Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[lordgeoff]

Originally Posted by alctel

There seems to be a huge amount of confusion between 'climate' and 'weather' in this thread, which is strange considering it's full of sailors! Also a lack of knowledge of what the carbon cycle actually entails, but I guess that's more understandable.

Also as a climate scientist in a previous life, watching other people pretend that the earths climate ins't changing extremely rapidly (as in, changes taking place in decades rather than thousands of years) and that this isn't man-made seems to be pretty gobsmacking, to the point of wilful blindness - or even religion-like faith.

There is so, so much raw data showing that the earth's climate is rapidly warming, the ice caps are retreating and that huge amounts of methane are starting to be released.

But hey, I guess it's easier to pretend that thousands of scientific institutions, respected journals and al gore are all in cahoots with each other for mysterious reasons!



What? That webpage you linked seems to show that the hole stopped growing - I think that is a success by any reasonable metric!

Er even the high priest of global warming, IPCC, has now joined others in the confusing fact that warming has stalled for the past 18 years........ Dang. Why doesn't the climate be obedient and obey the computer models.
A couple of good research sites to peruse.
Cape Grim Data
Since 1970s (about 40 years) CO2 has increased by about 60Parts Per Million.
So 999,940 Parts Per Million have not changed......
Monthly Data Reports - Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project
Sea levels have risen a few mm per year on average. Daily tidal movement around the coast is up to 10,000 mm ...twice a day. Amazing how they can even measure the rise. They say the cause of the rise might be because there are now a lot more yachts loaded up with diesel and beer floating on the waters.

[savoir]

Originally Posted by rwidman

That's pretty much the culture of this forum.

Whatever you do don't mention anchors. I did once but I think I got away with it.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Answer... the scientific process. It's our single best system for cutting through human weakness, biases, competing interests, to gain the best possible knowledge and insight.

What else is there, really? How could the world do climate science any better than it's done now?



"The models are all wrong". Well, that's real science-like. We can sure gain some deep insight from that.

There's other reasons besides AGW for moderating and changing our consumption habits. Rest assured, we won't ever make it to the changing the economy part; the anti-AGW forces have successfuly tied us in knots and frozen the debate by p1ssing on an entire branch of science. So relax, your bedtime stories of solar-powered socialist agrarian dystopias won't come to pass.

Cap and trade is a workable free-market mechanism for managing the costs of cleaning up after our use of fossil fuels, because the current price models for fossil energy DO NOT also cover the very real costs of the effects of their consumption (there's no free lunch, right?). Currently the taxpayer bears the burden. Why wouldn't you, as a taxpayer, want to shift this burden onto the consumers of said fuels? Isn't that more equitable?

(Q: when is a capitalist not a capitalist? A:when they can sucker the taxpayer into eating the risk and costs. See 2008)

Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic | Heartlander Magazine


How can you be so sure that the use of fossil fuels is a bad thing? Maybe those who don't use enough fossil fuels should be taxed to reward those who use a lot, thus contributing to healthier plant growth. None of us really know exactly what causes climate to change and we certainly have no way of quantifying the effect of burning a barrel of oil or ton of coal, so this cap and trade scheme is WAY premature.

You are right about one thing, science should be allowed to learn the answers to these questions and then, once answers are found, only THEN we should consider taking appropriate action, whether that be trying to generate more CO2 or less of it.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Let's hear it from all those commenting within this thread that have totally divulged themselves of a reliance on using energy produced from fossil fuels.....

(cricket chirps)

Well all the research and 95% consensus has done a fat load of good then, hasn't it?

Bingo, even the prophets of the religion are not obeying the commandments.

Well done! There it is! The "you can't lecture me about world hunger cos you aren't a 110 lb vegan" argument. A clear sign that we've successfully descended to a jr high level of debate. Awesome.

(I also wonder how you happen to know the actual energy footprint of each and every one of us. Are you NSA?)

Ah easy...because it's a scam for money and power...bingo.

Would someone pass the tinfoil to Rich, please?

Originally Posted by savoir

Whatever you do don't mention anchors. I did once but I think I got away with it.

Guns! Anchors! AGW!

(tossing caution to the wind, trying to hit the CF trifecta)

Anyway, this thread derail has once again shown why this particular issue won't be resolved by a bunch of wealthy, self-satisfied old guys. I recall that this debate hasn't broken out on CF in over a year. Maybe we can hold back for ... two years this time? Circle the date.

[Dogfish]

Another global warming thread!

I get to make just one comment (my rule).

The "climate activists" who fly around on jets, have country houses, and sell their books on Amazon for $23.99 telling us that capitalism must end make me sick too!

A carbon tax, or any other system that raises the price of fuel, will hurt the poor the worst--those who are barely scratching out a living at this point to begin with.

But the world really is changing, and changing quickly. Every year there is less arable land and more desert. Every year the seas are more acidic and more barren of life, including coral reefs. All kinds of animal species are either dying out or on the endangered list due to loss of habitat and other pressures. There is less and less fresh water available due to droughts and overuse, and more and more pollution. Does anyone deny any of this?

I thought this was a great book:

Life on the Brink: Environmentalists Confront Overpopulation


by Philip Cafaro and Eileen Crist


It's a series of essays, so it's an easy read. If you don't like one just skip to the next. I skipped one myself.

I'm a "believer" in global warming but, in my darker moments, I sometimes think that the issue is kept front and center to keep us away from the issue that we should be talking about--one that we could actually effect a meaningful change through if we ever confronted it.

[tomfl]

Random comments about models.

There are at least two types of models, descriptive and predictive. A descriptive model would say an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere would result in an increase in temperature which is well established. A predictive model would say an increase of X PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere would result in an increase in temperature of Y degrees.

What makes predictive climate models so hard to construct is any change in temperature is due not just to more, or less, CO2 but multiple variables. In fact CO2 is not even the most important variable in the make up of the atmosphere in determining temperature, simple water vapor is a much larger component of the atmosphere. There is also the fact that man made CO2 is some where around 3-5% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere, the bulk of CO2 in the atmosphere is from natural sources. A single volcano eruption can results in more CO2 than all man made sources.

Things like clouds and vulcanism dwarf any man made variables determining the temperature. Another problem is just how temperature is determined. Current instruments have a hard time recording a temperature change of .01 or .1 degrees, what ever scale you are using; and no one is claiming past measurements are as good as todays. The confidence interval of both past and present data is larger than the measured and predicted changes in the data.

Another problem is many of the variables are simply not well understood. Willie Soon was mentioned earlier. I first read him over twenty years ago when he was recognized as a leading expert on the Sun's phases. His book on the Little Ice Age is still one of the best around, even if he only became well known after he questioned why the Sun phases were ignored by the models. Several other researchers have claimed small particle emissions from space change the rate of of cloud formation and their predictive models seem good.

I suspect there are other variables even less well understood than those I have mentioned.

Bottom line is that the current predictive models are basically useless.

[DeepFrz]

tomfl, again, where are your links to sources.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

How can you be so sure that the use of fossil fuels is a bad thing?

I didn't say that. I'm for more careful, frugal use of fossil fuels, for the following reasons
- to reduce the amount of pollutants, including CO2. Who would dispute that the air quality in North America is much better since pollution controls and other measures were legislated? If the developing countries lack sustainable energy options, and follow the same extravagant and wasteful overconsumption of non-renewable fuels that we have, the world will be a much dirtier place.
- to preserve a precious, finite resource. Gas and diesel are energy powerhouses - they currently provide the highest energy density per weight of all of our portable power sources. Petrochemicals are also essential for a number of other uses including plastics and pharmaceuticals. Why the rush to burn it all as quickly as possible? The recent unlocking of more oil in the form of shale and tarsands oil has moved the horizon out to maybe 200 years tops at current and projected consumption... surely we can give our kids a slightly better outlook than that...?

we certainly have no way of quantifying the effect of burning a barrel of oil or ton of coal...

What? We absolutely know what happens when a barrel of oil or a ton is burned. Just about to the molecule. That's highschool science project-level of easy. And it's just multiplication to reasonably estimate how much of that crap is being released globally.

You are right about one thing, science should be allowed to learn the answers to these questions and then, once answers are found...

Even if you don't accept the 95% or 97% figure, ANY cursory scan of the climate papers in the last 15 years shows that a really, undeniably large majority of the subject matter experts are concerned about the effects upon the climate if there's no moderation of our fossil-fuel use. The real debate among scientists isn't "yes it is"/"no it isn't", it's how much and when. When they're not trolling, most of the skeptics here will admit as much. Science is trying to speak clearly; those invested in the status quo are successfully shouting them down.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dogfish

I get to make just one comment (my rule).

The "climate activists" who fly around on jets, have country houses, and sell their books on Amazon for $23.99 telling us that capitalism must end make me sick too!

A carbon tax, or any other system that raises the price of fuel, will hurt the poor the worst--those who are barely scratching out a living at this point to begin with.

Well, the first part is that "you can't lecture me about world hunger cos you aren't a 110 lb vegan" argument again. Bingo! as Rich would say. Have a cookie.

This is of course in reference to Al Gore, right? Come with me on this thought experiment:

Al Gore travels the world evangelizing on the AGW issue. If he convinces maybe 10% of the people he reaches to change lightbulbs, or convinces 10% of the companies he speaks to to make one process more efficient... he's created energy savings far in excess of the energy he's consumed in making those trips. In capitalist-speak, he's taken those resources he consumes and added value. Al Gore could fly solo in a 747 and heat his house with rainforests, and his NET footprint would still be POSITIVE, offsetting some of the footprint of those of us who are doing nothing.

I still don't get why most capitalists (and I'm a capitalist, within reason) have a hate on for someone who makes a nice living by promoting the conservation of world resources. Isn't that how the free market is supposed to work? Ditto for cap and trade - it's simply pricing the pollution, which hasn't been done before (meaning fossil-fuel energy sellers have been getting a free ride at taxpayer expense)

The price of fuel is a very interesting point. Note how the US economy is having a growth spurt because of the recent drop in oil price. Sort of like how a heroin addict generally does better when heroin is cheap and plentiful. Great for the short term, but not sustainable.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

How can you be so sure that the use of fossil fuels is a bad thing? Maybe those who don't use enough fossil fuels should be taxed to reward those who use a lot

Maybe it's a good idea to drop all the nuclear bombs on mountain ranges. We could level mountains making more habitable lands for people to live. The radiation might even produce genetic mutations yielding unique plants that might cure any disease.

Originally Posted by Dogfish

A carbon tax, or any other system that raises the price of fuel, will hurt the poor the worst--those who are barely scratching out a living at this point to begin with.

The poorest people in the world don't use fossil fuels at all, so I don't understand how it would hurt them.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

What? We absolutely know what happens when a barrel of oil or a ton is burned. Just about to the molecule. That's highschool science project-level of easy. And it's just multiplication to reasonably estimate how much of that crap is being released globally.

Even if you don't accept the 95% or 97% figure, ANY cursory scan of the climate papers in the last 15 years shows that a really, undeniably large majority of the subject matter experts are concerned about the effects upon the climate if there's no moderation of our fossil-fuel use. The real debate among scientists isn't "yes it is"/"no it isn't", it's how much and when. when they're not trolling, most of the skeptics here will admit as much. Science is trying to speak clearly; those invested in the status quo are successfully shouting them down.

Of course we can measure to the molecule what it means to burn some oil or coal or any other chemical reaction, but that's not the question that needs to be answered. The question is, what is the effect on climate, if any? You can't answer that and neither can anyone else. So it's premature to base a tax on an effect we don't understand and can't quantify. Real science DOES quantify things, climate science often pretends to be there but it's not.

If science were speaking clearly, it would be able to take us step by step, quantitatively, through the process, from burning a gallon of oil, to its effect on climate. That's what real science does. It only seems clear to you because you've already made up your mind to accept conclusions that are not supported by hard science.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

The question is, what is the effect on climate, if any? You can't answer that and neither can anyone else. So it's premature to base a tax on an effect we don't understand and can't quantify. Real science DOES quantify things, climate science often pretends to be there but it's not.

If science were speaking clearly, it would be able to take us step by step, quantitatively, through the process, from burning a gallon of oil, to its effect on climate. That's what real science does. It only seems clear to you because you've already made up your mind to accept conclusions that are not supported by hard science.

"You can't answer that"

I can't answer that - correct.

"Neither can anyone else"

The subject matter experts can and are speaking; you're just creating fake goalposts and artificial reasons for not listening. But just about NO-ONE denies that reducing pollution is a good goal for its own sake. Do it for that reason, if the climate argument doesn't float your boat.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Albee rose

Assertion ain't argument.

Nor are bed-wetting conspiratorial hysterics about communism and socialism being the scales before the eyes of an unwitting public or pathetic ad hominem attacks on Al Gore.

On balance, the sorta person who is inclined to indulge in these embarrassing forms of fatuous self-abuse is a hyperventilating reactionary, one who is spoon-fed the scary bed-time stories of eco-monsters that stalk the Big Rock Candy Mountain of "all-the-rights-of-citizens-but-none-of-the-responsibilities" free-market fundamentalism. A mind impervious because dogma bars entry.

By the way: If you can name me a more socialistic institution than the United States military, I'd like to hear it.

Thanks for the deep contribution to the discussion....stop by any time if you have more schoolyard slogans to toss around. They are at least fun to read from someone "complaining" about the postings of others.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

Maybe it's a good idea to drop all the nuclear bombs on mountain ranges. We could level mountains making more habitable lands for people to live. The radiation might even produce genetic mutations yielding unique plants that might cure any disease.


The poorest people in the world don't use fossil fuels at all, so I don't understand how it would hurt them.

More hyperbole when you don't have an argument, not surprised. Unless you can tell me what is the OPTIMUM percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere, and back it up with proof, then how can you say that adding more CO2 is getting us closer to the optimum percentage or further from it? You can't.

The poorest people in the world may not use fossil fuels now, but the biggest reason that most of the worlds wealth resides where it does are gains made as a result of cheap energy, and that means fossil fuels. Increasing the cost of energy now by adding an additional worldwide tax would be like pulling up the ladder now that those of us (the haves) who have benefited from cheap energy are inside the wall. Those poor people (the have-nots) who haven't yet realized the benefits of cheap energy would be left on the outside looking in with no cheap energy ladder to get them there. It would really suck to be them but libs would still feel good about themselves because they know that in their hearts they had good intentions...... The most similar phenomenon to this was the "environmentalist" caused outlawing of DDT, which resulted in many millions(!) of completely unnecessary deaths by malaria. But all those dead folks were conveniently on the other side of the world from you or I so we didn't have to see them dying or get involved in even knowing about them if we didn't want to. I'm not claiming that DDT was a good thing, but maybe a few more years to fully understand all the consequences of outlawing it could have achieved similar results without the horrible unintended consequences that transpired. Ready, fire, aim is NOT the right way to handle current unproven theories of climate change any more than it was the right way to handle DDT.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

The poorest people in the world may not use fossil fuels now, but the biggest reason that most of the worlds wealth resides where it does are gains made as a result of cheap energy, and that means fossil fuels. Increasing the cost of energy now by adding an additional worldwide tax would be like pulling up the ladder now that those of us (the haves) who have benefited from cheap energy are inside the wall. Those poor people (the have-nots) who haven't yet realized the benefits of cheap energy would be left on the outside looking in with no cheap energy ladder to get them there.

Thank you, this is a very important point.

As you point out, we (in the west, mostly) expended large amounts of cheap fossil-fuel energy, and left mountains of waste, to get where we are now. This puts the obligation on us - the most wealthy and technically advanced countries - to moderate our own consumption, and to bear the cost of developing better, cleaner, more sustainable forms of energy, and subsidizing its use when necessary, so that the developing nations do not have to repeat our mistakes.

We owe them a better ladder.