Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

"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.

The fact that you think asking for a quantitative and thorough explanation before I buy into it is "moving the goalposts" is telling. In every other area of REAL science it's assumed that you have to PROVE your theories before you expect anyone else to accept them or base policy on them. When you can't do that, it's called a belief system or religion.

I do agree that it's good to not pollute any more than necessary and try to practice that, but I'm not so sure that creating CO2 is pollution.

[Albee rose]

SV THIRD DAY:

Wasn't meant to be deep. Meant to be direct.

I read the entire thread before posting. What I found was polite painfully earnest attempts to discuss the issue, and (best exemplified by you but representative of many), rejoinders from you that were mocking, derisive and peremptorily scornful. (All while congratulating yourself on your independent mind; apparently your special-snowflake self-regard is more important to you than your desire to restrain yourself from speaking in an insulting, condescending manner.)

I am a commercial fisherman with a sailboat. Got work to do and so will not be here to engage in an endless dissection of why we object to each other's charming approach. You can think what you want to think. Don't care. Will say in parting: Mama used to say a gentleman never insults anyone unintentionally. You were served an eat-**** sandwich because that's what you've been serving in all of your replies.

The difference between you and I, in my opinion, is that I will openly state that I have contempt for your haughty dismissive disposition whereas you deign to pretend your replies are not the supercilious mocking objects of scorn that they are.

[lordgeoff]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Anthropogenic CO2 is one the factors within our control.

1751 - 3 million tonnes of anthropogenic carbon emissions per annum

2010 - 9167 million tonnes of anthropogenic carbon emissions per annum

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems

And it accumulates.

I want a job as a Carbon Counter. What was the guys name who counted carbon in 1751?
Can I do it from my boat?
Gotta remember CO2 is by far one of the smallest components of our atmosphere. Not yet 1 part in 2,500. If you go on a driving holiday of 2,500 miles, CO2 in the atmosphere represents the distance from your front door to the end of your driveway/ Cul de sac? Hmmmm. Talking of Millions of tons is meaningless.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by tomfl

A single volcano eruption can results in more CO2 than all man made sources.



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.

Some science associated with your thoughts

Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.

For additional information about this subject, please read the American Geophysical Union's Eos article "Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide" written by USGS scientist Terrence M. Gerlach.

Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview

During the initial discovery period of global climate change, the magnitude of the influence of the Sun on Earth's climate was not well understood. Since the early 1990s, however, extensive research was put into determining what role, if any, the Sun has in global warming or climate change.

A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, "it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes." That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun...09RG000282.pdf

A review of the relevance of the 'CLOUD' results and other recent observations to the possible effect of cosmic rays on the terrestrial climate

Anatoly Erlykin, Terry Sloan, Arnold Wolfendale
(Submitted on 23 Aug 2013)
The problem of the contribution of cosmic rays to climate change is a continuing one and one of importance. In principle, at least, the recent results from the CLOUD project at CERN provide information about the role of ionizing particles in 'sensitizing' atmospheric aerosols which might, later, give rise to cloud droplets. Our analysis shows that, although important in cloud physics the results do not lead to the conclusion that cosmic rays affect atmospheric clouds significantly, at least if H2SO4 is the dominant source of aerosols in the atmosphere. An analysis of the very recent studies of stratospheric aerosol changes following a giant solar energetic particles event shows a similar negligible effect. Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there will be a small global cooling, not warming.

Journal reference: Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 2013, 121, 137-142
DOI: 10.1007/s00703-013-0260-x

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

The fact that you think asking for a quantitative and thorough explanation before I buy into it is "moving the goalposts" is telling. In every other area of REAL science it's assumed that you have to PROVE your theories before you expect anyone else to accept them or base policy on them. When you can't do that, it's called a belief system or religion.

Where did you do your post-doc work in climate science, that qualifies you to be the unquestionable arbiter of what constitutes good climate science? $100 says you haven't read a single real paper on the subject; you've just signed onto a well-crafted fuzzy anti-AGW position. And this continued assertion that climate scientists aren't doing real science... Who's arguing from a position of unfounded belief?

For bonus marks, tell us how to 100% prove a theory that's making a prediction about the future. Time machine?

I too am operating from a position of belief:

• from some education and experience, I have faith in the scientific process as the best way to study a problem and gain knowledge, it's the process that's best-equipped to minimise the distorting effects of human frailty, human error, biases, and competing interests. Unlike business, which by design is expected to pursue self-interest above any other considerations.
• I believe that when an undeniable, clear majority of the subject matter experts have done good science to arrive at a set of conclusions and predictions... it may be imperfect, but it's the best we got. Let's refine it, not dismiss it
• I believe that the fact that so much of the public attack on the AGW findings are non-scientific - ad hominem, conspiracies, SOSHULISTS! secret agenda - supports the notion that the science is pretty good, so let's attack the messengers instead.
• [edit- bonus belief] Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

[lordgeoff]

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)

....and all over the world the sucker taxpayer subsidises the ancient technologies of wind and solar power. Solar and wind are great for boats and garden lights.
Both technologies cannot provide base load power, are examples or erratic and unreliable power generation. Not sure why they are called renewables, both have a life span of 25 years and need baseload power to build replacements.
Maybe in the future they may have a place in the energy mix once the storage and transport issues. At the moment wind and solar are a subsidised bit player in the energy game.

[Dogfish]

Okay, one more, but that's it, I promise.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

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).

I really wasn't talking about Al Gore. But yes, I do hate him.

By continuing to live like a businessman millionaire, his implicit message is: all we have to do is use better lightbulbs and get a few solar panels, and we can all keep right on living the way we do—when the very scientists he cites in his movies and traveling show tell us this isn’t true at all! And, sure enough, his campaign isn’t doing much of anything. Emissions are still growing everywhere, same as ever.


Quote:
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.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

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.

This is a great point, and, who are we kidding? Raising the price of fossil fuels will raise the cost of just about everything because in one way or another it’s a main component every product we produce everywhere.

A little bit more on efficiency. One of the better essays in this book:

Life on the Brink: Environmentalists Confront Overpopulation

is by an older conservationist working in California who looks back at all of the achievements he's made and how they've all been completely negated by population growth. It's well thought out, carefully presented, and an absolutely bulletproof argument for why anything else is the wrong issue.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Lake's batter ladder is known in reality real world terms as a hammock.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by lordgeoff

....and all over the world the sucker taxpayer subsidises the ancient technologies of wind and solar power. Solar and wind are great for boats and garden lights.
Both technologies cannot provide base load power, are examples or erratic and unreliable power generation. Not sure why they are called renewables, both have a life span of 25 years and need baseload power to build replacements.
Maybe in the future they may have a place in the energy mix once the storage and transport issues. At the moment wind and solar are a subsidised bit player in the energy game.

Ah yes. It took about 90 years, and legislation, for the auto engine to approach 30% efficiency, and not smell like a refinery, but wind and solar have to spring forth fully formed, faultlessly efficient, and invisible, or it's pointless technology.

Solar has dropped from $10/watt to under $1/watt, and more cost-savings and efficiency are in the wings. No machine lasts forever, the next generation of wind generators will be cheaper, quieter, more efficient. Sheesh. What more do you want?

[capngeo]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

In short term maybe it's great, but consider it with the past mass extinction from 250 million years ago when the earth warmed 5C which triggered methane to release which caused 10C average warming and the entire surface of the earth became barren like the sahara for millions of years.

OK, fair enough, I was being a bit satirical with that post; but are you serious? Are you arrogant enough about man's ability to actually STOP such a change as you write of above? If WHEN the Earth decides to get hotter or cooler enough to cause our extinction.... there isn't one flipping thing mankind can do about it; YOU DIE!

Global warming... climate change... global cooling whatever!!! The Earth has been getting hotter and cooler for BILLIONS of years all without our help. As pointed out by others above the whole conspiracy about "Carbon Footprints" is absolutely nothing more than a veiled attempt by some people to control other people's actions. Rulers and Minions

[Lake-Effect]

Hating on AGW proponents because...Gore ...is such a straw-man. He was rich before he took office, people would happily pay him as much or more today to just do the rubber chicken circuit and drone about nothing.

He was and continues to be a business millionaire. Only SOSHULISTS! would redistribute his wealth. Are you a SOSHULIST!? And, do you really actually know how he manages his energy? Does he run around the mansion leaving all the lights on? Is his Bentley idling for hours in the garage? Did he flush after a pee and leave the seat up?

Optics, sure, but it's such a stupid argument. There's no winning it. he could subsist on dandelions and bike to his engagements, you'd fault him because it's a nice bike.

Gore's not perfect and not always correct, but he's undeniably doing something positive for the planet, that's pissing off the status quo.

Emissions are still growing everywhere, same as ever.

Maybe it's because of the people lining up to sh!t on anyone wanting to make a difference?

Originally Posted by Dogfish

This is a great point, and, who are we kidding? Raising the price of fossil fuels will raise the cost of just about everything because in one way or another it’s a main component every product we produce everywhere.

This is a succinct reason for not extracting and burning the stuff as fast as possible, wouldn't you agree?

Originally Posted by Dogfish

A little bit more on efficiency. One of the better essays in this book:

Life on the Brink: Environmentalists Confront Overpopulation

is by an older conservationist working in California who looks back at all of the achievements he's made and how they've all been completely negated by population growth. It's well thought out, carefully presented, and an absolutely bulletproof argument for why anything else is the wrong issue.

Can't cite it quickly, but Malthusian predictions of inevitable gross overpopulation followed by starvation and dieback have been dampened recently by the observation that as countries acquire the economic security, benefits and trappings of more developed countries, the birth rate drops.

Anyway, whether you think the imminent problem will be overpopulation or pollution/climate damage, the answer is efficiency. In North America, fully 50% of all produced human food is wasted. We subsidize the growth of corn for fuel (dumb).

There's room for improvement, before we just start arming for the Apocalypse.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Lake's batter ladder is known in reality real world terms as a hammock.

Pass the tinfoil, I have a fish to bake.

[chris95040]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Yes....it IS exactly that....thanks for the comparison, then throw in some income inequality hype, followed by a little spice of anticapitalism, and a dash of socialism....bingo, the perfect witches brew of lies. How do you think these "scientists" pay their bills? Sheesh....some poeple are pretty blind to the way real science works.

Its just astounding what folks are willing to believe.

Scientists pay their bills in many different ways. Their are many, many scientists. That somehow they've all colluded together to destroy our economy with lies about climate change is just patently ridiculous.

For one, this payout you speak of is simply not rational. Falsify evidence that may one day lead to cap &trade, which may one day lead to more funding for a university, which may one day lead to a bigger salary or grant opportunity? Wouldn't it be easier to just do false science for the fossil fuel industry, and get a direct payout? That would be the rational choice for an unscrupulous scientist looking for a payout.

Science is simple - we observe, we hypothesize, we test our predictive ability of our hypothesis, and we throw it out when a better model comes along. Thats science. You should try applying that process to your own life. Its clear that your conclusions are not born of a sober pragmatic process such as this. You let your emotions, your hatred for liberals, your fear of the change, to dictate your beliefs. Scientists aren't out to destroy the economy, they are out to understand the universe. If we can't agree on that theres absolutely no point in further discussion.

[hemetone]

Albee,
Congratulations! After reading all 12 pages of the tread I was thinking "wow this is the most civil global warming discussion I have ever read!" You then post

You were served an eat-**** sandwich because that's what you've been serving in all of your replies.

You post this right after telling Mr. Boren how civil and polite he is? It one thing to disagree with the man (as I mostly do) its another all together to resort to personal attacks and foul language. Grow up and for the benefit of all, if you cant keep it civil then by all means keep your thoughts and posts to yourself.


Thanks

Andy

[capngeo]

Originally Posted by chris95040

We aren't out to get you. We just want you and your pesky outdated American Constitution to get out of the way.

Fixed it for you.....