PE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All

AuthorTopic: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All  (Read 25933 times)

Offline WHD

  • Administrator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All
« Reply #15 on: January 19, 2013, 04:55:16 PM »
It seems clear to me, as I have spent more time outside than inside during my life, that the climate of the last 3 years or so, has been a radical departure from the norm the previous 30+ years I was paying attention. Did we cause it? I don't think I give a damn anymore. Why? Because anything that is done by the elites, is going to be a power grab, and will accomplish nothing but a shift of power among elite. So the only thing that can be done is to reduce individual consumption, as training, and as a kind of bleeding of the beast. And if you play that right, if TSHTF, you'll be glad you did. Though it is also true that the only thing that is stopping this train is civilization-al collapse, which you can't stop no matter what you do.   

 

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38947
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All
« Reply #16 on: January 19, 2013, 05:26:36 PM »
Any bets on where Socrates stands on the issue?  :icon_mrgreen:

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline WHD

  • Administrator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All
« Reply #17 on: January 19, 2013, 05:43:17 PM »
Any bets on where Socrates stands on the issue?  :icon_mrgreen:

RE

The future is a garden party?


Offline Petty Tyrant

  • Cannot be Saved
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 4573
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All
« Reply #18 on: January 19, 2013, 06:17:18 PM »
Just a thought ... perhaps today's AGW Deniers (skeptics, whatever) wouldn't be facing such blow back if they hadn't spent 20+ years actively destroying the careers of those working w/ a pro-warming, pro-AGW point of approach.

Reap what you sow.

20+ years ago i accepted AGW without bothering to question.  I did not become skeptical until 2006.

Many of today's AGW skeptics were in grade school 20+ years ago. 

ALL scientists are supposed to be skeptics.  That is the nature of actual science.  Nothing is accepted until proven.

BTW this is not to justify those hired by international corporations to debunk warming when they viewed it as a threat, before those corps figured out how to make money from carbon trading.

It does seem that academia develops orthodoxies, much like religion.  Those who are unorthodox are punished, regardless of the truth of the matter in question.

I think younger generation who were in grade school 20 yrs ago, so in their 20' now might be on average more likely to believe in man made global warming, I base this on my own kids all teenagers and their friends all taking it as for granted and the sceptics not wanting to be held responsible for their high polluting ways or changing them.

Making money from carbon trading works in a roundabout way, which is poetic punishment. Very low polluting 3rd world countries like africans, bangladesh or pacific islands sell all their carbon credits to the high per capita pollutters like us, uk, aust, japan. Then the $ come with strings attached just like any foreign aid. These pacific islands and drought ridden desertified places would be way better telling the high polluters to stuff their $ up their ass and do something about lowering their pollution as these are the places with either the ocean or the desert rising and spreading right around them. Of course the fatcats in those places doing the deals will have mansions on high ground and holiday homes elsewhere around the world.

Maybe an orthodoxy developing around an  interpretation of the same or independently gathered data is a sufficient burden of proof? Its also true in academia that when theres a contest of theories, often gigantic ego's get in the  way of the search for truth with the conflicting parties publishing  papers in response to each other on and on trying to win rather than be truly objective, thats the way it is in psychology sometimes anyway. A researchers theory is their baby and they are absolutely committed to making the data fit the theory, thats where statistics come into play, or when it cant be replicated, they might have made it up. Never forget that data can be massaged or even made up to fit the findings.
ELEVATE YOUR GAME

Offline Snowleopard

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 505
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All
« Reply #19 on: January 19, 2013, 08:26:22 PM »
Here are some facts from NOAA's website:

-----------------------------------------------------

The Greenhouse Effect
The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect by the emission of greenhouse gases through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation.

Increase of Greenhouse Gases
Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree the statements above are factual.

Some of the increase in CO2 is likely attributable to mankind from: A. Burning oil, gas and coal.  B. Deforestation  C. Poisoning of the biosphere.  How much??

How much of the temperature increase is due to greenhouse gases vs other natural causes?

How much of the increase that is due to greenhouse gases is due to CO2 and how much to increased water vapor?

How much would warer vapor have to increase to totally overwhelm any CO2 effect??

How much of the CO2 increase is human caused??  Of that percentage what part is attributable to each cause??

How do you determine the heat transference profile curve of CO2 for atmospheric temperature, density, pressure and CO2 concentration and what are the characteristic results for varying each??    The unstated assumption above is that an increase in CO2 leads to warming in all conditions.

In researching this i ran across a paper that alleges, somewhat coherently, that under certian conditions and past a certian level CO2 increase actually has a cooling effect!

PDF of non-english origin:  http://www.biocab.org/ECO2.pdf
« Last Edit: January 19, 2013, 08:38:55 PM by Snowleopard »
"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." -  Simon and Garfunkel

Offline Snowleopard

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 505
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All
« Reply #20 on: January 19, 2013, 08:41:19 PM »
It seems clear to me, as I have spent more time outside than inside during my life, that the climate of the last 3 years or so, has been a radical departure from the norm the previous 30+ years I was paying attention. Did we cause it? I don't think I give a damn anymore. Why? Because anything that is done by the elites, is going to be a power grab, and will accomplish nothing but a shift of power among elite. So the only thing that can be done is to reduce individual consumption, as training, and as a kind of bleeding of the beast. And if you play that right, if TSHTF, you'll be glad you did. Though it is also true that the only thing that is stopping this train is civilization-al collapse, which you can't stop no matter what you do.

 :emthup:

I usually don't give a damn either, and for mostly the same reasons.  The OP just irritated me!
"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." -  Simon and Garfunkel

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38947
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All
« Reply #21 on: January 19, 2013, 09:12:53 PM »
Let's not  forget Geotectonic Ocean Heat Transfer Theory/b]! :icon_mrgreen:

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All: We Don't Solve Problems
« Reply #22 on: January 20, 2013, 05:33:37 AM »
A concise article on why we are doomed, a hard one to argue with fellow Diners.  :'(

 We Don't Solve Problems
Some people wonder why, in the face of all the converging catastrophes on the horizon: economic, political, environmental, social, etc., we refuse to deal with them. Why don't we act proactively instead of heading toward a seeming collapse? Maybe we can't:

    [...] In 2009, Dan Miller gave a nice talk about why the IPCC’s climate projections are too conservative and don’t account for many possible climate feedbacks. In it, he discussed one possible answer to this question. He observed that humans evolved to respond to certain types of threats. The properties of these threats are uniformly the opposite of the type we’re facing with these two challenges:

            Visible. (vs. Invisible: we don’t generally see the impacts of climate change or peak oil in our daily lives.)
            With historical precedent. (vs. Unprecedented: neither has happened in recent history.)
            Immediate. (vs. Drawn out: it’ll take years if not decades or centuries for them to fully play out.)
            With simple causality. (vs. With complex causality: even experts have a hard time figuring out how peak oil will interact with the economy or climate change with the global ecosystem.)
            Caused by others. (vs. Caused by all of us: there’s no enemy to blame for these problems.)
            Have direct personal impact. (vs. Unpredictable and indirect: most of us aren’t affected directly by these issues yet, and even if we are, it’s hard to pinpoint how.)

    Maybe nothing will be done on either issue until one or more of these properties turns around (say the immediacy becomes clear, we define an “enemy”, or we start really feeling personal impacts).

Climate Change vs. Peak Oil (Contraposition)

Similarly, Kevin Drum wrote last year:

    If you were teaching a graduate seminar in public policy and challenged your students to come up with the most difficult possible problem to solve, they'd come up with something very much like climate change. It's slow-acting. It's essentially invisible. It's expensive to address. It has a huge number of very rich special interests arrayed against doing anything about it. It requires international action that pits rich countries against poor ones. And it has a lot of momentum: you have to take action now, before its effects are serious, because today's greenhouse gases will cause climate change tomorrow no matter what we do in thirty years.

http://hipcrime.blogspot.com/2013/01/we-dont-solve-problems.html   :icon_study:

Offline Ashvin

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 2655
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All: We Don't Solve Problems
« Reply #23 on: January 20, 2013, 06:45:31 AM »
    [...] In 2009, Dan Miller gave a nice talk about why the IPCC’s climate projections are too conservative and don’t account for many possible climate feedbacks. In it, he discussed one possible answer to this question. He observed that humans evolved to respond to certain types of threats. The properties of these threats are uniformly the opposite of the type we’re facing with these two challenges:

That's quite a claim... we can analyze all of the various angles to (A)GW, even the reasons why more response is not being taken, but we can't respond to it. We evolved to understand we evolved into genetic shackles and there's nothing we can do about it, because it's not the right kind of threat? Where was the survival advantage in fatalism? 

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All
« Reply #24 on: January 20, 2013, 07:19:37 AM »
Quote
That's quite a claim... we can analyze all of the various angles to (A)GW, even the reasons why more response is not being taken, but we can't respond to it. We evolved to understand we evolved into genetic shackles and there's nothing we can do about it, because it's not the right kind of threat? Where was the survival advantage in fatalism? 

Seems he may have gotten carried away in explaining a simple point that we aren't going to do anything about these problems until we either run out of the oil, or a supposed problem becomes a reality that can no longer be ignored.  :dontknow:

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Fossil Fuel Projects from U.S. to China Raise CO2 by 20%
By Alex Morales - Jan 22, 2013

Global coal and natural-gas extraction threatens to increase fossil-fuel emissions by a fifth by 2020, jeopardizing efforts to stem rising temperatures, Greenpeace International said.

Planned expansion of fossil-fuel production in 14 parts of the world, including Australia, Iraq, the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic, would add an annual 6.34 gigatons (6.34 billion tons) of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by 2020, according to a report prepared for Greenpeace by consultants Ecofys.

“We are running out of time to prevent catastrophic climate change,” Greenpeace International Executive Director Kumi Naidoo said today in an e-mailed statement. “The companies promoting, and the governments allowing, these massive climate threats must replace them with renewable energy right away.”

Burning fossil fuels already results in 31.2 gigatons of CO2 a year, according to the International Energy Agency. Global temperatures will increase by 3.6 degrees Celsius (6.5 Fahrenheit) if greenhouse gases rise to 37 gigatons in 2035, IEA projections show.

The United Nations has a target to contain temperature gains to 2 degrees Celsius compared with Industrial Revolution levels. Temperatures have already risen by about 0.8 of a degree. To stand a 50 percent chance of meeting that goal, more than two-thirds of estimated coal, gas and oil reserves must remain in the ground, unless carbon-capture and storage technology is successfully brought to market, the IEA says.
Warming Climate

The 14 projects analyzed in the Greenpeace report would add 300 gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere by 2050, Ecofys analysis shows. That compares with the maximum 884 gigatons that the IEA says can be emitted by the entire energy industry by then.

“It is more than likely that these new emissions will cause the global average temperature to soar to 4 degrees Celsius and quite possibly to 6 degrees Celsius of global warming,” the report's authors wrote.

The projects examined involve mining and oil companies including Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), Chevron Corp. (CVX), BP Plc (BP/), Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA), Statoil ASA (STL), China Power Investment Corp., Rio Tinto Group, Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU), Anglo American Plc (AAL) and OAO Gazprom.

The planned ventures include a 408 million-ton increase in coal exports from Australia by 2025; a 620 million-ton expansion in coal production from China’s five northwestern provinces by 2015; and a U.S. plan to export 190 million tons more coal a year.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-22/fossil-fuel-projects-from-u-s-to-china-raise-co2-by-20-.html   :icon_study:

Offline Petty Tyrant

  • Cannot be Saved
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 4573
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All: We Don't Solve Problems
« Reply #26 on: January 23, 2013, 05:54:20 AM »

That's quite a claim... we can analyze all of the various angles to (A)GW, even the reasons why more response is not being taken, but we can't respond to it. We evolved to understand we evolved into genetic shackles and there's nothing we can do about it, because it's not the right kind of threat? Where was the survival advantage in fatalism?

Also known as the doctrine of Original Sin
ELEVATE YOUR GAME

Offline Ashvin

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 2655
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All: We Don't Solve Problems
« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2013, 06:42:53 AM »

That's quite a claim... we can analyze all of the various angles to (A)GW, even the reasons why more response is not being taken, but we can't respond to it. We evolved to understand we evolved into genetic shackles and there's nothing we can do about it, because it's not the right kind of threat? Where was the survival advantage in fatalism?

Also known as the doctrine of Original Sin

Not at all, because we have free will. Original sin affects the non-physical spirit, so we are not fundamentally limited by our biology and conditioned responses. We can choose the right course of action even when we desire the opposite.

The question is, what's the right course of action in addressing AGW, and that's where the difficulty comes in. It's balancing our dominion and stewardship of natural resources. I don't think it's as simple as banning the use of fossil fuels or constructing a mind-boggling bureaucracy of carbon regulations. But I do think the proper courses of action will prove to be both ethical and long-term economical, rather than one or the other.

Offline Petty Tyrant

  • Cannot be Saved
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 4573
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All
« Reply #28 on: January 23, 2013, 10:04:11 AM »
In the same way we  can rely on big bro to deal with our sins by using prohibition on prostitutes, drugs, alcohol guns, antidiscrimination/affirmative action. OR we can use free will to not do evil including driving/flying/heating/cooling/lighting. But due to original sin, even the most saintly such as the pope and dalai lama have above average carbon footprints, unlike jesus who WALKED thousands of miles. Some brilliant theorists suggest the europeans would never have embraced the imposed religion of the romans if jesus had not toured the area himself beforehand including the british isles, all on foot.
ELEVATE YOUR GAME

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All: Waters off Northeast US Warm
« Reply #29 on: April 27, 2013, 04:20:09 AM »
Waters off Northeast US coast unusually warm, says NOAA



From North Carolina to Maine, the waters have been unusually warm lately.

This is according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Northeast Fisheries Science Center, which issued an advisory today noting that sea surface temperatures in the Northeast Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem during the second half of 2012 were the highest recorded in 150 years.

According to the advisory, sea surface temperatures in this region, which extends from Cape Hatteras to the Gulf of Maine and outward to the boundary of the continental shelf, increased dramatically to reach a record 57.2 degrees Fahrenheit, beating a previous record high in 1951. The average temperature over the past three decades has been typically lower than 54.3 degrees Fahrenheit.

The temperatures were recorded via satellite and ship-board measurements. Historical measurements, based on ship-board thermometers, date back to 1854. According to NOAA, the warming was the greatest increase on record, and one of only five instances when the temperature has changed by more than 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. These drastic changes have not been noted elsewhere in the ocean basin, although in recent years global sea surface temperatures have been the highest on record.

The warmer ocean temperatures might be good news for beachgoers in the Northeast, but they could also disrupt ecosystems, along with the livelihoods that depend on them. The report notes that black sea bass, summer flounder, longfin squid, and butterfish have been migrating northeastward. Lobsters are migrating too, but at a slower rate.

The report quotes Michael Fogarty, who heads NOAA's the Ecosystem Assessment Program:

“What these latest findings mean for the Northeast Shelf ecosystem and its marine life is unknown,” Fogarty said. “What is known is that the ecosystem is changing, and we need to continue monitoring and adapting to these changes.”

http://rss.csmonitor.com/~r/feeds/csm/~3/XbLVjlBTXiQ/Waters-off-Northeast-US-coast-unusually-warm-says-NOAA  :icon_study: :(

                                           
0426 Warm Ocean Lobster full 380
0426 Warm Ocean Lobster full 380

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
1038 Views
Last post May 21, 2014, 09:14:28 PM
by MKing
0 Replies
883 Views
Last post June 09, 2014, 03:04:32 AM
by Guest
4 Replies
1483 Views
Last post August 21, 2015, 12:26:40 PM
by RE