Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tom Danley]

Hi Tony

Hey, don’t get the wrong idea, man is effecting the environment in endless ways, many ways like pollution are not good.  My point is, this is also an emotional issue which makes it a good vehicle politically, who could be in favor of climate change right?

“Whatever catastrophe that may or may not happen is just going to happen anyway - so why even bother?”

Well that works for some but here since the research has been done and is on going, the issue is more of interpretation of the data and understanding of the system.

“Even if the dynamics of the change and the periodicity of the changes are (or are not) radically altered by human industrial activity?

- Besides, we now have the Chinese to blame.”

Lets assume man can /has altered the natural cycle of change, lets say we have sped up what it appears we are due for.
Ok, now what?
These cycles have come and gone well before the industrial age, these times of warming have all had large increases of CO2 gas from the increase in rotting vegetation and release of methane from methane ice.
Lets say it’s clear as day happening.
What the past curves suggest is that there is a rather short very warm period and then a very long partial ice age.   Do we focus on reducing our CO2 emissions 25% in hopes of reducing the trajectory of change or do we start preparing for the centuries  of unlimited air-conditioning, when burning coal and green house gas becomes your friend again?

So far as China, India and other massive populations just now tasting coke and dreaming of a car, these populations represent massive increases in pollution, in energy demand.
Conceptually one could explain to them that “we” have already polluted the atmosphere to the point of harm so “you” can’t have a car, a fire and your breath contains a gas classified as a pollutant, SO STOP, like we have.

Realistically what are the choices, if reducing our CO2 emission by 20% cost 20% of our economy, is it worth it?

Lastly, there are “little complications” in this, for example during the Al Gore global warming days, NASA noticed that the caps on Mars and another planet (can’t recall which) had shrunk, this was showing “global warming” (suggesting these changes are caused by variations in the Suns ouput). This was rather quietly released as it contradicted with the “official” position.  

The last few years have been unusually cool too, John’s link referred to record ice thicknesses,  that cool trend may be linked to a lower than average sun spot activity and some fear that is related to a magnetic pole shift in the upcoming future.
The last complication is the earth climate has always been changing; the deserts were swamps once, the poles were tropical forests and superimposed on all that is the chaotic variations that occur for reasons beyond weather prediction and who’s natural magnitude is unknown due to the limited time we have sufficient records.

“Don't those commie, left wing "supposedly scientific" liberals know that CO2 is already in the atmosphere. Ha! They are too dumb to realize it's already in the atmosphere! (This line of argument works very well among the missing-teeth set.)”

Ah, you caught the traces of sarcasm.

“So why bother? Just like the debates in the 50s about dumping raw sewage into the watershed. "It's just natural. Quantity is irrelevant"

SO2 occurs naturally. Volcanoes spew it. So we can spew it as well!


Freon and other CFCs are natural as well.


Wow, I am not sure how you could draw that from what I wrote in any case you misunderstood my point.

It's all "natural" - Debate over!”
Some of the most deadly poisons of all are “all natural” so at least they could put that on the label haha.

“Remember those forests upwind of the steel plants! The dead trees, in such a precisely defined pattern - that too was only coincidental.
Quantity is again, irrelevant!”

The humor you missed but your spot on it is the quantity, the big picture, in the case of CO2, it is parts per million and how much that fraction has changed.

“It is sad - because the rest of us who would like to know any scientific basis for the claims are often met with the very histrionics that you are repeating. This happens on both sides of the discussion BTW.”

Exactly right, the problem is you have two sides who are financially tied to the issue, those who raise money fighting for change and those who raise money fighting to prevent change.  Just like the past battles for the “pro-life /  pro choice” for the endowment for the arts funding and so many other things, it usually turns out that both sides oppose any real resolution as it ends the viability of the issue as a vehicle.
I am not denying there is an issue here, it is simply very complicated, entangled in politics and fund raising and reality may be in fact probably is different than what is projected to the masses.

Best,
Tom

[Tony "T" Tissot]

John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Sun, 19 April 2009 19:03

I'm not sure what your point is. You demand rigor than throw in your own straw man, or red herring, or whatever the high school debate team is calls such constructs. (I don't pretend to be rigorous or interested in word play). Tom's point is well taken that this is an ideal vehicle for accumulating administrative power over people and industry, so one should be suspicious of motive when the science is less than clear cut. The link I started this off with today shows antarctic sheet ice getting thicker on one end of the continent while thinner on the other. Of course the spectacular images presented in the emotional appeals only show the one end.. I am not smart enough to know all the answers, but I am smart enough to know when I should be suspicious and looking for fakirs among the holier than me. JR

Actually - no. I didn't throw in any additional "strawmen" or "Red Herrings."

It's the "holier than me" argument that always makes these discussions political.

If you are forced to view this through a political lens, you may have missed Tom's original point (as he restated):

"the issue is more of interpretation of the data and understanding of the system"

Of that, he is 100% accurate. I honestly don't disagree with that. I may disagree with a conclusion on how to proceed.

Or if to proceed.

But I do disagree - very strongly - with comparisons to outliers, such as O2, or water vapor concentrations as a valid part of any debate. And I do disagree with painting the issue as "liberal versus conservative."

It is a complex topic, without any economically viable resolution in my most humble opinion. A plurality of "real scientists, peer-reviewed" agree that any mitigation cost - if it's even possible to mitigate - or even necessary to mitigate - is untenable - economically, socially and politically.

So what to do?:

The science is actually pretty clear cut, as a thesis. At least as to source, and to volume. Definitely not as to permanent effect. But a thesis is a thesis.

What can't be answered - yet - is what constitutes a "tipping point," and if in fact there is some "point of no return."

So the conversation often devolves into the red herring of: "accumulating administrative power over people and industry," as if that is in fact - fact. That's political BS. Lordy lordy, they just want to regulate you more. Lordy lordy, if CO2 is regulated you've lost some fundamental freedom.

And what to do about it? My opinion is meaningless.

As for the political difficulty of "telling" the Chinese and Indians that "they can't do what the western countries have done" is also beyond my ability.

[John Chiara]

<<What can't be answered - yet - is what constitutes a "tipping point," and if in fact there is some "point of no return.">>

I think we might judge a normal cyclical ice age as a "tipping Point"....but since this has happened throughout the past so many hundreds of thousands of years..many times..does defining the "tipping Point" have any value?

<<So the conversation often devolves into the red herring of: "accumulating administrative power over people and industry," as if that is in fact - fact. That's political BS. Lordy lordy, they just want to regulate you more. Lordy lordy, if CO2 is regulated you've lost some fundamental freedom.>>

This seems to me where the value lies because the argument seems to be just that...get control over all this stuff and save the world....maybe? Without considering the potential cost at each step of the argument seems to me like getting people to invest in a business with no plan, no control, drastically disagreeing partners, not enough capital..yet an urgency to move ahead quickly because the opportunity won't last. Shady business is shady business.


<<As for the political difficulty of "telling" the Chinese and Indians that "they can't do what the western countries have done" is also beyond my ability.>>

Beyond all of our abilities..and probably our right also.

[John Chiara]

Is there a source to get numbers on greenhouse gases..meaning  actual percentages and increases/decreases.?
john

[Tony "T" Tissot]

There are many competing sources.

The Natural Gas lobby has an interesting discussion of the various topics. Including: "81.2 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States in 2000 came from carbon dioxide directly attributable to the combustion of fossil fuels." as an attributed quote from the last administration's EPA.

http://www.naturalgas.org/environment/naturalgas.asp#greenho use

The Natural Gas lobby makes a compelling case that Natural Gas emits far less CO2 than oil or coal.

These are free-market business folks (oil-men!) who agree with the assertion that CO2 - and other noxious byproducts of consumption,  may cause problems, and are lobbying us all to adopt cleaner power sources.

As for an additional source:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html

With a simple chart - 1751 to 2002 - as to quantity of out gassing caused by industry.

But you really have to surf to find comparative numbers to what constitutes "background, natural" production of CO2.

EPA does provide a nod to the World Resources Institute's Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT).

I have no knowledge or opinion of the veracity of the data or credibility of the organization. But this link is a holdover from the last administration, so I assume it is free from the taint of some possible partisan attack.

[Ryan Lantzy]

From Wikipedia:

Total energy use in one year from burning fossil fuels:

4.5e20 J

Total energy from the Sun striking the Earth's surface per year:

5.5e24 J

If you added up all the energy burned in fossil fuels since the industrial revolution, it would not equal the output of the Sun striking the Earth in one year.

Sun wins, case closed.

[Tony "T" Tissot]

Ryan Lantzy wrote on Sun, 19 April 2009 22:37

From Wikipedia: Total energy use in one year from burning fossil fuels: 4.5e20 J Total energy from the Sun striking the Earth's surface per year: 5.5e24 J If you added up all the energy burned in fossil fuels since the industrial revolution, it would not equal the output of the Sun striking the Earth in one year. Sun wins, case closed.

Hilarious!

Photons (the effect of) do have significant byproducts after entering our atmosphere.

The out-gassing from the combustion that occurs on the Sun is not within our atmosphere, and is impossible to correlate to the out-gassing that burning fossil fuels within our atmosphere has - by simply comparing raw energy numbers.

Think of it as an extension cord from 93 million miles away.

[John Chiara]

Tony "T" Tissot wrote on Mon, 20 April 2009 01:23

There are many competing sources. The Natural Gas lobby has an interesting discussion of the various topics. Including: "81.2 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States in 2000 came from carbon dioxide directly attributable to the combustion of fossil fuels." as an attributed quote from the last administration's EPA.  http://www.naturalgas.org/environment/naturalgas.asp#greenho use The Natural Gas lobby makes a compelling case that Natural Gas emits far less CO2 than oil or coal. These are free-market business folks (oil-men!) who agree with the assertion that CO2 - and other noxious byproducts of consumption,  may cause problems, and are lobbying us all to adopt cleaner power sources. As for an additional source: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html With a simple chart - 1751 to 2002 - as to quantity of out gassing caused by industry. But you really have to surf to find comparative numbers to what constitutes "background, natural" production of CO2. EPA does provide a nod to the World Resources Institute's Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT). I have no knowledge or opinion of the veracity of the data or credibility of the organization. But this link is a holdover from the last administration, so I assume it is free from the taint of some possible partisan attack.

The charts are helpful...just need a comparison to the actual amount of these gases naturally occuring. So many tons sounds like a lot but if the total number is a billion times that I don't know.
John

[Nick Boulton]

Ahem,

Quote:

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

Maximum != Average

[John Roberts {JR}]

Tony "T" Tissot wrote on Sun, 19 April 2009 22:22

Actually - no. I didn't throw in any additional "strawmen" or "Red Herrings." It's the "holier than me" argument that always makes these discussions political. If you are forced to view this through a political lens, you may have missed Tom's original point (as he restated): "the issue is more of interpretation of the data and understanding of the system"

That is the $64T question. I have been paying attention to the environmental through a scientific or technical lens for most of my adult life. This global surface temperature is in some ways quite simple (it's the sun), and in other ways too complex and chaotic to grasp (no it's the volcanoes, smoke, meteorites, air conditioners, water vapor, ocean surface absorption/reflectivity, ice cover absorption/reflectivity, etc ). Lots of moving parts.

Quote:

Of that, he is 100% accurate. I honestly don't disagree with that. I may disagree with a conclusion on how to proceed. Or if to proceed. But I do disagree - very strongly - with comparisons to outliers, such as O2, or water vapor concentrations as a valid part of any debate. And I do disagree with painting the issue as "liberal versus conservative."

The well being of our environment should not be a conservative or liberal issue, but there are definite differences in perspective, especially from the extremes of these two groups.  I am a little reluctant to put words in people's mouths but the extreme liberal viewpoint seems that we should all be riding bicycles to work and lets clamp down on energy use so mother earth can keep her coal and oil. The extreme conservative viewpoint is no viewpoint.. let the market decide

Quote:

It is a complex topic, without any economically viable resolution in my most humble opinion. A plurality of "real scientists, peer-reviewed" agree that any mitigation cost - if it's even possible to mitigate - or even necessary to mitigate - is untenable - economically, socially and politically. So what to do?: The science is actually pretty clear cut, as a thesis. At least as to source, and to volume. Definitely not as to permanent effect. But a thesis is a thesis. What can't be answered - yet - is what constitutes a "tipping point," and if in fact there is some "point of no return."

Despite your "call to authority" I don't find this science very clear cut at all. "Tipping point" ? "Point of no return"? What do you think is going to happen...? We feel like we understand the several mechanisms by themselves, Some cause increased heat capture, some cause increase heat loss, some both. These are not only very complex but interact in complex ways.

I recall a recent report that the Amazon rain forest, the tree huggers gold standard as a carbon sink,  was actually adding carbon to the atmosphere (due to recent drought). Human activity to mitigate change that we don't really understand has perhaps a 50-50 chance of working.  

Another question that few are asking, is this really something we "should" try to manage. It seems responsible that we humans shouldn't change the temperature of the earth's surface, but what temperature precisely should this be?

If the cost of trying wasn't so dear, this would not be worthy of so much discussion.   That said the magnitude of the cost, doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue this, if we truly understand the science and consequences of not mitigating this. My concern is that our leaders are embracing this as something that is proved and committing huge resources.

I would love to hear some definitive science on this but the smartest people I know share my uncertainty. The people who appear most certain, are not inspiring to me.

Quote:

So the conversation often devolves into the red herring of: "accumulating administrative power over people and industry," as if that is in fact - fact. That's political BS. Lordy lordy, they just want to regulate you more. Lordy lordy, if CO2 is regulated you've lost some fundamental freedom. And what to do about it? My opinion is meaningless. As for the political difficulty of "telling" the Chinese and Indians that "they can't do what the western countries have done" is also beyond my ability.

One man's red herring is another's important point. I find in observing the behavior of our legislative and executive branches that "power" is the primary pursuit of so many. In addition to the power from spending huge sums of money, legislating and administering restrictive rules that touch almost every segment of industry (energy usage) will be a cash cow that keeps on giving.

This alone is not reason to dismiss this pursuit, but I never assume altruism from our elected representatives, especially this recent congress and administration.

As I have offered before, I don't know what we should do, but I have a very uneasy feeling that they don't know either.

JR