem of short-term variability, and it ignores the importance of ecological stability.

And the most life which ever existed on this planet existed when it was MUCH warmer than today.

You seem to be under the impression that environmentalism is about anything other than human welfare. You are sorely mistaken - of course, this is a common misconception.

Hmmm..."doesn't preclude the possibility" does not sound like a good basis for dramatically altering the behavior of the human race.

You're taking this out of context. It is not meant as an argument for "dramatically altering" our behavior. It is merely a rebuttal to the idea that, because we didn't initiate the phenomenon, we are also not exacerbating and, more importantly, perpetuating it.

Lots of problems with that idea. First each CO2 molecule exerts less of a greenhouse effect than the molecule previous. Which means added CO2 after a certain point will have little effect. (That's going by the theory)

And what point is that? See the issue? This is a non-argument. It is ultimately useless.

Lack of correlation is a problem too. Correlation of course does not prove causation, but if you are going to claim CO2 emissions cause rising temps, you'd better at least have correlation. So why did temps begin to rise in the mid-1800s before our emissions? Why the sharp rise in the decades before 1940 before our emissions rose rapidly? Why did temps FALL from the 50s to the 70s when our emissions rose rapidly? Why have temps stopped rising today (and may even be falling) even though our emissions are accelerating at a more rapid pace than ever?

This is for the most part a matter of scale, and I've already addressed the issue of initiation vs. exacerbation and perpetuation. Again, you're oversimplifying.

Then there is the "problem" part. When do these problems start happening? As with most doomsday predictions..."any time now". Of course, plants are loving it...it's not a "problem at all for them: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003400/a003451/index.html

Which part of this supports your argument? I think you may misunderstand what is being shown here.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8452483656067190.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Now I see where you're getting most of your arguments.

What's funny is that their argument suffers from the same deficiencies as yours. They fundamentally ignore key evolutionary and ecological concepts - which is not surprising, considering they are not biologists.

It also assumes that these changes occur in a metaphorical vacuum - another recurring problem with your arguments.

"Proven"? I don't think so.

How much peer-reviewed scientific literature have you read on the subject? You do understand that we can actually measure this, correct?

Ok....where is the proof? Like I said, CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today during an ice age.

This has already been addressed.

First...someone should point out that we rely on proxy records for past CO2 levels and they may or may not be accurate. (This would effect both our claims here)

It actually doesn't affect my claim at all, because I made no claim with regard to past CO2 levels. Re-read it and try again.

As I posted above, the extant plant life on this planet is flourishing. (Not surprising since one of the first things you do when building a greenhouse is to add CO2) Today's life certainly did not spring out of nowhere....we are all related to life that evolved on this planet millions of years ago.

Yet we are adapted to different environmental conditions. Evolution is a dynamic process. You invoke the term "evolution," but you don't seem to really understand it.

When is someone going to tell the IPCC to be more accurate in their claims then? You can't sit idly by and let doomsayers exaggerate and then claim you don't agree with them later.

Tell me what you think of this recent doomsday claim: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/...te-change-may-kill-half-of-earths-plant-life/

I will say that there is one serious weakness with the study: it only looks at the effects of rising temperature. It's essentially the same problem facing the Op-Ed piece by Schmitt and Happer, actually (although, at least this study has actual data...).


This is getting tiresome. I feel as though I'm not debating against a person, but against sound-bytes that are regurgitated time and time again. I think I'm going to take a step back from this discussion for a while. I'm investing way more time into this than I need to right now.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Just wanted to add this to the debate, regarding ocean acidification.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

 

[Doctor Evo]

Just wanted to add this to the debate, regarding ocean acidification.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

This really needs to be explored quite a bit more. I'm particularly interested in the ramifications for reef-building corals and marine phytoplankton (especially coccolithophores). I don't believe that these organisms will disappear altogether, but the short-term ecological effects are a huge cause for concern, considering their importance to marine ecosystems.

 

[Hobgoblin]

New study claims air pollution contributes to lung cancer, worsens heart failure.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/air-p...worsens-heart-failure-studies-find-6C10584685

 

[JeetKuneDo]

That doesn't support the idea that environmentalists have disdain for affluence. They tend to have disdain for excess, which isn't necessarily the same thing.

What is "excess" and who decides what that is? There are those who believe we should decrease the human population and that developing nations should not aspire to have the level of comfort that western nations have: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...y-has-a-car-air-conditioning-and-a-big-house/

Maybe Africans have a different idea of what they should aspire to?
Life in Africa is often nasty, impoverished and short. AIDS kills 2.2 million Africans every year, say WHO reports. Lung infections cause 1.4 million deaths, malaria 1 million more, intestinal diseases 700,000. Diseases that could be prevented with simple vaccines kill an additional 600,000 annually, while war, malnutrition and life in filthy slums send countless more parents and children to early graves.

And yet, day after day, Africans are told the biggest threat we face is – global warming.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13225

The point I was making is that a large proportion of your sources cited one ill-conceived study. There needs to be a distinction between scientific consensus and popular interpretation, and I feel that's lacking here.

It's lacking everywhere. (And by the way, "scientific consensus" is not proof of anything and is a political word) There are exaggerated claims of "consensus" on AGW theory today. Some scientists even have their views distorted so they can be "counted" in the pro-AGW side. http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

Why was this done to promote a "consensus"? And...why is "consensus" a goal in the first place?

What about the scientists who disagree? They have valid reasons for their beliefs as well. http://german.ruvr.ru/2013_03_03/Die-Welt-vor-einer-Eiszeit/

If all these papers can be dismissed by AGW believers, it is certainly valid to cast a skeptical eye on papers that support the theory as well: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Polar

What predictions are wrong? What is the nature of these predictions within the overall context of AGW theory?

For example, predictions regarding the overall effects of anthropogenic climate change have little bearing on the theory underlying its causes. Though I will agree that they have some level of importance regarding our response.

Things like this: According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. -March 2000
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

Now when we had one of the coldest, snowiest winters on record ("on record"....that's very limited), the story changes to "AGW causes colder winters too". No falsifiability in this theory...when the predictions do not come true, the goal posts are moved to fit what is happening. That's not science, that's religion.

That one has the "think of the children" tactic...but nothing like this one:
Climate change could kill 250,000 children
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6469700/Climate-change-could-kill-250000-children.html

Here is one of my all-time favorites. Since it was long ago most have forgotten it (1989)...but it's important to remember this stuff so doomsayers cannot move on and pretend they were not wrong:
GREENHOUSE WARMING NATIONS MAY VANISH, U.N. SAYS
A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the United Nations U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before...
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we...page=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

I realize there are some scientists who speak in more reasonable terms and admit we don't know much about the way the climate works...but we don't see them quoted by the media or politicians. The radical activist scientists get the press and effect policy. Guys like this don't seem to have a voice...you ever hear this type of reasonable talk in the media or from politicians?

Storch: Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people.

Storch: I've never been chancellor myself. But I do think it would be unwise of Merkel to listen to just a single scientist. Climate research is made up of far too many different voices for that.

Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

I find this exchange quite interesting. The interviewer views the subject as something with a winner and loser....that doesn't sound like science:

SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…

Storch: Why? That's how the process of scientific discovery works. There is no last word in research, and that includes climate research. It's never the truth that we offer, but only our best possible approximation of reality. But that often gets forgotten in the way the public perceives and describes our work.

Storch: Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth. The end result is foolishness along the lines of the climate protection brochures recently published by Germany's Federal Environmental Agency under the title "Sie erwärmt sich doch" ("The Earth is getting warmer"). Pamphlets like that aren't going to convince any skeptics. It's not a bad thing to make mistakes and have to correct them. The only thing that was bad was acting beforehand as if we were infallible. By doing so, we have gambled away the most important asset we have as scientists: the public's trust. We went through something similar with deforestation, too -- and then we didn't hear much about the topic for a long time.

http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

- I have become increasingly frustrated at the lack of scientific basis of much of what is said in the media.

Bengtsson admit that it would probably be worse if the risks were completely ignored over exaggerated, but he believes that faith in science is damaged if you hunt up a black scenario and then not much happens.

http://translate.google.com/transla...par-en-valdig-angslan-utan-att-det-ar-befogat

Dr Art Raiche is pretty angry about the politics invading science. He probably should reign in the anger a bit in my opinion...but I wasn't there. The stuff at about 8:10 is interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hxCzW6RWoLg#at=277

Prof Murry Salby was recently dismissed....a danger when you go public with this type of opinion (skip to the end unless you really enjoy detailed scientific language...probably about 1:06:00 or so): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0&list=LL9-sCX7Y6XcJJ1XhR3C2MPw

Willie Soon has also been attacked personally for his views:

Examiner.com: What is your opinion of the anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming theory?

Dr. Soon: It’s never been about the science – even from the very beginning. It’s based on confusion and a mixture of ideology. We should deal only in the facts that we do know.

http://www.examiner.com/article/har...challenges-peers-to-take-back-climate-science

What do you mean, "the mythical 'stability'"? Nobody argues that the climate is static, and neither am I.

The implication is that the climate should not be changing currently. I'll let Richard Lindzen explain:

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2316241/posts

The simple fact is that - within an evolutionary and ecological context, and for the specific purposes of this discussion - short-term variability is more important than long-term trends. Additionally, rate of change - as opposed to the simple magnitude of change - can have huge implications for ecological stability and the persistence of populations through time.

This is Ecology and Evolution 101.

First....our records are so limited we can't know this stuff as a fact.

Second, if you trust our limited records, they show a similar rate of warming in the first part of the 20th century before our CO2 emissions could have been a factor.

We are still trying to figure out past climate...the science is not settled:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018213003210

Correction: there exists no data which has been able to falsify AGW theory. That doesn't mean that it CAN'T be falsified. You seem to be intentionally blurring this distinction.

Lack of correlation between CO2 levels and temps is a pretty big hole in the theory. Our current warming period began in the mid-1800s...before our CO2 emissions could have been a factor. The rate of warming was very similar to the rate from 1980-2000 during the first half of the 20th century before our CO2 emissions could have been a factor. Once our emissions increased dramatically about 1950, temps DECREASED for 20+ years. And of course, recently temps have again failed to rise despite our CO2 emissions rising faster than ever before.

I understand that correlation does not prove causation....but you at least need to have correlation to have a case.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Increased variability was predicted. I think you need to familiarize yourself with AGW theory a little bit more before you make such criticisms.

Snow was predicted to leave our lives....are we supposed to forget that and accept the new predictions? (Again...like all other doomsayers in human history)
Why are AGW scientists now looking for excuses to explain why global temps have not increased for 15 years? If "the science was settled", why did they not predict "the heat would suddenly start warming the oceans instead of the atmosphere"?

Who is claiming the opposite? For that matter, I'm not sure what you're saying the "opposite claim" is.

Have you missed all the predictions that tornadoes and hurricanes would become more frequent? The predictions has not come true. You see any real trend here? http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF1-EF5.png

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png

And the US has had 285 hurricane strikes since 1850, 86% of U.S. hurricane strikes occurred with CO2 below James Hansen’s "safe level" of 350 PPM.

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s2/HarpoSpoke/Hurricane-Strikes-US-vs-CO2_zps0b417ffc.jpg

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s2/HarpoSpoke/Charts/global_running_ace.jpg

You basically just answered your own question. The effect must be measurable. There's no way to measure the effect of a butterfly flapping its wings on the climate. There's also no reasonable mechanism by which this would occur.

(See also: the butterfly effect is pseudo-philosophical bull*****.)

I feel the same disdain for the claims that human actions control the climate of planet earth.

We also haven't found a way to measure our effect on the climate...that doesn't seem to deter doomsayers.

http://www.indiana.edu/~g105lab/1425chap11.htm

Happy reading.

Can you give me some assurance the person responsible for this is not someone like Phil Jones or Michael Mann?

But either way, it would be nice if AGW believers would notice terms like "reasonably assume", "probably", and "assumptions" (copied and pasted from that article). That is not enough to insist that the human race should dramatically alter their hard-won way of life.

Again: we don't have to be the initial cause in order to have severely exacerbated the problem.

1-What "problem"? The world was warming without our help. The Little Ice Age was not a good thing. We have doubled our lifespan during this 150 year old warming period. Is this the old doomsayer trick, "I know nothing has happened yet...but any minute now...DOOM!"?

2-That does not sound like proof of anything and certainly not a basis for dramatically altering our way of life.

Why is this claim inherently egotistical? I've never understood this rather perverse view of the situation. Again, this amounts to nothing more than a psychological parlor trick. It does nothing to address the issue at hand, and it does not change the reality of the situation.

We aren't going to start from a base idea that there is a "reality of the situation" because the "reality" is very much in dispute here.

And it is the same ego that humans have always exhibited. We have always found ways to believe that we are in control of the entire planet. Our sins were always going to doom the world. Nothing about this message is any different. It's a new way of saying the same thing. There is even the "kill the heretics!" attitude:

In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers. (Naturally, there is never a consideration for the millions of deaths that could be caused by AGW policies)

http://www.webcitation.org/6D8yy8NUJ

Again, an oversimplification: it ignores the temporal scale of the change, it ignores the problem of short-term variability, and it ignores the importance of ecological stability.

None of this is proven. I've been hearing about this impending doom for several decades now....still waiting. The doomsayer tactic simply does not work on me any longer. Take biologist Paul Ehrlich’s popular book, “The Population Bomb.” He predicted that a “population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” causing world-wide famine and the death of “hundreds of millions of people” annually from starvation.

Meanwhile, in subsequent years, increased agricultural productivity exceeded population growth and the total amount of cultivated land barely increased. That failed prediction never altered the attitude of the environmental doomsayers one bit. It's hard not to notice this.

You seem to be under the impression that environmentalism is about anything other than human welfare. You are sorely mistaken - of course, this is a common misconception.

I can somewhat agree here. I've mentioned this to skeptics before when they try to generalize AGW believers as a monolithic group of people. There are many varied reasons for supporting AGW theory. Not all of them are devious in nature. Some are in it because they truly believe there is a danger to be addressed. There is also human nature....we love doom. Then there are those in it for political power or monetary gain. There are those who actually hate human beings and believe we are a blight on the planet and should go away (as if we are an alien race or something).

You're taking this out of context. It is not meant as an argument for "dramatically altering" our behavior. It is merely a rebuttal to the idea that, because we didn't initiate the phenomenon, we are also not exacerbating and, more importantly, perpetuating it.

Really? I don't recall any environmentalists stepping up to disagree when Al Gore said, "The moral imperative to make big changes is inescapable" and "Are you ready to change the way you live?” in his propaganda film. You can't just stay silent when that message is being put front and center and then disassociate yourself from it when it is brought up.

And what point is that? See the issue? This is a non-argument. It is ultimately useless.

It does bring up the fact that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere (if the rise is even due to our activities in the first place) will have little effect on temps. That's assuming CO2 drives temps...which is very debatable when you look at proxy records that indicate CO2 levels FOLLOW temp changes. In other words, fevers don't cause the flu.

This is for the most part a matter of scale, and I've already addressed the issue of initiation vs. exacerbation and perpetuation. Again, you're oversimplifying.

No I'm not. AGW supporters use the 20th century (a small time scale) to claim CO2 is causing temps to rise. During that time there has rarely been correlation between CO2 rises and temps....including today.

Which part of this supports your argument? I think you may misunderstand what is being shown here.

It's common knowledge that plant life thrives in higher CO2 environments. If you build a greenhouse, the first thing you will do is add CO2. Plants grow faster and even better...they require less water.

Now I see where you're getting most of your arguments.

That should be a tactic which is beneath you. I expected more.

How much peer-reviewed scientific literature have you read on the subject? You do understand that we can actually measure this, correct?

You do understand that we have extremely limited records about past states of the oceans, correct?

This has already been addressed.

So you don't think it's a problem that CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today during an ice age? That doesn't raise any questions in your mind about CO2 controlling temps?

It actually doesn't affect my claim at all, because I made no claim with regard to past CO2 levels. Re-read it and try again.

Proxy records are a big part of AGW theory. You didn't know that?

Yet we are adapted to different environmental conditions. Evolution is a dynamic process. You invoke the term "evolution," but you don't seem to really understand it.

I understand that we have not been negatively effected by over 150 years of warming and that humans are the most adaptable species on the planet...able to live in almost any environment.

There seems to be a tendency to use time periods that support arguments (from both sides of the debate). Here is a good illustration of how things can look if you only use a select time period. Use all of it an it puts things into real perspective.

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s2/HarpoSpoke/Charts/800px-Iceage_time-slice_hg.png

 

[Kelly]

I think this thread gets the award for the longest dissected posts on the hype.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Richard Lindzen joins a debate. The moderator is pretty hostile to him at times (the entire introduction is an attempt to demean him) and does not allow him to finish a couple of points, but it's probably still worthy of viewing. He gets into the pressure that scientists feel to come down on the side of AGW theory at one point. I was interested in what he was trying to say about something I feel strongly about (but was interrupted) at about 29:00. It's the issue that Bjorn Lomborg also talks a lot about. Are we proposing a wise expenditure of our resources? Most of the ideas proposed by AGW supporters will have almost no effect....if you accept AGW theory. (If you suspect it's flawed it's even worse)

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2013/06/201361311721241956.html

The moderator really tries hard to suggest all skeptics are funded by "big oil" but that idea is discounted by those on each side. About 37:00 they get into the idea of "consensus". Lindzen has been a part of the IPCC so he knows how that all works. Near the end, the usual "precautionary principle" argument is raised. I would ask the exact same question of the supporters of AGW theory. "If you are wrong and your policies cause the deaths of millions of people, can you live with that?"

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Something interesting happening in the environmental movement that I think is a good thing. The Bjorn Lomborg attitude is catching hold. The fact that questions are being asked is the type of approach that is more likely to provide real benefits instead of just speech-making.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/new_green_vision_technology_as_our_planets_last_best_hope/2671/

One passage near the end of the article caught my eye:

Others argue that more intensive land use will not save what is left so much as poison it and that the modernist agenda lacks a social and political compass. Critics say it fails to address what the existing farmers and other occupants of the planet’s rural landscape might think. They won’t all go and live in cities. Instead, they seem likely to become victims of the mother of all land grabs, whether for industrial agriculture or rewilding.

History says farmers will indeed abandon the industry and look for other things to do and places to live. Being a farmer is not awesome and people will leave it behind. Check it out:

Farmers were 90% of labor force in 1790 and that had fallen to 2.6% of labor force in 1990. Average acres steadily rose as less people could farm more land. Even more interesting that in 1990 the total acreage fell as well as we got ever more efficient in our farming techniques. That is the future.

http://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Something I think is important that doesn't get a lot of attention in the press....water. Our need for water could outstrip our available supplies this century if nothing changes.

But that's the key there..."if nothing changes". As usual, you must factor in human innovation....which I've noticed is rarely factored into the equation when "doom" scenarios are predicted.

This could be something very important: http://www.occupycorporatism.com/new-invention-makes-ocean-water-drinkable/

 

[Hobgoblin]

http://economy.money.cnn.com/2013/07/19/how-green-is-your-state/?sr=fb071913greenstate7p

50 states ranked for air quality, water quality, mass transit, renewable energy, etc.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Maybe it's a wacky idea that won't work...but a good illustration of innovation and how we advance our technology. (We always have ideas along the way that do not work) It's through ideas like this that alternative power sources will someday power our society. Like always, we move onto the next power source because we find something better....not because we "run out of wood/windmills/horses".

A new generation of flying wind turbines will enable wind power to be harnessed more cheaply and efficiently, say researchers into the technology.

Airborne wind turbines can access the enormous volume of wind that is beyond the reach of traditional turbines, while cutting out the need for the huge structures and foundations that can make the current model expensive and difficult to transport.

While no single design which has dominated the nascent airborne turbine scene, the most efficient swoop quickly through the air, like a kite or a glider, and are tethered to the ground using a long cable.

http://www.rtcc.org/flying-wind-turbines-could-cut-costs-and-boost-power-generation/

 

[JeetKuneDo]

I like to pay attention to doomsday predictions. Doomsayers count on people forgetting their predictions. Apparently it's "too late" now according to Rajendra Pachuari, head of the UN IPCC:

We have just a small window of opportunity and it is closing rather rapidly. There is not a moment to lose.

January 2005

If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.

November 2007

I am very worried that we are running out of time.

January 2008

It is very important to reach an [international emissions] agreement by 2009.

April 2008

If we allow things to continue unchanged and we don’t take action today, it would destabilize human society…I hope that in the next year and a half…that we show a certain resolve and aspiration to do things that are required for the benefit of the human race.

August 2008

The least cost part of effective emissions reduction would really require us to see that global emissions peak no later than 2015. And that’s just four years away…if we have to meet that requirement of a least cost trajectory of emissions stabilisation then we really need to move rapidly and every country in the world has to do that.

May 2011

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?
Seth Borenstein in Washington
Associated Press
December 12, 2007
An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer—a sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point.

One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years.

Greenland's ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark, and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer's end was half what it was just four years ago, according to new NASA satellite data obtained by the Associated Press (AP).

"The Arctic is screaming," said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government's snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colorado.

2012

Just last year two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting that the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040.

This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html

As usual, the press runs with the scariest prediction as the headline. (assuming for the moment that ice loss really is "scary") And as usual, the doom prediction does not come true.

If AGW supporters do not agree with this tactic by the press and politicians, I would like to see them step up and speak out against it. Silence is another way of agreeing.

----

Here is one to keep handy.

New Analysis Brings Dire Global Warming Prediction

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 25, 2009
Climate researchers now predict the planet will warm by 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century even if the world's leaders fulfill their most ambitious climate pledges, a much faster and broader scale of change than forecast just two years ago, according to a report released Thursday by the United Nations Environment Program.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/24/AR2009092402602.html

This especially:

The group took the upper-range targets of nearly 200 nations' climate policies -- including U.S. cuts that would reduce domestic emissions 73 percent from 2005 levels by 2050, along with the European Union's pledge to reduce its emissions 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050 --and found that even under that optimistic scenario, the average global temperature is likely to warm by 6.3 degrees.

Really upping the "doom" here. Of course there is nothing in the temperature record to suggest this is happening....not even close.

World leaders at the July Group of 20 summit in L'Aquila, Italy, pledged in a joint statement that they would adopt policies to prevent global temperature from climbing more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit: "We recognize the broad scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed two degrees C."

This statement is actually suggesting that temps during the Little Ice Age are somehow "normal" and what the climate "should be".

This may be where Obama got the "accelerating" part of his speech on global warming recently.

Corell, who has shared these findings with the Obama administration as well as climate policymakers in China, noted that global carbon emissions are still rising. "It's accelerating," he said. "We're not going in the right direction."

He was talking about emissions...not temps. Obama assigned the "accelerating" word to temp increases in the last decade. Emissions of course have accelerated worldwide. (not in the US though) ...and that is a problem for a theory that says temps should rise along with emissions.

Noteworthy that no one was willing to back Obama's statement here (the subject is brought up twice) Typical boring political stuff, but some interesting stuff:

http://www.senate.gov/isvp/?type=live&comm=epw&filename=epw071813

And here is what climate scientists claimed should be happening now in 2009:

As solar activity picks up again in the coming years, the research suggests, temperatures will shoot up at 150% of the rate predicted by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Lean and Rind's research also sheds light on the extreme average temperature in 1998. The paper confirms that the temperature spike that year was caused primarily by a very strong El Niño episode. A future episode could be expected to create a spike of equivalent magnitude on top of an even higher baseline, thus shattering the 1998 record.

The explanation for lack of warming then:

The analysis shows the relative stability in global temperatures in the last seven years is explained primarily by the decline in incoming sunlight associated with the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle, together with a lack of strong El Niño events. These trends have masked the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Now of course there is a new excuse "the oceans". I guess a new excuse will be presented every time a prediction does not come true (as usual with doom predictions).


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/27/world-warming-faster-study

Interesting to examine the temp chart used in that very article:



Note the "rate of warming from 1910 to 1940" (before our emissions could be a factor) is about the same as the "rate of warming from 1980 to 2000" (after our emissions could have been a factor).

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Article about a new oil discovery in Australia that could be huge. As explained, this won't effect oil prices that much. (I'm suspicious about oil prices personally...we have a big supply...yet the price goes up)

In a virtually uninhabitable section of South Australia, a discovery has been made which could rock the world. Some are calling it the biggest discovery of oil in 50 years. Earlier this year, a company called Linc Energy announced that tests had revealed that there was a minimum of 3.5 billion barrels of oil equivalent sitting under more than 65,000 square kilometres of land that it owns in the Arckaringa Basin.

But that is the minimum number. It has been projected that there could ultimately be up to 233 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the area. If that turns out to be accurate, the oil sitting under that land is worth approximately 20 trillion dollars, and it would be roughly equivalent to the total amount of oil sitting under the sands of Saudi Arabia. In essence, it would be a massive game changer.

If the 233 billion barrel figure is accurate (and some have even suggested that the true number could actually be 400 billion barrels), that would make it nearly 10 times larger than the Bakken formation, 17 times larger than the Marcellus discovery and 80 times larger than the Eagle Ford deposit down in Texas.

It would also mean that Australia now has more "black gold" than the nations of Iran, Iraq, Canada and Venezuela.

One of the many failed "we are running out of oil" predictions from the past is mentioned. Those always crack me up a little...

Sometimes it is funny to look back and remember some of the ridiculous things that our politicians were saying about oil in the old days. For example, U.S. President Jimmy Carter made the following statement back in 1977….

Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil than it can produce.

I also agree with the last sentiment expressed in the article:

So the bottom line is that we have plenty of energy resources. We do not need to be importing oil from OPEC or anyone else.

But just because we are not going to run out of oil, natural gas or coal any time soon does not mean that we should not be developing alternative energy resources. We should definitely be seeking ways to produce energy more cheaply, more cleanly and more efficiently.

If America does not end up leading the world in developing new forms of energy, we should be ashamed of ourselves. And right now, the Chinese appear to be way ahead of us as far as thorium energy is concerned, and Italian scientists appear to be ahead of our own scientists in developing "cold fusion" technology.

So yes, let's be glad that we are not going to be facing a crippling energy crisis in this generation, but let's also not be complacent. There are lots of new technologies out there just waiting to be developed, and the rewards are going to go to those that are able to develop them first.

We always upgrade our energy sources...that's just what we do. There is no reason to continue to depend upon fossil fuel if we can find something cheaper. (unfortunately nuclear energy was sabotaged by special interests)

http://www.minds.com/blog/view/175016/the-biggest-oil-discovery-in-50-years

 

[JeetKuneDo]

It should be obvious that science can never be "settled", but we seem to need a reminder of that occasionally.

Possible new planet in our solar system??

We may have lost Pluto, but it looks like we might be getting Tyche.

Scientists may soon be able to prove the existence of the gas giant, which could be four times the size of Jupiter, according to astrophysicists John Matese and Daniel Whitmire from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/14/tyche-hidden-planet_n_823028.html

And this more related to the topic at hand. There is still debate about whether we should even be calling oil "fossil fuels".

The oil and gas that fuels our homes and cars started out as living organisms that died, were compressed, and heated under heavy layers of sediments in the Earth's crust. Scientists have debated for years whether some of these hydrocarbons could also have been created deeper in the Earth and formed without organic matter. Now for the first time, scientists have found that ethane and heavier hydrocarbons can be synthesized under the pressure-temperature conditions of the upper mantle —the layer of Earth under the crust and on top of the core. The research was conducted by scientists at the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory, with colleagues from Russia and Sweden, and is published in the July 26, advanced on-line issue of Nature Geoscience.

http://phys.org/news167835116.html

Here is an interesting article that shows there is also no "consensus" among skeptics.

A team of experts from the “hard” sciences working with climate researchers at Principia Scientific International (PSI) have devised what they believe is an important new energy model of our planet that turns conventional “flat earth” climate thinking on its head.

Published below, the diagram deftly accounts for all the energy Earth receives from our sun without the need to factor in the hotly disputed “greenhouse gas theory.” The diagram serves as a simplified version of an earlier PSI model produced in answer to a “put up or shut up” challenge (May 10, 2013) by climatologist, Dr Roy Spencer that appears to have the now subdued Spencer stumped.

Pointedly, PSI's model depicts our planet in three-dimensions, unlike the preferred flat earth two-dimensional model favored by Spencer and other climatologists (the Kiehl-Trenberth model). PSI believes it is crass and contrary to the advancement of science that promoters of the “greenhouse gas theory” (GHE) should insist on relying on the outmoded flat-Earth model. The GHE is increasingly discredited because despite its core claim that more atmospheric carbon dioxide means higher temperatures the hard evidence proves this has not happened.

http://principia-scientific.org/sup...rumps-flat-earthers-of-greenhouse-gas-science

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Here's one for those who love to be scared out of their wits by doomsday predictions. James Hansen of course. As usual, the headline focuses on the most scary prediction. (Instructive how the media portrays things)

Will Earth's Ocean Boil Away?

In his book Storms of my Grandchildren, noted climate scientist James Hansen issued the following warning: "f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."

They then interview a slightly less hysterical scientist. (Hansen is an epic doomsayer) As usual, everything is based on models which do not yet know how the climate works:

Respected as Hansen is, the argument hasn't convinced climate scientists who specialize in the evolution of planetary atmospheres. During the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), 56 million years ago, a huge natural spike in CO2 sent temperatures on Earth soaring—but life went on and the ocean remained intact.

"I think you can say we're still safe against the Venus syndrome," says Raymond Pierrehumbert of the University of Chicago. "If we were going to run away, we'd probably have done it during the PETM."

In the past few years, however, physicists have been training supercomputers on the lowly water molecule, calculating its properties from first principles—and finding that it absorbs more radiation at more wavelengths than they'd realized before. In a paper published this week in Nature Geosciences, those calculations have rippled into a simple climate model. The paper's conclusion contains this slightly unsettling sentence: "The runaway greenhouse may be much easier to initiate than previously thought."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...e-global-warming-venus-ocean-climate-science/

 

[JeetKuneDo]

This just neat. Hover your mouse over each year and the line on the graph highlights.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

Interesting to see how little things have changed over time....and in fact we are currently running above the average for ice. (somehow ice has been transformed into something good...so that's...good?)

 

[JeetKuneDo]

I'm really happy about this. I'm not a Republican by the way (I don't mind Obama at all)...they just happen to agree with me on this one. (I suspect just to oppose Democrats knowing how politics works)

House passes amendment blocking carbon tax without congressional approval

The House of Representatives has passed an amendment to the REINS Act that would prevent the Obama administration from imposing a carbon tax without congressional approval.

The amendment introduced by Louisiana Republican Rep. Steve Scalise passed 237 to 176, garnering support from 12 Democrats and no opposition among Republicans.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/02/ho...#ixzz2b95DOt5Z

And here is something very interesting about the sun. We may be getting some wacky weather in the coming months....I'm betting some are going to blame it all on "climate change/CO2".

The Sun's Magnetic Field is about to Flip

August 5, 2013: Something big is about to happen on the sun. According to measurements from NASA-supported observatories, the sun's vast magnetic field is about to flip.
"It looks like we're no more than 3 to 4 months away from a complete field reversal," says solar physicist Todd Hoeksema of Stanford University. "This change will have ripple effects throughout the solar system."

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...aug_fieldflip/

 

[JeetKuneDo]

This one made my eyes roll a little.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...zoomed-picture

Yes...a 16 year old polar bear died. They assume he died from starvation and further assume it was because of global warming.

This type of thing happens a lot. Specific events are attributed to global warming all the time. However, when a specific event does not support the theory, suddenly that is not a valid piece of evidence (i.e. hot summers are used as an example but cold winters are not allowed).

A real scientist would not use one example as proof of anything. A polar bear can die at age 16...it happens.

Here is a truer picture. Around 1970, it is estimated that there were about 5000 polar bears left. They were truly on the verge of extinction. This was after a couple of decades of global COOLING (late 1940s to 70s). Obviously at the time, no one would accuse the climate of killing them so those concerned with polar bears looked for real and logical reasons for the problem. The issue was poaching. Laws were passed and poaching was greatly curtailed. As a result, the polar bear population increased to between 25,000 and 30,000 where it is today. Some are even saying polar bear populations are reaching a saturation point in some areas. This happened during a period of global WARMING (1970s-2000).

What is logical here? If climate is a factor in bear population....then global warming is GOOD for bears. They almost went extinct during global cooling and made a dramatic comeback during global warming.

Or maybe...climate really isn't the driving force here? Maybe it was poaching all the time.

Bjorn Lomborg (who accepts AGW theory) put it really well in this 2007 article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...ting-them.html

Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish professor who achieved international fame with his previous book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, examines and rejects claims by environmentalists and the former president Al Gore that polar bears are drowning because the sea ice they hunt on is melting.
Lomborg says the story about drowning bears is taken from a single sighting of four dead bears the day after an abrupt windstorm. The bears came from a population that was actually increasing, which has been the overall trend in the polar bear population since the 1960s.
He provides evidence that 11 out of 13 distinct populations of polar bears in Canada are either stable or increasing in number.
In his new book, Cool It: the Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming, he quotes a Canadian government biologist who said: "They are not going extinct or even appear to be affected at present."

Prof Lomborg points out that over the past decades, the global polar bear population has increased dramatically from about 5,000 members in the 1960s to around 25,000 as a result of the regulation of hunting.
Even if a decline in the bear population has taken place since the 1980s, he says, if we try to help them by cutting greenhouse gases we can at the very best avoid 15 bears dying, with realistic option meaning that it is probably only around 0.06 bears per year.
But he says, if we care for stable populations of polar bears, dealing with the 49 polar bears from the same population around Hudson Bay that get shot each year might be a smarter and more viable strategy.

Lomborg is a very logical thinker. He is a former member of Greenpeace and very concerned about the environment, but looks at things in a logical way. His main philosophy is to do things that actually make the most difference for our efforts and money. Should you "combat global warming" and save .06 bears per year, or fight poaching and save up to 49 bears each year? His book, Cool It, is an interesting read.

He agrees that climate change is real and man made - but says that statements about the strong, ominous and immediate consequences of global warming are often wildly exaggerated.
For example, he agrees with the IPCC that there will be 2,000 more heat deaths over the next century but he says this will be balanced by 20,000 fewer deaths from cold.
"I would argue that we do not get a good sense of proportion if we are told only 2,000 more heat deaths," he told the Daily Telegraph in an interview.
Likewise with sea level rise, he says that there has been a tendency to exaggerate. IPCC says there will be a sea level rise of 18-59 centimetres over this century, not six metres.
He points out that there was a 30 cms sea level rise over the past 150 years yet it was not the end of civilisation.
"In fact I would argue that you would be hard pressed to say that people found this a very significant event of the 20th century. Ask a very old person what were the important things of the 20th century and she'll talk about the world wars, the suffrage for women, maybe the IT revolution. She won't say, sea levels rose. It gives a sense of proportion to the problem."
Prof Lomborg says that there is something "wrong with the conversation" now if the answer to everything is to curb carbon emissions.
He says instead of worrying about a 3 per cent increase in malaria deaths by the end of the century we could do far more about malaria deaths now.
His key thesis is that instead of spending a lot of money on reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by a little, under the Kyoto treaty, we should be spending an order of magnitude more on research and development of non-carbon technologies like solar.
"If we spent 0.05 per cent of GDP it would be a tenfold increase on what we do now. R&D has declined since the early 1980s. I want much more technology so we can get more cuts in the long run."

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Potentially exciting news.

Thorium nuclear reactor trial begins, could provide cleaner, safer, almost-waste-free energy

At a test site in Norway, Thor Energy has successfully created a thorium nuclear reactor — but not in the sense that most people think of when they hear the word thorium. The Norwegians haven’t solved the energy crisis and global warming in one fell swoop — they haven’t created a cold fusion thorium reactor. What they have done, though, which is still very cool, is use thorium instead of uranium in a conventional nuclear reactor. In one fell swoop, thorium fuel, which is safer, less messy to clean up, and not prone to nuclear weapons proliferation, could quench the complaints of nuclear power critics everywhere.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1...te-free-energy

Something very cool to me about it being named after Thor.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Related: I found this article very interesting. First...the science is not "settled" here either.

Secondly, there are apparently scientists and institutions in other fields who are just as stubbornly entrenched in what they "believe" and resist accepting new ideas and information.

Thirdly, "models"...yep...they base a lot of what they believe on models here too:

"Until about 2006, almost all studies on salt and health outcomes relied on the well-known fact that blood pressure can drop slightly when people eat less salt. From that, and from other studies linking blood pressure to risks of heart attacks and strokes, researchers created MODELS showing how many lives could be saved if people ate less salt."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/h...y-restricting-sodium.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[OstrichsRevenge]

Don't worry, guys, global warming is fake and will never impact the Earth negatively because this guy:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ng-wont-destroy-planet-God-promised-Noah.html

says god wouldn't allow that And this guy is a congressman. Get your **** together, America.