Climate Change

[Onedaysoon]

A wonderful day thank you Cooper. In the absence of a boat of my own at the moment, a mate of mine has a trailer sailer and it's just great !

Before someone else jumps in, and just to show I'm open to all sides of the debate, check out Former head of CSIRO’s division of space science says global cooling may be on the way « Watts Up With That?
Now before anyone says "told you so", even if we do go through a couple of decades of cooling caused by cycles of variable solar activity, CO2 as the climate forcing factor doesn't go away. I saw earlier a bit of discussion about locking-up CO2 in the oceans. The better (best?) solution is geosequestration - pumping the stuff into permeable formations at depth where there are natural seals to prevent the stuff returning to the surface. At the proposed depths and pressures the CO2 exists as a liquid. Oil and gas have been trapped for several hundred millions of years in reservoirs, so research is being done to see if this is a viable technique for sequestering CO2. Lots of energy required though and it would be a never-ending game of trying to catch-up. We're still screwed.

I've just realised that from my few postings to date, I've contributed more to the discussion about climate change than I have about sailing. That's sad and I apologise

[Boomp]

Wew, and I thought I was alone! When peoples jobs are dependant on propagating fear, I'm suspicious. Global warming is bunk. Its a political football being used as an attempt to control and regulate individual freedoms. I won't disagree that we have an obligation to try and clean up the earth, but when the solution consistently leaves out the idea of the Creator being in the equation, then I turn it off.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Boomp

Wew, and I thought I was alone! When peoples jobs are dependant on propagating fear, I'm suspicious. Global warming is bunk. Its a political football being used as an attempt to control and regulate individual freedoms. I won't disagree that we have an obligation to try and clean up the earth, but when the solution consistently leaves out the idea of the Creator being in the equation, then I turn it off.

Most Christians I know don't expect God to change their baby's dirty diaper (pray all you want, it's still your job).

Just because God hasn’t descended from the clouds and stuck a sign in your face that says “stop Global Warming” doesn’t mean we should sit idly and let God’s creatures die as their climates change drastically.

Just because something bad is happening doesn’t mean it’s part of God’s plan, and we should do nothing to stop it.

I’m not a theologian, nor even religious; but it would seem to me, that caring for the earth would be an act of faith.

As the old joke goes:
A religious man is on the roof of a burning house.
The fire company holds the trampoline and tells him to jump.
He says: "No, God will save me."
A helicopter and lowers a ladder to him and tells him to climb.
He says: "God will save me."
Then the house collapses, he dies and goes to heaven. He asks God why he didn't save him.
God answers: "I sent the fire company and the helicopter. What more did you want?"

[camaraderie]

Gord...with respect... Caring for the earth and global warming are two absolutely different things. One can absolutely care for the earth, wish to reduce pollution and poisons being released in our air and water and habitat being eliminated and still be opposed to the idea that AGW and CO2 reduction are anything to worry about.

Onedaysoon.... Every scientist who has a different viewpoint is somehow tainted by the AGW's as being "unconventional", a nut job or in the pay of big oil. Doesn't matter what the academic credentials are. Your effort to paint it at a 99% consensus level is not supported by the facts. 70%....80% ....sure...but not 99%. And significant #'s of the scientists that participated in the IPCC reports do not support the WHOLE report or ALL the conclusions. As a scientist, you must know that. I heartily agree that the consensus supports AGW. I would also say that the consensus does not matter. Only the truth does.. and science if full of examples of where the consensus was wrong.

I am no scientists but I am competent enough to read the literature and understand what is being said...and have made a point to do so rather intensively for the last year or two.
I will agree with you that much of what is written on line and in the mass media by "deniers" is exaggerated and unscientific crap...just as "An Inconvenient Truth" and much more written (i.e. polar bears etc.) is exaggerated and unscientific crap. Both serve their respective writer's agendas.
Nevertheless...there is good stuff out there too...and increasingly I find real scientists poking big holes in the data and the theory and the models being "adjusted" when the predictions don't work out. I think the general public is also finally becoming more skeptical especially as some of the costs of believing the theory are starting to be driven home and they see the flaws.

[Beausoleil]

Arctic sea ice drops to 2nd lowest level on record

By DAN JOLING, Associated Press Writer Dan Joling, Associated Press Writer – Wed Aug 27, 3:40 am ET
ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Arctic Ocean sea ice has melted to the second lowest minimum since satellite observations began, according to scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Sea ice melt recorded on Monday exceeded the low recorded in 2005, which had held second place.

With several weeks left in the melt season, ice in summer 2008 has a chance to diminish below the record low set last year, according to scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.


The rest of the article is here. Recently, lots of skeptics were convinced that last year's record melt was a fluke, and that early data from this year was pointing to a less-than-record year. Seems evidence now contradicts the skeptics and supports the "Chicken Littles"

My overall take on the global warming issue is simple: whether global warming is anthropocentric or not, the greater issue is our energy supply. Our entire capitalist society is built upon the foundations of cheap energy. It was the discovery of oil in Pennsylvania in the 1850's that kicked the industrial revolution into hyperdrive. And there's no denying the fact than as the world economy grows, we will at some point (may be there already) see declining oil production and increases in the cost of extracting both existing and future reserves.

From a purely economic point of view, we must plan for and eventually begin the transition from an oil-based economy to some other cheaper energy source. In the long run, the foreseeable future, the ultimate energy source will be fusion power. After that, we get into exotic things like quantum vacuum fluctuations, but that's beyond the understanding of most of us mere sailors...

The beneficial side effects of a non carbon-based economy will be a drastic reduction in human contribution to global CO2 levels - assuming we can eliminate clear-cutting and burning tropical and temperate forests for agricultural purposes.

Oh yeah - and ramp up nuclear power generation in the mean time. And upgrade the US' absolutely archaic electric distribution system. I'm as free-market as they come, but there needs to be some kind of carrot or a big stick to get the electric utilities to get off their collective kiesters and do something about it. Loosen the nuclear permitting process. There are times when shareholders have to put up with a few years of nagging returns in order to benefit in the long run. Stop thinking near-term. We need to think generationally...

And finally - do something about the dismal level of common-sense and scientific education in the US. This nonsense about giving ID equal footing with natural selection and evolution in our science and biology curriculum has got to stop.

So - is there any faction left here I haven't managed to offend?

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by Beausoleil

My overall take on the global warming issue is simple: whether global warming is anthropocentric or not, the greater issue is our energy supply. Our entire capitalist society is built upon the foundations of cheap energy. It was the discovery of oil in Pennsylvania in the 1850's that kicked the industrial revolution into hyperdrive. And there's no denying the fact than as the world economy grows, we will at some point (may be there already) see declining oil production and increases in the cost of extracting both existing and future reserves.

From a purely economic point of view, we must plan for and eventually begin the transition from an oil-based economy to some other cheaper energy source. In the long run, the foreseeable future, the ultimate energy source will be fusion power. After that, we get into exotic things like quantum vacuum fluctuations, but that's beyond the understanding of most of us mere sailors...

The beneficial side effects of a non carbon-based economy will be a drastic reduction in human contribution to global CO2 levels - assuming we can eliminate clear-cutting and burning tropical and temperate forests for agricultural purposes.

Oh yeah - and ramp up nuclear power generation in the mean time. And upgrade the US' absolutely archaic electric distribution system. I'm as free-market as they come, but there needs to be some kind of carrot or a big stick to get the electric utilities to get off their collective kiesters and do something about it. Loosen the nuclear permitting process. There are times when shareholders have to put up with a few years of nagging returns in order to benefit in the long run. Stop thinking near-term. We need to think generationally...

And finally - do something about the dismal level of common-sense and scientific education in the US. This nonsense about giving ID equal footing with natural selection and evolution in our science and biology curriculum has got to stop.

So - is there any faction left here I haven't managed to offend?

I almost agree with you. The (unfortunate) fact is that there is absolutely no shortage in oil or coal. Neither will run out for ~two generations, even at the present rate of growth and consumption. Simply burning it all (or at least the economically extractable), will cause expensive shifts in climate that will represent a very large opportunity cost (building new infrastructure) at the expense of economic growth. I'm with you 100% on the need to streamline nuclear and add appropriate carrot and stick mechanisms. If France can go 80% nuclear, and the US is already 20% nuclear, let's push for that 'missing' 60%, mostly in new capacity growth.

I don't think vacuum fluctuations would get us much in terms of major energy production, but there's some pretty interesting research being done utilizing the Casimir effect on the submicro-electronic scale, if you're interested...

[Trim50]

Plain and simple fact...oil is too precious to waste on transportation.

[Chief Engineer]

you will learn to understand that they are striving to make us fearful, lay a guilt trip on us....because they have an agenda to dominate us.

Al Gore is not doing what he does out of some "higher calling"
he is doing it for his and his partners pockets.

Man is such an arrogant beast.......we can't control rivers, we can't control weather, we can't control tides or daylight......but we can change the climate? Bull.

Originally Posted by Beausoleil

Arctic sea ice drops to 2nd lowest level on record

By DAN JOLING, Associated Press Writer Dan Joling, Associated Press Writer – Wed Aug 27, 3:40 am ET
ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Arctic Ocean sea ice has melted to the second lowest minimum since satellite observations began, according to scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Sea ice melt recorded on Monday exceeded the low recorded in 2005, which had held second place.

With several weeks left in the melt season, ice in summer 2008 has a chance to diminish below the record low set last year, according to scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.


The rest of the article is here. Recently, lots of skeptics were convinced that last year's record melt was a fluke, and that early data from this year was pointing to a less-than-record year. Seems evidence now contradicts the skeptics and supports the "Chicken Littles"

My overall take on the global warming issue is simple: whether global warming is anthropocentric or not, the greater issue is our energy supply. Our entire capitalist society is built upon the foundations of cheap energy. It was the discovery of oil in Pennsylvania in the 1850's that kicked the industrial revolution into hyperdrive. And there's no denying the fact than as the world economy grows, we will at some point (may be there already) see declining oil production and increases in the cost of extracting both existing and future reserves.

From a purely economic point of view, we must plan for and eventually begin the transition from an oil-based economy to some other cheaper energy source. In the long run, the foreseeable future, the ultimate energy source will be fusion power. After that, we get into exotic things like quantum vacuum fluctuations, but that's beyond the understanding of most of us mere sailors...

The beneficial side effects of a non carbon-based economy will be a drastic reduction in human contribution to global CO2 levels - assuming we can eliminate clear-cutting and burning tropical and temperate forests for agricultural purposes.

Oh yeah - and ramp up nuclear power generation in the mean time. And upgrade the US' absolutely archaic electric distribution system. I'm as free-market as they come, but there needs to be some kind of carrot or a big stick to get the electric utilities to get off their collective kiesters and do something about it. Loosen the nuclear permitting process. There are times when shareholders have to put up with a few years of nagging returns in order to benefit in the long run. Stop thinking near-term. We need to think generationally...

And finally - do something about the dismal level of common-sense and scientific education in the US. This nonsense about giving ID equal footing with natural selection and evolution in our science and biology curriculum has got to stop.

So - is there any faction left here I haven't managed to offend?

Originally Posted by Trim50

Plain and simple fact...oil is too precious to waste on transportation.

[Onedaysoon]

Camaraderie, I can't let it pass..... when I first used 99% in an earlier post (yesterday) I made it quite clear it was a figure of speech. I don't know the real figure, nor do you. From my knowledge of the views of a large range af scientists, including many working on climate realted issues, I'd certainly say it's certainly more than 80% though, and I'd hazard a guess at 95%. Maybe someone should canvass all the climatology staff at a sample of universities? That would provide interesting input to the debate. I wouldn't say that any working scientist is "a nut job", but wires in an intelligent person can become crossed and it's sometimes difficult for a non-specialist to appreciate when an articulate and persuassive genius is veering over that fine line to delusion. Even amongst the delusional stuff real sparks of genuine brilliance can arise. I agree with your statement that not all of the authors of the IPCC report agree with all of the conclusions and statements. But the work is a compilation of disparate studies and inputs into various working groups. If you look at the working group level I think you'll find that there is much less disagreement from the contributors to those specific working groups with regards to conclusions (IMHO).

Beausoleil, I agree with everything you say about energy supply needs.

[Boomp]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Most Christians I know don't expect God to change their baby's dirty diaper (pray all you want, it's still your job).

That was not the implication.

Just because God hasn’t descended from the clouds and stuck a sign in your face that says “stop Global Warming” doesn’t mean we should sit idly and let God’s creatures die as their climates change drastically.

psst he is not going to descend, but it is nice to hear you believe in God.

Just because something bad is happening doesn’t mean it’s part of God’s plan, and we should do nothing to stop it.

Its not God's plan...in this system bad things happen

I’m not a theologian, nor even religious; but it would seem to me, that caring for the earth would be an act of faith.

I'm not a theologian...but doubt you know what Faith really is...and I'm not here to tell you. To simplify what I initially said. Its dumb to not consider the Creator in the equation for fixing things. I'm not interested in anyones opinion who thinks otherwise.

Your joke? I'm the one holding the trampoline.

[birgekr]

My view on climate change is basically this: If our best meteorologists cannot tell us with any degree of accuracy what the weather is going to be in 1 week, how can we possibly think they can tell us what it is going to be in 50 or 100 years?...

It makes absolutely no sense to change the way we have been doing things for the last 100 years or so and wreak untold economic havoc around the world (trillions of dollars, literally) based on unproven theories. The earth's climate has always changed, and always will. One large volcanic eruption puts more CO2 and particulate matter into the atmosphere than all the cars on earth running for years! Are we going to try to stop volcanos from erupting now? What's next, Beano for cows? (to reduce methane, another greenhouse gas)

Remember folks, scientific research does not work the way it once did. Scientists are trying to make a living like the rest of us poor schmucks, and most money for research comes from grants. If you are doing research for an environmental group with an agenda, are you going to tell them anything they don't want to hear? Not if you don't want to be blackballed by the rest of those organizations paying out research grants. Not if you are soon to be applying for tenure at the university where you teach.

Go on You Tube and type in "Global Warming Hoax". There are several good videos debunking Global Warming.

Let's use a little common sense for once.

Ken

[anotherT34C]

Onedaysoon, I'd argue that it's not good enough to simply canvass the climatology staff (lots of tenured old codgers who don't do anything, but have an opinion). One needs to look at the body of work that is serious enough to make it into publication. If you're not an expert, I'd further argue that you need to look exclusively at the published work. Anyone who works in a scientific field knows that expertise is extremely narrow (a point outsiders don't get). Review and publication, though not a perfect system, are an excellent tool (maybe the only tool) for those of us considering the veracity of a scientific claim outside of our own narrow expertise.

As an example, I did my own PhD on "J/Psi suppression in high energy quark-gluon plasmas at RHIC". I'm one of the world's leading experts on that (hooray for me). Ask for my opinion on a related subject, like say "symmetry breaking in QCD", and my level of expertise is similar to that of any physics BSc holder (which is to say, not much). This is why I don't care what the channel4 weatherman has to say about climatology, or what the geologist has to say about coral reefs.

[Onedaysoon]

anotherT34C: I agree that it's not enough to simply canvass the climatology staff; that was a bit of a throwaway idea, but it would be a simple thing to do and it would have some value for demonstrating at a simple level what the consensus opinion is. Even old codgers are entitled to their opinion, and it's likely to be more informed than a lay opinion. I took it as a given that if you look exclusively at published work the vast majority of it is providing evidence for anthrogenically induced climate change. I'll spend a couple of hours looking to see if this has been done already in a proper study, but from my reading of the literature it's quite clear what the consensus is. Of course this isn't going to satisfy the nay-sayers, as demonstrated by the arguments here.

A particular problem is that which you quite rightly identify - viz. people stepping outside of their sphere of expertise. Now my own MSc/PhD is in Geology and Hydrogeology, but for the past twenty-odd years I've been doing inter-disciplinary research work in Earth Systems Science, trying to take advantage of the bredth of knowledge that exists and integrating it. It includes long-term climate studies. So I'd say I'm a jack-of-all-trades and a master of none. I don't proclaim to be a climate expert and I'm just voicing my opinions, but they are reasonably informed. I'm not demanding to be heard or believed; as I said earlier everything that we are debating here is at the end of the day dependant on opinion - and I respect yours as much as anyone else's.

Even though the data on changing CO2 levels in the atmosphere since industrialisation is clear, and even though the majority of models demonstrate rising global temperatures (with all its ramifications) I accept the inherent uncertainty in climate projections (which is reducing IMHO), but Gordon very eloquently demonstrated in an earlier post why it's better to be safe than sorry giving the magnitude of the potential impacts - and I agree with him. I certainly don't advocate a pre-industrial existance, and I don't believe that developed countries should cripple themselves economically while China and India disregard any conventions or other obligations. Which is why I got really pissed off when it is implied that all scientists are on the take or that just because you "believe" anthrogenically induced greenhouse gas warming to be real you must be some sort of raving leftie environmentalist nut job.

[camaraderie]

Beausoleil...what that article and the fearmongers conveniently leave out of that article is:
1. The ice has RECOVERED by approximately 800,000sq. kilometers compared to the exact same day last year. Look for yourself.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...urrent.365.jpg

2. The ice record they are referring to is 30 years of history.
Here it is. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...timeseries.jpg
Is that enough to KNOW what the right ice level is? We have records of people making the northwest passage in the 1920's. What was the ice level then? We don't know.

3. Last years NASA release says that much of the melt was due to a current shift even though Nasa/Hansen support AGW.
NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face
November 13, 2007 PASADENA, Calif. – A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming. ....
JPL.NASA.GOV: News Releases

Just like in politics...it's all in the reporting. Objective journalism....NOT!

[Chief Engineer]

Scientific Method...we we not taught that in school?

Seems like a lot of "scientists" are working off of degrees that they earned from the back page of the National Enquirer