Climate Science 101

[waldo]

waldo, cites a paper for you on cap and trade here:

op-ed from James Hansen in the 'Australian' newspaperwaldo's link

It says cap and trade is a failure and Kyoto was devastating.

His fee and credit idea isn't much better.

I note he is a scientist in Space Studies. Is he an expert on climate?

front and center - the challenged Pliny!

a paper? Try 'opinion piece'. Your asking if Hansen is an expert on climate is a most damning indictment on your knowledge - but when has that ever stopped you from beaking off in the past? Of course, fee & dividend is a generic concept... Hansen has been a prominent advocate of proposing a like structured solution tailored to reducing carbon emissions. You could take a leap and actually offer comment on why you believe the assortment of proposed 'fee and dividend' conceptual solutions, as you say, "aren't much better" - you could do that - hey?

[waldo]

you read all these climate change related threads. You know, you absolutely know, that there is no credibility to the 60s/70s cooling myth… that the myth was media generated. This same mythical point has been beat upon, repeatedly within an assortment of MLW threads. You know this – yet you continue to perpetuate the myth – you are simply a disingenuous provocateur. Perhaps you could actually step forward and identify the politicians and environmentalists that were promoting, as you describe, “ice-age theories”… you could also highlight what solutions were being advocated. You might also speak to what credibility any of those politicians and environmentalists and solutions actually had… uhhh… you know, if they even existed in any place other than your fabricated Pliny world.

Politicians weren't even waiting for a concensus, waldo. They trusted the experts back then. Now it appears they are a little more patient.

We'll see in twenty years. Likely, they will have saved the world by then and we will be redistributing wealth around the globe but people will probably have forgotten why.

Pliny, is this you doubling down on the 70's global cooling myth/meme? Like I said above, you could, "speak to what credibility any of those politicians and environmentalists and solutions actually had… uhhh… you know, if they even existed in any place other than your fabricated Pliny world".

Pliny's world - where Pliny runs free and unabated!

[GostHacked]

The funny thing is that the article you mention Waldo, has had some ideas similar to mine. Especially how food is grown and distributed.

I still don't feel that your article properly addresses C02. It is a tax put on people and corporations. When the corps get taxed, they pass those savings on to us with a higher price for the item we are buying. The corps will also work together to make sure that this kind of thing never happens. Corps own the government, it would be difficult to implement this in one country, let alone world wide to the extent where it would have any kind of positive impact on reducing Co2 emissions.

Nuclear power plants are all well and good even though you are reducing C02, you are increasing the radio active waste that a nuclear power plant produces. Then you have a bigger problem of storage and containment of said radio active waste and preventing that from leaking into the environment. We know that the waste from nuclear power plants is radio active for decades.

I still don't see CO2 as being the big boogey man 'experts' say they are.

So when do they start taxing each of us individually for the CO2 emissions that come out of our mouths?

[Pliny]

front and center - the challenged Pliny!

a paper? Try 'opinion piece'. Your asking if Hansen is an expert on climate is a most damning indictment on your knowledge - but when has that ever stopped you from beaking off in the past?

I never claimed to be a scientist, waldo. I don't know them all by name or even prominence. The issue isn't as obsessive-compulsive for me as it is for you who profess to be the standard bearer for science.

I do agree that there has been a warming over the last century of about 1.5 degrees. I believe science is attempting to establish an anthropogenic link to this warming. Is there anything new on this, waldo? Politicians seem to want this to be true so bad. Fifteen years ago or so they were already preparing the new tax structure with a thing called the Kyoto accord. I'm glad to see your guy, James Hansen trash it for the piece of crap it was. I think probably fifteen years ago, even in your infancy, you were probably hailing it as the greatest step toward saving the planet. And fifteen years from now I think the "Green agenda" with it's political opportunism and global redistribution plans will be a forgotten and discredited movement with the same appeal as the Kyoto Accord and replaced with reasonable policies.

You liberals are so lucky not to have had that guy with the dog named Kyoto as your leader. Remember him. He was scary. If he were PM he would have had us all riding bicycles by now.

Of course, fee & dividend is a generic concept... Hansen has been a prominent advocate of proposing a like structured solution tailored to reducing carbon emissions. You could take a leap and actually offer comment on why you believe the assortment of proposed 'fee and dividend' conceptual solutions, as you say, "aren't much better" - you could do that - hey?

Gosthacked offers some thoughts on that. Face it. It is just another tax scheme dressed up to look like something else.

Gosthacked really has a good idea on taxing CO2 coming out of our mouths. It's a great indication of how idiotic the whole idea is. A long time ago, to assuage concerns and ease the level of CO2 emissions, I suggested we, as a species, learn ourselves and educate our young to breath every second breath and cut those global emissions of CO2 in half. That would be a better idea than what any government has come up with yet.

[wyly]

Nuclear power plants are all well and good even though you are reducing C02, you are increasing the radio active waste that a nuclear power plant produces. Then you have a bigger problem of storage and containment of said radio active waste and preventing that from leaking into the environment. We know that the waste from nuclear power plants is radio active for decades.

nuclear waste radiation I believe can be lethal for centuries, and excess CO2 will take centuries to clear from the atmosphere as well...

I still don't see CO2 as being the big boogey man 'experts' say they are.

that's because you don't understand the science...CO2 is a GHG, fact...an increase of GHG's will warm our planet, fact...a rapidly warmming planet will bring ecological damage, fact...

So when do they start taxing each of us individually for the CO2 emissions that come out of our mouths?

silly, there is a difference between the co2 we produce and fossil fuel co2....

[GostHacked]

nuclear waste radiation I believe can be lethal for centuries, and excess CO2 will take centuries to clear from the atmosphere as well...

So you solve one problem by creating another. Wrong line of thinking.

that's because you don't understand the science...CO2 is a GHG, fact...an increase of GHG's will warm our planet, fact...a rapidly warmming planet will bring ecological damage, fact...

Then do us a favour and stop breathing.

silly, there is a difference between the co2 we produce and fossil fuel co2....

No there is not, it's still CO2. Unless you know of different types of carbon dioxide. It does not matter who or what produces it .. it's all CO2.

[Pliny]

Pliny, is this you doubling down on the 70's global cooling myth/meme? Like I said above, you could, "speak to what credibility any of those politicians and environmentalists and solutions actually had… uhhh… you know, if they even existed in any place other than your fabricated Pliny world".

Pliny's world - where Pliny runs free and unabated!

The concern back then was great, waldo. We were shivering in our boots. Politicians had scientists studying feasible ways to attempt to reverse the trend and corporations were gearing up to sell hot ideas to warm us all up. It was in essence another costly venture into political la-la land.

You must have been preoccupied at the time with worry about whether or not you were going to get that latest action figure for Christmas or perhaps when your next meal would emerge from your Mother's blouse.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Pliny

[wyly]

So you solve one problem by creating another. Wrong line of thinking.

I agree, I don't want to see more nuclear power it comes with more problems than it's worth...

Then do us a favour and stop breathing.

silly, there is a difference between the co2 we produce and fossil fuel co2....

No there is not, it's still CO2. Unless you know of different types of carbon dioxide. It does not matter who or what produces it .. it's all CO2.there are different types of CO2,

[GostHacked]

Alright so tell me what the types of CO2 are? What you and Waldo are getting at, is that there are different sources of CO2.

There is only one type of Carbon Dioxide. Two oxygen atoms combined with one carbon atom.

[wyly]

Alright so tell me what the types of CO2 are? What you and Waldo are getting at, is that there are different sources of CO2.

There is only one type of Carbon Dioxide. Two oxygen atoms combined with one carbon atom.

carbon comes in three isotopes C12, C13, C14....from that the sources of the CO2 can be identified, fossil fuel CO2 have a different isotope signature ... Edited October 26, 2010 by wyly

[Slim]

The concern back then was great, waldo. We were shivering in our boots. Politicians had scientists studying feasible ways to attempt to reverse the trend and corporations were gearing up to sell hot ideas to warm us all up. It was in essence another costly venture into political la-la land.

I just want to address this 'global cooling' thing real quick.

Okay, you're trying to equate the global cooling issue from the past to the global warming issue of today.

So was there a scientific consensus on global cooling back then? If there was a consensus (rather, a consensus on the same scale as the GW consensus) and the global cooling theory turned out to be false (or exaggerated) then you have a point.

From what I've read, there was no consensus, only extensive media coverage which exaggerated the dangers, while there was growing belief that GHGs were going to cause global warming. This is all pretty much summed up in the wiki page for global cooling.

So the global cooling scare was false. It has no bearing on this current issue.

[waldo]

I just want to address this 'global cooling' thing real quick.

Okay, you're trying to equate the global cooling issue from the past to the global warming issue of today.

So was there a scientific consensus on global cooling back then? If there was a consensus (rather, a consensus on the same scale as the GW consensus) and the global cooling theory turned out to be false (or exaggerated) then you have a point.

From what I've read, there was no consensus, only extensive media coverage which exaggerated the dangers, while there was growing belief that GHGs were going to cause global warming. This is all pretty much summed up in the wiki page for global cooling.

So the global cooling scare was false. It has no bearing on this current issue.

succinct & spot on - it was entirely media driven. Someone really needs to write these guys some new material... I won't bother to re-quote a study I've thrown back, several times now in previous threads - a study where a couple of scientists actually had enough of this myth themselves and when into an exhaustive analysis of the related published science of the 70's day; with results showing categorically that the vast percentage of papers written in the 70's were speaking to warming... a smaller percentage were ambivalent to either warming/cooling... and a very small percentage spoke to anticipated cooling. Of course, Pliny's already doubled down and has decided to go for broke... although, Pliny won't share any of those details that appear to be trapped and only available within Pliny's world.

Pliny, is this you doubling down on the 70's global cooling myth/meme? Like I said above, you could, "

speak to what credibility any of those politicians and environmentalists and solutions actually had… uhhh… you know, if they even existed in any place other than your fabricated Pliny world

".

Pliny's world - where Pliny runs free and unabated!

The concern back then was great, waldo. We were shivering in our boots. Politicians had scientists studying feasible ways to attempt to reverse the trend and corporations were gearing up to sell hot ideas to warm us all up. It was in essence another costly venture into political la-la land.

although GostHacked appears to have backed off the myth, his earlier post within this thread details exactly why this 70's global cooling myth is such a favoured denialist ploy:

Only 30 years ago we were told that Global Cooling was going to be catastrophic. Were they wrong then? And are they wrong now?

[waldo]

So when do they start taxing each of us individually for the CO2 emissions that come out of our mouths?

A long time ago, to assuage concerns and ease the level of CO2 emissions, I suggested we, as a species, learn ourselves and educate our young to breath every second breath and cut those global emissions of CO2 in half. That would be a better idea than what any government has come up with yet.

Then do us a favour and stop breathing.

It does not matter who or what produces it .. it's all CO2.

wyly has things in hand distinguishing the carbon isotope variants of CO2... let me just add a bit to dispel what I initially read as levity over the (now several) references to human respiration affecting CO2 levels in the atmosphere. As a human/animal bodily input, eating plants or eating animals that eat plants... the human/animal bodily output causes no effective net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere - the amount of exhaled CO2 represents carbon that was originally taken out of the CO2 in the air by plants through photosynthesis. Of course, burning fossil fuels is the real (enhanced greenhouse effect) culprit - putting CO2 back into the atmosphere that plants previously removed.

[GostHacked]

although GostHacked appears to have backed off the myth, his earlier post within this thread details exactly why this 70's global cooling myth is such a favoured denialist ploy:

The point I was trying to make with that is, as long as it is packaged and hyped right, no matter what the experts say, you can give the public their own opinion.

I feel that is happening with the scare of CO2. If it really, REALLY was that much of a concern, and urgent and if the trend was noticed a couple decades ago, why are we still not doing anything about it? But for the sake of this argument I will make the assumption it is real:

We have had alternative energies for some time now. Is it a matter of the cost? Available materials? Is it too expensive and people do not want to pay for it? I'd be looking at that as an investement.But I guess back to a question. What are you doing on the individual level to reduce this? I mean, is it cost? You can outfit your home with very efficient solar cells now, and there are very compact wind turbines available. This can also work for large and tall buildings. The strain taken off the current electricity grid would be astounding to the point where we should not need to build any more power plants. It becomes a bunch of self reliant cells.

Iceland has one good approach with geothermal. They've gotten quite good at it.

And dammit ,.. plant some freakin trees!!!

There is no one grand solution for this problem (I really still don't see it) however, I do love the idea of cleaning up our environment. It will take a bunch of little changes to make a huge overall impact. They can be done now. The way I see it, if we are producing less garbage, depending less on fossile fuels for energy and movement, using renewable resources like wind/solar, convert vehicles to electricity (charged by your solar panels on your home!!) And if by doing all this reduces the bad guy carbon dioxide, then this is where we need to be heading.

We take care of a bunch of small issues, and the overall impact will be noticable. So those out there who want to do something about it .. are you doing something about it? Who does it start with?

[dre]

are you doing something about it? Who does it start with?

I ditched my gas guzzling Fords and bought proper Japanese vehicles that dont break down as much and burn way less fuel!

Edited October 27, 2010 by dre

[wyly]

I feel that is happening with the scare of CO2. If it really, REALLY was that much of a concern, and urgent and if the trend was noticed a couple decades ago, why are we still not doing anything about it? But for the sake of this argument I will make the assumption it is real:

people have been trying to do something for a couple of decades but as you see in this forum there is incredible denial in face of overwhelming evidence, we have an entire segment of our population and part of our government that thinks it's conspiracy of the socialist left to steal our money or Margret Thacher and Al Gore invented it...

We have had alternative energies for some time now. Is it a matter of the cost? Available materials? Is it too expensive and people do not want to pay for it? I'd be looking at that as an investement.But I guess back to a question. What are you doing on the individual level to reduce this? I mean, is it cost? You can outfit your home with very efficient solar cells now, and there are very compact wind turbines available. This can also work for large and tall buildings. The strain taken off the current electricity grid would be astounding to the point where we should not need to build any more power plants. It becomes a bunch of self reliant cells.

and I'd agree with that but most of us need help, rather than having stimlus package the government gave us wouldn't it have been better to tie the spending to alternative power sources...

Iceland has one good approach with geothermal. They've gotten quite good at it.

great idea, unlimited heat even in Canada but I can't afford it on my own can you? we need municipal, provincial and federal help with that and the energy companies(oil/gas/coal) aren't going to like it...

And dammit ,.. plant some freakin trees!!!

I have twelve...

There is no one grand solution for this problem (I really still don't see it) however, I do love the idea of cleaning up our environment. It will take a bunch of little changes to make a huge overall impact. They can be done now. The way I see it, if we are producing less garbage, depending less on fossile fuels for energy and movement, using renewable resources like wind/solar, convert vehicles to electricity (charged by your solar panels on your home!!) And if by doing all this reduces the bad guy carbon dioxide, then this is where we need to be heading.

agreed

We take care of a bunch of small issues, and the overall impact will be noticable. So those out there who want to do something about it .. are you doing something about it? Who does it start with?

yes we have to do it, and if the government isn't interested in helping us get it done then we need to remove them and find someone who will....and yes I do what I can, drive less, recycle, take public transit when I can, upgraded my home to be more energy efficient, new windows, low energy lights, water conservation... Edited October 27, 2010 by wyly

[Slim]

GostHacked:

What wyly stated above I agree with, but I'll try and add to it a bit.

There is no one grand solution for this problem (I really still don't see it) however, I do love the idea of cleaning up our environment. It will take a bunch of little changes to make a huge overall impact. They can be done now. The way I see it, if we are producing less garbage, depending less on fossile fuels for energy and movement, using renewable resources like wind/solar, convert vehicles to electricity (charged by your solar panels on your home!!) And if by doing all this reduces the bad guy carbon dioxide, then this is where we need to be heading.

Absolutely. There is no 'silver bullet' to solve our problems with CO2, pollution, fossil fuel dependence and so on... but there's still quite a few possibilities and options available.

The first big move, I think, is to start diversifying our energy production. In some regions, wind/solar are feasible. In others, large-scale geothermal generation plants could be attractive. Converting coal power plants to natural gas...

Switching everything over to alternative energy is not going to be a quick (or necessarily easy) process. But it is possible. The political will just needs to be there.

The point I was trying to make with that is, as long as it is packaged and hyped right, no matter what the experts say, you can give the public their own opinion.

I feel that is happening with the scare of CO2. If it really, REALLY was that much of a concern, and urgent and if the trend was noticed a couple decades ago, why are we still not doing anything about it?

I get that concern. It is understandable and valid. But there is significant changes in the works already around the world, we just don't really feel it here in North America because the US and Canada have been slow to adapt. There are lots of reasons for that, I think; it's really a different way of thinking, trying to balance CO2 emissions with energy needs. Maybe Europe has had an easier time because gas was always more expensive? And there is big-time resistance from the fossil fuel lobby, which wields considerable political power, especially in the States.

[Michael Hardner]

The concern back then was great, waldo. We were shivering in our boots. Politicians had scientists studying feasible ways to attempt to reverse the trend and corporations were gearing up to sell hot ideas to warm us all up. It was in essence another costly venture into political la-la land.

Pliny - you're talking about perceptions and so on that were in the public sphere. It has been shown that even then there were more concerns in the literature about global warming than cooling.

[Guest TrueMetis]

The concern back then was great, waldo. We were shivering in our boots. Politicians had scientists studying feasible ways to attempt to reverse the trend and corporations were gearing up to sell hot ideas to warm us all up. It was in essence another costly venture into political la-la land.

You must have been preoccupied at the time with worry about whether or not you were going to get that latest action figure for Christmas or perhaps when your next meal would emerge from your Mother's blouse.

If I could I would smack you for keeping this bullshit alive. I'm going to say this once in the 70's the scientific consensus was warming.

[Michael Hardner]

If I could I would smack you for keeping this bullshit alive. I'm going to say this once in the 70's the scientific consensus was warming.

Keep in mind that trotting out a dead argument is a usually a sign that people are running out of living ones. I'm thinking of the 9/11 conspiracy people here - who regularly trot out things that were shot down years ago...

[Pliny]

silly, there is a difference between the co2 we produce and fossil fuel co2....

For the purposes of the discussion there is no difference. CO2 is CO2. Other wise, the distinction would be made that a certain isotope of CO2 is considered to be responsible for global warming and no distinction is made.

Isotopes are simply a means of determining that the CO2 has a different origin. A change in the isotope count means that the origin of the CO2 is different. CO2 is still CO2.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Keep in mind that trotting out a dead argument is a usually a sign that people are running out of living ones. I'm thinking of the 9/11 conspiracy people here - who regularly trot out things that were shot down years ago...

Yea I'd smack them to...

Edited October 27, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Pliny]

I just want to address this 'global cooling' thing real quick.

Okay, you're trying to equate the global cooling issue from the past to the global warming issue of today.

So was there a scientific consensus on global cooling back then? If there was a consensus (rather, a consensus on the same scale as the GW consensus) and the global cooling theory turned out to be false (or exaggerated) then you have a point.

From what I've read, there was no consensus, only extensive media coverage which exaggerated the dangers, while there was growing belief that GHGs were going to cause global warming. This is all pretty much summed up in the wiki page for global cooling.

So the global cooling scare was false. It has no bearing on this current issue.

False or true. Concensus or not . The politics and the media fear-mongering are the same. If there is a problem then we will have to deal with it. We seem to be addressing the problem by researching alternative energy sources, improving energy efficiency and curtailing use of energy. The media appears to be whipping up the concern, I could even say perhaps justifiably, maybe we should be afraid, very afraid. Does it do us any good? No, I believe research must continue and we are doing what we can. Politicians are, for some reason, suggesting the solution lies in economics and a vast redistribution of wealth in the in a complicated mix of taxes, credits and debits. The fact Al gore can purchase carbon offsets from his company does not make one wit of a difference in his energy consumption but makes him feel like he is doing something.

This is my complaint, and I would think that political intervention in this manner would be thoroughly condemned. But it also is reminiscent of those earlier times.

What did you think of the Kyoto Accord? Is there any difference in what you thought of it ten years ago and what you think of it today? Maybe you thought it was a good idea but proved unworkable. That's the best one could give it. Actually it was a piece of political tripe that is an indicator of a more serious problem with the information provided that brought it into being.

Of course, certain sources call for a demand that the "political will" to do something be stepped up and it is the only thing that can effect the necessary change. In other words governments should force a solution but are they being asked to do something that they are incapable of except in relation to the sustenance or increase in their grasp on an even more centralized power? That is, within the framework of what governments can do which is extract money from the economy and place it in preferred places.

Government relies heavily on the taxation of fossil fuels at the moment. They are not about to cut their throat by regulating their use out of existence. They must first find a source to replace the large portion of revenues they would lose from the replacement of fossil fuels. For this reasons they are a stumbling block in the progress of energy technology. If a workable technology to reduce fossil fuel consumption were developed they would be in dire straights financially so before that happens they must have a system of taxation in place to maintain their revenues.

You could just dismiss that as a conspiracy theory but it has no less validity than the conspiracy some hold that oil companies are responsible for all and any anti-AGW findings in research and can thus be thoroughly and entirely discounted leaving by default AGW as the only plausible theory for why the global mean temperature could have risen 1.5 degrees in a century.

[Pliny]

yes we have to do it, and if the government isn't interested in helping us get it done then we need to remove them and find someone who will....and yes I do what I can, drive less, recycle, take public transit when I can, upgraded my home to be more energy efficient, new windows, low energy lights, water conservation...

I can't believe you are not buying any carbon offsets! You don't need to do all that if you do.

[Pliny]

wyly has things in hand distinguishing the carbon isotope variants of CO2... let me just add a bit to dispel what I initially read as levity over the (now several) references to human respiration affecting CO2 levels in the atmosphere. As a human/animal bodily input, eating plants or eating animals that eat plants... the human/animal bodily output causes no effective net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere - the amount of exhaled CO2 represents carbon that was originally taken out of the CO2 in the air by plants through photosynthesis. Of course, burning fossil fuels is the real (enhanced greenhouse effect) culprit - putting CO2 back into the atmosphere that plants previously removed.

Nonsense.

The amount of exhaled CO2 represents carbon that was orignally taken out of the CO2 in the air. Didn't plants previously remove that carbon as well as the carbon from burning fossil fuels?

Another by-product of breathing is another GHG called H2O. We are just really making a mess of things.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Pliny