Global warming debunked

[Hespera]

Any time, canukian.

 

[chaim]

I think you misunderstand what Susan Solomon is saying. She is NOT saying that temperatures are going to stay constant for the next 1000 years. Rather she is saying that it will take a 1000 years for the damage we do to repair itself. The implication being we need to reduce our carbon emissions NOW, because we are committing our self to the what ever warming we cause for a long long time.

Secondly I am fairly sure the term 'global warmist' doesn't exist. Hyperbole such as "the man who invented global warming" doesn't incline anyone to take you seriously.

Not Cool Anymore
Although America in 2000 passed up an opportunity to elect the man who invented global warming, eight years later we handed a decisive presidential victory to an avowed global warmist. And while the message of Barack Obama's candidacy on this subject was a bit muddled--he was for "change," while global warmists say they want to stop "climate" change--there is a widespread belief that the voters handed President Obama a mandate to "do something" about global warming.
A poll released last week by the Pew Research Center, however, calls this into question. In the New York Times's "Dot Earth" blog, Andrew Revkin described the findings:

According to the survey of 1,503 adults, global warming, on its own, ranks last out of 20 surveyed issues. . . .​

Although the more general issue of protecting the environment ranked higher than climate (named by 41 percent of the poll subjects) that figure was 15 percentage points lower than in the same poll a year ago.​

Revkin also links to a Rasmussen survey that finds Americans increasingly skeptical about the science behind global warmism:

Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity. . . .​

In July 2006, 46% of voters said global warming is caused primarily by human activities, while 35% said it is due to long-term planetary trends.​

Why have global warmists lost ground with the public? One obvious reason is the recession. "The economy" and "jobs" top the Pew list of top priorities, and both have increased sharply over the past couple of years. People who are afraid of something real--losing their jobs or the value of their assets--have little energy left for esoteric and hypothetical terrors.
Another reason is that it is really cold out. Past Pew surveys were also taken in January, so that the figures can be construed as seasonally adjusted, but this has been an especially harsh winter, which seems to provide experiential evidence against the claims of global warmism.
Of course, this feeling is illusory: Weather is different from climate, and it is possible to have cold winters even amid a long-term trend toward hotter weather--just as, for example, the stock market has down days during a bull market.
Global warmists, however, have squandered their credibility in making this point, because they never fail to seize on a hurricane or a sweltering summer day as "evidence" to make their case. In fact, so cynical is the public about the claims of global warmists that the clichéd response to a pleasant winter day is, "If this is global warming, bring it on."
An additional problem is that whereas global warmists are emotionally consistent--in a constant state of alarm, accompanied by contempt, even hatred, for those who dare ask questions--their claims are filled with logical inconsistencies. A reader spotted a hilarious example in this Los Angeles Times article:

Even if by some miracle of environmental activism global carbon dioxide levels reverted to pre-industrial levels, it still would take 1,000 years or longer for the climate changes already triggered to be reversed, scientists said Monday.​

The gas that is already there and the heat that has been absorbed by the ocean will exert their effects for centuries, according to the analysis, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.​

Over the long haul, the warming will melt the polar icecaps more than previously had been estimated, raising ocean levels substantially, the report said.​

And changes in rainfall patterns will bring droughts comparable to those that caused the 1930s Dust Bowl to the American Southwest, southern Europe, northern Africa and western Australia.​

"People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide, the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 years," lead author Susan Solomon, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said in a telephone news conference. "That's not true." . . .​

Solomon said in a statement that absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans and release of heat from the oceans - the one process acting to cool the Earth and the other to warm it--will "work against each other to keep temperatures almost constant for more than 1,000 years."​

Is it absolutely crucial to the planet's future that we curtail greenhouse gases this instant, or would it not make any difference anyway? If the latter, what sense does it make to be alarmed? And that last quote by Solomon is a classic head-scratcher. We're supposed to worry that temperatures will be "almost constant for more than 1,000 years"? That's what they mean by global warming?
Weather forecast for the year 3009: Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

 

[canukian]

chaim did you knowtice the costs and benifits at the first post?

 

[chaim]

The first post is a blog, that lies in the title of the article (the "expert" does not work for NASA and in no way represents the scientific findings of NASA) which makes me suspect of the rest of the content.

If you would like to read an article on the cost/benefit analysis of fighting climate change, I would recommend a analysis that doesn't lie to you in the title such as:
http://www.cier.umd.edu/documents/U... Climate Change and the Costs of Inaction.pdf

chaim did you knowtice the costs and benifits at the first post?

 

[canukian]

that is to say tens of trillions of dollars for a 1% change...i do not believe all people who want carbon emissions slamed believe thier retoric...it is purely a play for power for having powers sake.

 

[canukian]

just glanced at that report and for some reason the words soviet 5 year plan sprang to mind...ya i recon the people who produced that report are seeking power for its own sake

 

[chaim]

I am fairly certain the three environmental science researchers at the University of Maryland that wrote the report aren't out for world domination. I also like the fact that they don't feel the need to lie to support their position.

just glanced at that report and for some reason the words soviet 5 year plan sprang to mind...ya i recon the people who produced that report are seeking power for its own sake

 

[OldManAnon]

Yes, the carbon is in the atmosphere now. It'll take 1000 years to fully break down. Can you understand why it would then be a good thing to stop dumping it into the atmosphere sooner rather then later? You have two options:

a) Bah, let people in the future worry about it. Let's paaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarty! Note, this approach rarely works in the medium/long term. Look at the current deficit spending craze and the economic problems it's causing.
b) You know, we should try and limit the amount of potentially devastating long term damage we do.

***
ETA: I'd also like to point out that once again Chaim has pointed directly to a lab and research group that's specialized in climatology whereas the denial side has linked to blogs and opinion pieces (at least one of which includes outright lies in their first paragraph and the second has been shown to quote mine Ms. Solomon).

 

[canukian]

considering the cost would be tens of trillions of dollars for a super small effect that would take 1000 years to manifest,can you think of a better,more immidiate use for that money?

 

[chaim]

I don't think you get it. It will not take 1000s of years to manifest. Climate change is going on right NOW, this is why 9 out of the 10 hottest years even happened this century. Secondly, as the study I cited pointed out, the cost of avoiding future climate change is MUCH lower than the costs that future climate change will cause.

Have you stopped changing the oil in your car because you have a better immediate use for that money?

considering the cost would be tens of trillions of dollars for a super small effect that would take 1000 years to manifest,can you think of a better,more immidiate use for that money?

 

[Tenka]

considering the cost would be tens of trillions of dollars for a super small effect that would take 1000 years to manifest,can you think of a better,more immidiate use for that money?

What is this "tens of trillions of dollars" figure you keep mentioning?

 

[rambot]

It's funny how climatologists and other scientists have risen about the inanity of the global warming debate and are already coming up with new ideas to deal with global warming and it's effects:
http://www.physorg.com/news73232195.html

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal...riment-begins-despite-protests_100148610.html

I can understand why everyone is booming on about CO2 but methane is a far bigger problem and, if heaven forbid, the methane trapped in the Arctic gets released, we're in a for a positive feedback system that will create some SERIOUS trouble.


As for spending "10s of trillions", the cost to fight GW need not be NEARLY that high. It's an aversion to change that propogates that myth. Sound investments in green technology (whether it be cleaner burning coal or alternative nrg, whatever), and the wonder of American ingenuity could save the planet if the ignorant people stopped holding back the rest of the country.

 

[[serious]]

It's funny how climatologists and other scientists have risen about the inanity of the global warming debate and are already coming up with new ideas to deal with global warming and it's effects:
http://www.physorg.com/news73232195.html

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal...riment-begins-despite-protests_100148610.html

I can understand why everyone is booming on about CO2 but methane is a far bigger problem and, if heaven forbid, the methane trapped in the Arctic gets released, we're in a for a positive feedback system that will create some SERIOUS trouble.


As for spending "10s of trillions", the cost to fight GW need not be NEARLY that high. It's an aversion to change that propogates that myth. Sound investments in green technology (whether it be cleaner burning coal or alternative nrg, whatever), and the wonder of American ingenuity could save the planet if the ignorant people stopped holding back the rest of the country.

There are a couple reasons methane isn't quite as big a focus:
1. sudden methane release would be a triggered event from other warming factors. Think of a gun, the bullet might be what does the damage, but the trigger is what you don't want to pull.
2. much less methane is produced than CO2. Though due to the relative strength on CH4, the anthropogenic warming from it does reach about 1/3 that of CO2
3. Methane has a ery short residence time in the atmosphere. CO2 is much more stable and will stick around for longer.

 

[atomweaver]

What is this "tens of trillions of dollars" figure you keep mentioning?

Its his big, made up, pulled from the sky figure that is used to scare people into agreeing with his POV.

If you're going to just make up a number, why stop at trillions? I like the sound of
quintillions of dollarses!!111!111eleventyone!!


Yeah, that'll scare 'em.

Even if it is a big number, if its an investment that gives a decent ROI and a decrease in carbon footprint, what is the problem? Conservatives get a brain-market disconnect over energy conservation and independent energy investment, most probably because its an historical battleground with extreme liberals. All that business, free market and financial savvy they normally attribute to themselves goes out the window on this topic. Why is completely beyond me... but that's fine, I'll happily be one of the people to make money building independent energy infrastructure. They can sit on the sidelines and Eeyore all they want.

Energy conservation saves businesses big money today, just like it does individuals, which makes both employer and employee more competitive in a global marketplace. Measures like these are especially important to well-developed countries with high labor costs, like for example oh I dunno... The United States of America, maybe? I enjoy a great career on the basis of saving certain US domestic manufacturing businesses lots of money, primarily by reducing the energy demands of their process. It keeps them competitive against cheap Pac-Rim labor, and they in turn keep employing locals.

Achieving energy independence would result in improved domestic security. Why give away your hard-earned money to nations that would just as soon send it back your way cashed into the currency of violence, when the wind blowing and the sun shining on your face in your own backyard is free?
And here's the kicker; developing independent domestic energy requires labor. For example, wind turbine blades like this;

...don't build themselves, and they arent' imported from China, either, Jack. That's a 114 feet worth of Made from Scratch in the US of A goodness, right there, headed down a US road to provide US citizens with US-generated power, and sending back profits to investors in a US company.

Energy investment means jobs. Lots of jobs. And when you are developing domestic energy, its a total oxymoron to ever consider sending that job overseas.

Riddle me this, canuckian; I'd like to know when, if ever, a power infrastructure employee thought "gee, I hope my job doesn't get outsourced to India..."

 

[Hespera]

Its his big, made up, pulled from the sky figure that is used to scare people into agreeing with his POV.

If you're going to just make up a number, why stop at trillions? I like the sound of
quintillions of dollarses!!111!111eleventyone!!


Yeah, that'll scare 'em.

Even if it is a big number, if its an investment that gives a decent ROI and a decrease in carbon footprint, what is the problem? Conservatives get a brain-market disconnect over energy conservation and independent energy investment, most probably because its an historical battleground with extreme liberals. All that business, free market and financial savvy they normally attribute to themselves goes out the window on this topic. Why is completely beyond me... but that's fine, I'll happily be one of the people to make money building independent energy infrastructure. They can sit on the sidelines and Eeyore all they want.

Energy conservation saves businesses big money today, just like it does individuals, which makes both employer and employee more competitive in a global marketplace. Measures like these are especially important to well-developed countries with high labor costs, like for example oh I dunno... The United States of America, maybe? I enjoy a great career on the basis of saving certain US domestic manufacturing businesses lots of money, primarily by reducing the energy demands of their process. It keeps them competitive against cheap Pac-Rim labor, and they in turn keep employing locals.

Achieving energy independence would result in improved domestic security. Why give away your hard-earned money to nations that would just as soon send it back your way cashed into the currency of violence, when the wind blowing and the sun shining on your face in your own backyard is free?
And here's the kicker; developing independent domestic energy requires labor. For example, wind turbine blades like this;

...don't build themselves, and they arent' imported from China, either, Jack. That's a 114 feet worth of Made from Scratch in the US of A goodness, right there, headed down a US road to provide US citizens with US-generated power, and sending back profits to investors in a US company.

Energy investment means jobs. Lots of jobs. And when you are developing domestic energy, its a total oxymoron to ever consider sending that job overseas.

Riddle me this, canuckian; I'd like to know when, if ever, a power infrastructure employee thought "gee, I hope my job doesn't get outsourced to India..."

i cant get past Brazilians of dollars, myself. After that the numbers just get too big.

Bottom line wise, how does the cost of alternative power like ethanol, biodiesel, wind solar etc seem to average out compared with what we have now? No subsidies now, just the actual cost.

I suspect we'd be looking at a huge cost increase if we just went with non fossil fuel sources.

Meanwhile, over in China and India, the stacks continue to belch.

 

[sbvera13]

I suspect we'd be looking at a huge cost increase if we just went with non fossil fuel sources.

For the moment. Fossil fuels are non-renewable though... the supply will bottom out eventually.

 

[Hespera]

wouldnt be something if we spend coupla brazilian dollars on alternate alternate and then those darn french get their hydrogen fusion reactor going.

well, it would free up a lot of crude oil for making plastic.

 

[atomweaver]

i cant get past Brazilians of dollars, myself. After that the numbers just get too big.

Bottom line wise, how does the cost of alternative power like ethanol, biodiesel, wind solar etc seem to average out compared with what we have now? No subsidies now, just the actual cost.

That's a good, simple question with only complex answers. To separate your four;

ethanol/biodiesel; as far as I know, they still haven't achieved parity in fuel costs. A gallon of biodiesel still takes at least a gallon of oil to deliver to market... Some bio-derived algae farms may change this, but not now.

wind; ROI on wind is highly variable based on location, because wind itself is highly variable. Drive from Milwaukee to Chicago, and you'll see megawatts of wind power, because you can realize a 5 year ROI, thanks to the consistent supply of wind. Compare that to New England, where the ROI on wind power can be greater than 20 years (except for offshore farms).

Assuming you choose a good windy site , this link
http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/press_releases/factsheet_economy2.pdf
has a good summary of the remaining factors

The main factors governing wind power economics
are:
• Investment costs, including wind turbines,
foundations and grid connection
• Operation and maintenance costs
• Electricity production/average wind speed
• Turbine lifetime
• Discount rate
Of these, the most important parameters are the
wind turbines’ electricity production and their
investment costs. As electricity production is
highly dependent on wind conditions, selecting
the right site is critical to achieving economic
viability.

Wind could be really interesting, if the ability to deliver wind power over long distances was developed. Without that, its great for some regions, awful for others...

Solar Solar has some of the same issues with variability and deliver-ability as wind, but usually with longer ROIs due to higher manufactured costs per kW. But this is changing, too; printed thin film solar arrays like this company's;
http://www.nanosolar.com/economic.htm

get energy payback vs. energy to manufacture in <1 month, and have an anticipated 20 year service lifetime. This is really exciting stuff, print solar panels thin and cheap in a roll-to-roll process, and cover every roof in the nation with it; the silicon technology comes from California, and the printing technology comes out of the ruins of the Chicago newspaper and magazine printing industry. They might not have the perfect product, but they've got the right idea (and a heavyweight team of financial backers).

I suspect we'd be looking at a huge cost increase if we just went with non fossil fuel sources.

If you're suggesting we hang everything and go install a whole nation's worth of 2005-era technology in the next five years, then you'd be right, that would be stupid, but that isn't what is being proposed here. Investment means just that; putting money into developing a viable product, with an expectation of profit. The earlier money should be something the size of our current NIH system, or perhaps use DARPA as the model (look at what the 1970's era DARPA contracts did for the 1980's era US semiconductor industry), with a similar competitive grant process to obtain funding. Incubate innovation and research, and let the free market pick and choose the winning strategies from what results. This is something like how both the drug industry, and the defense industry both work, and its a proven effective method there.

Meanwhile, over in China and India, the stacks continue to belch.

...and wouldn't it just be awful if China and India had to buy/license US-made renewable energy technology ten-twenty years down the road, in order to maintain their still-growing economies while oil dwindles away? We would have the product that they want and need (a serious role reversal). I doubt it would solve all of the US's economic woes, but it could go some ways towards balancing our exports vs. imports (Americans buying less, buying local, and saving more fixes that disparity better and quicker IMNSHO)

 

[Hespera]

Thanks atom that is a good thoughtful answer. I got some new angles for thinking about this going now.

 

[Greatcloud]

Here is something from MIT

http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-39973-113-text.html