Global Warming/Carbon Trading

[Moonbox]

The problem with the whole science, as Bonam explained, is there are too many factors involved to make climate science reliable.

I don't think there are a lot of people disputing the greenhouse effect or the effect of Co2 emissions, but rather scale upon which this is happening.

There's too much evidence of previous and sweeping climate changes over the Earth's history to automatically assume the climate change we're experiencing now is man made.

Read a little bit about the Khmer Empire in Cambodia and the city of Angkor if you want to know just how drastic and short-term climate change can be. Entire civilizations have risen and fallen with the weather. Anyone convinced that a a few years of warm weather means we're destroying the world is stupid beyond belief.

I'm not saying we're not having an effect on our climate. I'm saying we have no proof either way and that there is a ton of exaggeration going on with a ton of stupid people believing everything they read. It has almost a religious undertone to it now.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Moonbox

[Keepitsimple]

The problem with the whole science, as Bonam explained, is there are too many factors involved to make climate science reliable.

I don't think there are a lot of people disputing the greenhouse effect or the effect of Co2 emissions, but rather scale upon which this is happening.

There's too much evidence of previous and sweeping climate changes over the Earth's history to automatically assume the climate change we're experiencing now is man made.

Read a little bit about the Khmer Empire in Cambodia and the city of Angkor if you want to know just how drastic and short-term climate change can be. Entire civilizations have risen and fallen with the weather. Anyone convinced that a a few years of warm weather means we're destroying the world is stupid beyond belief.

I'm not saying we're not having an effect on our climate. I'm saying we have no proof either way and that there is a ton of exaggeration going on with a ton of stupid people believing everything they read. It has almost a religious undertone to it now.

I read my National Geographic too......but you're right - that's just another example of how the climate has changed on its own. When Mother Earth decides that the climate will change, there is very little that we can do, other than adapt. Bonam's summary however, is sheer hubris. Picking the "perfect" climate and thinking we could actually change the climate mechanisms to suit our desires makes humanity to be arrogantly self-important.

The religious undertone that you refer to is more openly blatant than just an undertone. Too many people have too much of an emotional, intellectual, and financial investment in the original case for CO2 caused Global Warming. They simply cannot admit that they might be wrong. Al Gore, David Suzuki, the IPCC, the Sierra Group and many others - all of them have gone so far down the GW path that they will be viewed as complete fools - if not criminals - when it's proven that humans only contribute a very small amount to Climate Change.....and that day of reckoning is well on its way.

[Keepitsimple]

Once again, measuring local weather and associating it with global changes is a sure way to make a wrong headed decision on whether warming is happening.

Still, the critics you cite believe we are cooling globally, not warming.

This one's my own observation: Generally speaking, CO2 is dispersed fairly evenly around the world....but water vapour - the most prevalent greenhouse gas, is not. Water vapour ranges from 100 PPM at the poles to 40,000 PPM in the tropics - colder air is drier and has less moisture. Canada, being a cooler country has less water vapour and therefore CO2 should have a larger effect on temperature - if IPPC theories are anywhere near accurate.....yet as the Canadian temperatures show, we are cooling.

[noahbody]

I know that those who deny say all the data is false but when the new data was provided, it still showed the hottest years have been growing in our time.

A model is only as good as the data which goes into it. If the data is inaccurate, incomplete or includes unknowns, the resulting information is not going to be accurate.

The corrected data showed that it's been warmer in our time.

[Bonam]

Bonam's summary however, is sheer hubris. Picking the "perfect" climate and thinking we could actually change the climate mechanisms to suit our desires makes humanity to be arrogantly self-important.

Thinking that we won't be able to control the Earth's climate, especially as our technology continues to advance and our utilization of energy continues to grow exponentially is hopelessly shortsighted. Moreover if humanity is to survive in the long term we will need to control the Earth's climate, as the Sun's long term trend is to get hotter and brighter. Terraforming of other planets will also be a critical part of our survival strategy.

There are a variety of technologically foreseeable but currently financially prohibitive methods to effect rapid change in a planet's climate. As our civilization progresses these will become more realistic options. We will eventually transform the solar system to include not just one but several habitable bodies.

People talking about climate change and how we can or should affect it are usually trapped in the idea that our civilization and level of technology will remain static for decades or centuries, while the effects of climate change gradually increase and make themselves felt. The reality, of course, is that our technology and our ability to deal with and control climate change will continue to advance far more rapidly, following the law of accelerating returns. A century from now today's concerns will seem trivial, as we manipulate the climate to our liking.

[jdobbin]

A model is only as good as the data which goes into it. If the data is inaccurate, incomplete or includes unknowns, the resulting information is not going to be accurate.

The corrected data showed that it's been warmer in our time.

The corrected data also has shown that the trend is warmer globally now.

[Keepitsimple]

Thinking that we won't be able to control the Earth's climate, especially as our technology continues to advance and our utilization of energy continues to grow exponentially is hopelessly shortsighted. Moreover if humanity is to survive in the long term we will need to control the Earth's climate, as the Sun's long term trend is to get hotter and brighter. Terraforming of other planets will also be a critical part of our survival strategy.

There are a variety of technologically foreseeable but currently financially prohibitive methods to effect rapid change in a planet's climate. As our civilization progresses these will become more realistic options. We will eventually transform the solar system to include not just one but several habitable bodies.

People talking about climate change and how we can or should affect it are usually trapped in the idea that our civilization and level of technology will remain static for decades or centuries, while the effects of climate change gradually increase and make themselves felt. The reality, of course, is that our technology and our ability to deal with and control climate change will continue to advance far more rapidly, following the law of accelerating returns. A century from now today's concerns will seem trivial, as we manipulate the climate to our liking.

Over the very long haul, I agree with some of what you said. I'm a Star Trek fan as well. Our next major (I mean really big) technology advancement will be fusion power. The ITER project is physically located near the border of France and Switzerland. Billions have been invested to act on the theories of building a fusion reactor. A demonstration model is targetted for 2040 but it seems safe to say that fusion will be prevalent by the turn of the century. That will provide emmissions free power on a gigantic scale - it basically works the same way as our sun. Still, if ever, by the time humans can "control the climate" like a household thermostat, we'll be travelling between planets and solar systems instead of going to Barbados for the winter......and I think we'll have learned that it's not wise to tinker with Mother Earth. I can see one of those Disaster Movies coming out soon where eco-maniacs try to control the climate and bring the Earth to the brink of Armegeddon.

[jdobbin]

This one's my own observation: Generally speaking, CO2 is dispersed fairly evenly around the world....but water vapour - the most prevalent greenhouse gas, is not. Water vapour ranges from 100 PPM at the poles to 40,000 PPM in the tropics - colder air is drier and has less moisture. Canada, being a cooler country has less water vapour and therefore CO2 should have a larger effect on temperature - if IPPC theories are anywhere near accurate.....yet as the Canadian temperatures show, we are cooling.

Most climate experts have already said that local conditions will vary as CO2 levels rise. The world-wise trend is still up even if certain areas are affected by ocean current or natural sun cycles.

However, once again, you don't have to convince me. Convince Harper. If he doesn't stop some of the already large programs such as ethanol, vote for someone else.

This is something that global warming skeptics and deniers seem loath to do. The blame liberal, scientists and the media but then continue to vote for parties that are moving to cap and trade.

[noahbody]

Tell me, do you reject Newtonian Mechanics because it doesn't actually describe how gravity works? Do you reject continental drift because all the precise mechanisms have not been isolated?

I believe in global warming and global cooling and that climate shifts. Do I think man can control climate by increasing or reducing its small fraction of CO2? No.

As far as gravity is concerned, I don't believe in manmade gravity, even though there is no record of apples falling on heads before our time.

[Keepitsimple]

Most climate experts have already said that local conditions will vary as CO2 levels rise. The world-wise trend is still up even if certain areas are affected by ocean current or natural sun cycles.

However, once again, you don't have to convince me. Convince Harper. If he doesn't stop some of the already large programs such as ethanol, vote for someone else.

This is something that global warming skeptics and deniers seem loath to do. The blame liberal, scientists and the media but then continue to vote for parties that are moving to cap and trade.

Are you saying that Harper is committed to putting things in place to combat Climate Change.....so those on the Left don't have to worry? That's rhetorical - you don't have to answer it. I don't have to convince Harper....he's got a good grasp of reality on this file. You don't want to be the first one to the party and start spending billions of dollars on something that is becoming more dubious with each passing day.....but the political reality is that you have to stay in the game - because that's what it is - a game. It's not the end of mankind as Al Gore would have you believe. It's not even the end of ski-season. Harper seems to be the only one that I can trust to at least move forward cautiously and with an open mind.....and although it may surprise you - I think Ignatieff would have the same approach.

Oh, and "climate experts" always say that things are variable - might be colder here, hotter there, might be hurricanes, might not, watch those droughts - that's GW....watch out for those sinking islands in the pacific. Ski resorts might go out of business, but then again, maybe not. Everything is because of GW, or not.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Bonam]

Over the very long haul, I agree with some of what you said. I'm a Star Trek fan as well. Our next major (I mean really big) technology advancement will be fusion power. The ITER project is physically located near the border of France and Switzerland. Billions have been invested to act on the theories of building a fusion reactor.

Yeah I've gotten to work on some aspects of ITER, and it's a really cool project, but you should know it's not the only path to fusion power that is being actively researched. The NIF facility also shows promise, and its construction was completed less than a month ago and full scale research will commence next year. Various types of pinch-fusion research are also being actively conducted, such as at the Z-machine. There are also other prospects such as magnetized target fusion.

A demonstration model is targetted for 2040 but it seems safe to say that fusion will be prevalent by the turn of the century.

Yup, but it's by far not the only advance that will have paradigm-shifting impact on our civilization that is to come in this century. Most such advances cannot even be foreseen. In 1909, who could have foreseen the internet and how it would change our civilization? In this century, we will have advances in nanotechnology which will alter the very nature of how things are manufactured, biotechnology which will allow us to lengthen the lifespans of our species indefinitely, as well as augmenting our capability to think and to perceive our environment. Artificial intelligence and computation will continue to develop until any possible problem could be solved within seconds on a computer which fully simulates the interaction of every subatomic particle. Space travel will become commonplace through the use of space elevators, which will cut launch costs by thousands of times, allowing us to extract and return resources from around the solar system, eliminating any notion of scarcity of said resources.

And that's just the stuff that I and other futurists can foresee - most of the advances cannot be foreseen.

Still, if ever, by the time humans can "control the climate" like a household thermostat, we'll be travelling between planets and solar systems instead of going to Barbados for the winter

Between planets yes, between solar systems not so much. All the things I have mentioned are technologically foreseeable right now, requiring just funding and perhaps a few decades of development. Interstellar travel can only be foreseen with current technology as an endeavor taking at the very minimum decades but more realistically centuries. This means either generation ships, extensive use of cryonics, or sending preserved zygotes/embryos to be remotely activated and raised by robotic systems into an entirely separate civilization. So no interstellar travel won't be a leisure trip in the near future, and perhaps not ever, as no serious scientific theories have yet proposed a method for faster-than-light travel. Of course that could change at any time, but that's not something that is presently foreseeable.

......and I think we'll have learned that it's not wise to tinker with Mother Earth.

We will be creating our own ecosystems from scratch on other planets, orbital habitats, etc. Our population will continue to grow as our lifespans lengthen. Our ability to predict the outcome of our actions will further improve. We will definitely tinker with "Mother Nature", or as I prefer to call it, the Earth's ecosystem. We are already tinkering with it, and have been since the dawn of human civilization. That is what distinguishes us from other species. Other species evolve over millions of years and adapt to their environments. We evolve our technology and use it to adapt the environments to us, and we do it on much shorter timescales.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Bonam

[ToadBrother]

Oh, and "climate experts" always say that things are variable - might be colder here, hotter there, might be hurricanes, might not, watch those droughts - that's GW....watch out for those sinking islands in the pacific. Ski resorts might go out of business, but then again, maybe not. Everything is because of GW, or not.

Perhaps you could list the number of publications you've actual read by climatologists.

[Moonbox]

Between planets yes, between solar systems not so much. All the things I have mentioned are technologically foreseeable right now, requiring just funding and perhaps a few decades of development. Interstellar travel can only be foreseen with current technology as an endeavor taking at the very minimum decades but more realistically centuries. This means either generation ships, extensive use of cryonics, or sending preserved zygotes/embryos to be remotely activated and raised by robotic systems into an entirely separate civilization. So no interstellar travel won't be a leisure trip in the near future, and perhaps not ever, as no serious scientific theories have yet proposed a method for faster-than-light travel. Of course that could change at any time, but that's not something that is presently foreseeable.

Aww I was hoping you were going to get into the theoretical about FTL travel and all the mass/speed/time things that make my brain get screwy.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Moonbox

[Bonam]

Aww I was hoping you were going to get into the theoretical about FTL travel and all the mass/speed/time things that make my brain get screwy.

I can if you'd like Although there is not that much theoretical stuff about "FTL travel" that hasn't been pretty much shot down. Probably best for another thread though...

[jdobbin]

Are you saying that Harper is committed to putting things in place to combat Climate Change.....so those on the Left don't have to worry? That's rhetorical - you don't have to answer it. I don't have to convince Harper....he's got a good grasp of reality on this file. You don't want to be the first one to the party and start spending billions of dollars on something that is becoming more dubious with each passing day.....but the political reality is that you have to stay in the game - because that's what it is - a game. It's not the end of mankind as Al Gore would have you believe. It's not even the end of ski-season. Harper seems to be the only one that I can trust to at least move forward cautiously and with an open mind.....and although it may surprise you - I think Ignatieff would have the same approach.

His good grasp of the file has him spending billions already on things that are likely not effective or are political solutions rather than ones that can make a difference on CO2 levels.

Oh, and "climate experts" always say that things are variable - might be colder here, hotter there, might be hurricanes, might not, watch those droughts - that's GW....watch out for those sinking islands in the pacific. Ski resorts might go out of business, but then again, maybe not. Everything is because of GW, or not.

The experts are supposed to give their best assessments based on global temperatures. The one that is still is known is that the trend on temps is still up and that the best peer reviewed work indicates that CO2 levels are responsible for that trend going up the way it is.

Harper is spending billions already though and the opportunity to do something not tied to American moves is now lost. Cap and trade it is and I've always argued that it is more expensive.

[Keepitsimple]

Perhaps you could list the number of publications you've actual read by climatologists.

I've certainly read my share.....probably 50-100 by now. As you probably know, each "scientist" concentrates on their own narrow field of work and reviewing any of the raw work can be interesting at times - but usually pretty tedious. If they have something to say, it can usually be put in a layman's summary and I like that in a good research paper. So I've familiarized myself with a good number of the underlying concepts....but we all know that the difficulty is in pulling together all of these disparate climate forces and trying to model the climate. The IPCC is the driver in this process and their bias is clearly stated in their mandate - their focus is on human-induced climate change and as such, they cannot help but short-shrift anything to the contrary. Their mandate could have been "understanding climate change" but from the outset, the goal was to prove that Climate Change (formerly Global Warming) was greatly influenced by humans. Read the mandate carefully and ask yourself - since they don't do any work themselves (they only assess), and they are really only interested in human-induced risks....how much effort do you think they make to ask for, analyse and assess non human-induced risks.

IPCC Mandate

The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.

Interestingly, a climatologist is a fairly pedestrian profession. I believe you meant the generic term "Climate Scientist". I say generic because I have yet to find a definition for a Climate Scientist or the qualifications and requirements for becoming one.....but here's one that I found for a Climatologist:

What is a Climatologist?

A climatologist is a person who does research in areas to find out the climate of the area. They study weather patterns over several months and years to calculate what the weather will be like from that time period to 50 years from now. Climatologists have to analyze and interpret maps, charts, photographs, and other data.

How does one become a Climatologist?

To be a climatologist, one must have training several mathematic and scientific subjects. Some of the areas of study are physical chemistry, meterology, physics, statistics, and ecology. Most of the time, to become a climatologist you must receive a Bachelor's or Master's degree in meterology. Some climatologists work in a lab while others travel to several different areas to do research.

How much do Climatologist make?

Many people are in this field, such as a weather man on a television news station. The average salary of a climatologist a year is any where from $20,000 to $50,000 a year.

Link: http://www.mountalverniahs.org/Mahs/Depart...b04/climate.htm

Edited July 7, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Moonlight Graham]

Stephen Hawking believes in man-made climate change and its perils, similar to that of most of peers.

I'm no scientist, let alone a brilliant one, so if Stephen Hawking believes it, that's good enough for me. If any of you arm-chair scientists want to challenge the scientific opinion of Hawking and look like idiots to your radioactive grandchildren in 40 years be my guest.

[benny]

The IPCC is the driver in this process and their bias is clearly stated in their mandate - their focus is on human-induced climate change and as such, they cannot help but short-shrift anything to the contrary. Their mandate could have been "understanding climate change" but from the outset, the goal was to prove that Climate Change (formerly Global Warming) was greatly influenced by humans. Read the mandate carefully and ask yourself - since they don't do any work themselves (they only assess), and they are really only interested in human-induced risks....how much effort do you think they make to ask for, analyse and assess non human-induced risks.

understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change

There is no bias there since risk means possibility.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Presuming for a minute that climate change is occurring and is at least in part a man made problem, what can be done about it?

http://www.examiner.com/x-3089-LA-Ecopolit...limate-Controls

Contrary to the Obama administration, China, Russia, and now India, have had practical debates about the economic impacts of new climate control regulations. And, these countries are not willing to risk the negative economic impacts of mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases during global recession.

Without China, India, Brazil, and Indonesia (to name a few) on board, whatever we do will mean bugger all to the fight to control the amount of carbon released. All we will do is throw money better spent on other things (like health care) while reaching the same result anyway.

[Bonam]

Presuming for a minute that climate change is occurring and is at least in part a man made problem, what can be done about it?

http://www.examiner.com/x-3089-LA-Ecopolit...limate-Controls

Without China, India, Brazil, and Indonesia (to name a few) on board, whatever we do will mean bugger all to the fight to control the amount of carbon released. All we will do is throw money better spent on other things (like health care) while reaching the same result anyway.

Actually we'd develop new technologies that produce less CO2 and we'd once again have something meaningful to manufacture. Once those other nations you mentioned came around, during the next boom cycle after the recession is over, we could sell it to them and make lots of money.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Bonam

[benny]

Actually we'd develop new technologies that produce less CO2 and we'd once again have something meaningful to manufacture. Once those other nations you mentioned came around, during the next boom cycle after the recession is over, we could sell it to them and make lots of money.

And already, Denmark is actually able to finance its healthcare through its wind-turbine exports.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

And already, Denmark is actually able to finance its healthcare through its wind-turbine exports.

There has been dozens of those giant machine shipped west by rail in the last couple of months. Anybody know where they are going?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

And already, Denmark is actually able to finance its healthcare through its wind-turbine exports.

There has been dozens of those giant machine shipped west by rail in the last couple of months. Anybody know where they are going?

[benny]

There has been dozens of those giant machine shipped west by rail in the last couple of months. Anybody know where they are going?

Where the wind blows hard enough I guess.

[ToadBrother]

Stephen Hawking believes in man-made climate change and its perils, similar to that of most of peers.

I'm no scientist, let alone a brilliant one, so if Stephen Hawking believes it, that's good enough for me. If any of you arm-chair scientists want to challenge the scientific opinion of Hawking and look like idiots to your radioactive grandchildren in 40 years be my guest.

No, that's just plain wrong. Stephen Hawking is a physicist, specializing in areas of General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Cosmology. He's a bright guy, maybe, during his prime, one of the most brilliant human beings that ever lived. But he's not an expert in atmospheric sciences. While I suppose, to some extent, he might be better able to evaluate certain claims, this is not his field of inquiry. Scientists have embarrassed themselves on occasion by speaking out of their area of expertise (Hawking's old partner, Roger Penrose, made a mockery of himself with his Quantum Mind nonsense, and Sir Fred Hoyle's advocacy of panspermia and rejection of evolution certainly belongs in this category as well).

It is because the consensus among experts whose fields do relate to climatology are, in very large part, in agreement on anthropomorphic climate change, that I accept it.