Climate change

[kenberg]

It is better to remain silent and have people think you a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt. :P In truth I typically find your posts interesting even on subjects where you are not knowledgeable, so I daresay you would have had some good points on this topic too.

 

Thanks for the encouragement. Part of my reluctance is the complexity of the issues. I don't want to discuss religion with the Pope. We wouldn't agree, leave it at that. Concern for the planet, and concern for the peoples of the world, is another matter.

 

It's my view that those who express concern for humanity out of religious conviction and those who do so simply from a belief that, approximately quoting the Pope, doing good is worth the effort, are not so different. In some fundamental way it is much more a matter of choice than it is of logic. In The Brothers K, Dostoyevsky explains that without God, everything is possible, rape and murder. True enough, but concern for others is also possible without God, and clearly rape and murder have been, and are, possible with God. So it comes down to choice.

 

We need to be as clear as we can, starting with ourselves. Consider the plight of the refugees. As I understand it there are some sixty million people classified as refuggees, or as asylum seekers, or as stateless, or some other variation. Basically they are not just homeless, they are on the run. I don't regard myself as evil or as unusually selfish, but I am not sure I am up for taking responsibility, even shared responsibility, for these sixty million people. We are not even doing all that well with the poor here in the US, who at least are not refugees or stateless. Regarding the environment, I drive a Honda Accord. It's not a gas guzzler, but it is not a Prius and I could use my bicycle more. (Actually the roads around here are not at all bike friendly so it mostly sits in the garage.)

 

 

I am up for saying that we should try to do good. But then I am comfortable Not rich, but comfortable. Doing a modest amount of good is not that much of a stretch. I have no plans to devote the last years of my life to living in such a modest manner as to earn the approval of the Pope.

 

Let's try to do good. I am for that. But we also all watch out for ourselves. Let's acknowledge that. Few of us expect (or deserve) beatification.

[Daniel1960]

Thanks for the encouragement. Part of my reluctance is the complexity of the issues. I don't want to discuss religion with the Pope. We wouldn't agree, leave it at that. Concern for the planet, and concern for the peoples of the world, is another matter.

 

It's my view that those who express concern for humanity out of religious conviction and those who do so simply from a belief that, approximately quoting the Pope, doing good is worth the effort, are not so different. In some fundamental way it is much more a matter of choice than it is of logic. In The Brothers K, Dostoyevsky explains that without God, everything is possible, rape and murder. True enough, but concern for others is also possible without God, and clearly rape and murder have been, and are, possible with God. So it comes down to choice.

 

We need to be as clear as we can, starting with ourselves. Consider the plight of the refugees. As I understand it there are some sixty million people classified as refuggees, or as asylum seekers, or as stateless, or some other variation. Basically they are not just homeless, they are on the run. I don't regard myself as evil or as unusually selfish, but I am not sure I am up for taking responsibility, even shared responsibility, for these sixty million people. We are not even doing all that well with the poor here in the US, who at least are not refugees or stateless. Regarding the environment, I drive a Honda Accord. It's not a gas guzzler, but it is not a Prius and I could use my bicycle more. (Actually the roads around here are not at all bike friendly so it mostly sits in the garage.)

 

 

I am up for saying that we should try to do good. But then I am comfortable Not rich, but comfortable. Doing a modest amount of good is not that much of a stretch. I have no plans to devote the last years of my life to living in such a modest manner as to earn the approval of the Pope.

 

Let's try to do good. I am for that. But we also all watch out for ourselves. Let's acknowledge that. Few of us expect (or deserve) beatification.

 

Yes, religious conviction is not a requirement for benevolence. However, any additional reason for performing acts of mercy or generosity, should be encouraged. I applaud you desire to do good, regardless of the underlying reasoning (I assume there is no self-serving involved). One person cannot save sixty million, maybe not even six. However if your efforts touch one person only, it will be worth the effort. It will probably affect much more, either directly or indirectly (as an example to others).

 

Most of the refugees are seeking political asylum. Our efforts are unlikely to help return them to their homeland or repatriate them elsewhere. We can help comfort and console them in the meantime. Whether you drive your Honda or peddle your bike, is unlikely to change the plight of the poor or refugees. Individually, I feel that we are inclined to help. Collectively, as governments, I am not so sure.

[kenberg]

Individually, I feel that we are inclined to help. Collectively, as governments, I am not so sure.

 

In many ways, I think that this is the rub. I think of myself as a sort of liberal, but actually I am not fond of labels. If Steve helps Joe, he probably has a fair assessment of what's what. Much less so when we do, or don't, decide as a nation to help a large number of refugees. I favor doing it, but I think it can be tricky to have it actually work out well.

 

Well, this is the global warming thread, but really it is at least somewhat related. The world has an ever expanding population. In theory we can, for the moment at least, accommodate this. But that's in theory. We seem to have a penchant for killing each other.

[Daniel1960]

Opinion from the Guardian: Global warming is totally a lie liberals tell to distract us from their commie agendas

 

 

:D

 

What we need to do is seperate the scientific warming from the political warming. There are those that will use every change in the weather to show that global warming is (not) happening. Neither the left nor the right seem to know much about the science behind the weather of the climate.

[Al_U_Card]

CATASTROPHIC global warming is the rub, of course, and our role in its appearance (if ever...). The WG parts of the IPCC ARs demonstrate that despite a certain agendized selectivity, their goal is hard to achieve but that doesn't stop them from exaggerating in the SPMs to "make it so".

 

eg

 

http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph/models/climate-sensitivity/climate_sensitivity5.png

[WellSpyder]

Al, would you like to interpret some of your acronyms for those of us who don't follow the debate in quite as much detail as you do? What about those used to distinguish the different type of measures in the chart, for instance?

[Zelandakh]

Al, would you like to interpret some of your acronyms for those of us who don't follow the debate in quite as much detail as you do? What about those used to distinguish the different type of measures in the chart, for instance?

In the diagram, TCR is transient climate response and ECS is equilibrium climate sensitivity. From the post, WG is working group, IPCC is Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ARs are assessment reports and SPMs are summaries for policy makers.

[Al_U_Card]

Sorry for the shorthand. The upshot is that as science progresses, it refines and (re)defines the understanding of how things function. In the case of the effect of [CO2] (and GHG....errr greenhouse gases in general) on global temperatures, the more we find out, the smaller the danger from increasing emissions. This means less efficiency from all the carbon "price" schemes as well as putting the lie to all those scary scenarios "projected" by the climate models. The same models that have no skill on reproducing current global conditions, let alone a century from now.

[PassedOut]

Bloomberg Business has a neat graphic: What's Really Warming the World

[MrAce]

Bloomberg Business has a neat graphic: What's Really Warming the World

 

Yeah, that explains very well. But most energy companies prefer the AI_U graphics for obvious reasons. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif

[Daniel1960]

Yeah, that explains very well. But most energy companies prefer the AI_U graphics for obvious reasons. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif

 

Strange that Bloomberg would have a graph showing no solar variance of the time period, when solar scientists show a much different result. Solar activity was quite low from 1875 - 1930, and much higher since 1950.

 

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png

 

Also, the IPCC stated in their 2013 report that, "natural climate variability, such as volcanic eruptions, solar cycles, and “redistribution of heat within the ocean” are the most likely causes of the short-term hiatus in warming." I wonder what Bloomberg knows that the IPCC does not.

[Daniel1960]

Bloomberg Business has a neat graphic: What's Really Warming the World

 

Funny that this occurred just after ths release:

 

http://vencoreweather.com/2015/04/30/845-am-the-sun-is-now-virtually-blank-during-the-weakest-solar-cycle-in-more-than-a-century/

[PassedOut]

I wonder what Bloomberg knows that the IPCC does not.

The accompanying article provides links to explanations of the methodology and data used.

[MrAce]

Strange that Bloomberg would have a graph showing no solar variance of the time period, when solar scientists show a much different result. Solar activity was quite low from 1875 - 1930, and much higher since 1950.

 

http://solar-center....pot-co2.svg.png

 

Also, the IPCC stated in their 2013 report that, "natural climate variability, such as volcanic eruptions, solar cycles, and "redistribution of heat within the ocean" are the most likely causes of the short-term hiatus in warming." I wonder what Bloomberg knows that the IPCC does not.

 

http://cmip-pcmdi.ll...ailability.html

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/

http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://www.ncdc.noaa...q/anomalies.php

http://data.giss.nas...temp/graphs_v3/

http://pubs.giss.nas...s/mi08910y.html

http://www.bloomberg...-like-it-s-1997

 

Check it out yourself, PassedOut did not only provide a fancy graphic but the sources behind it and how it is measured. But Idk why I am being involved in this discussion, it has been going on here in watercooler for so many years and I do believe both parties will defend their position to death. What purpose does a topic serve when it is so obvious that no one will agree with other party. Why not call it "let's agree to disagree" and get over with this pissing contest of graphics?

 

You can easily disregard my suggestion if you are being paid for this of course or if you have no other interest in BBF, such as Bridge. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif

[Daniel1960]

http://cmip-pcmdi.ll...ailability.html

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/

http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://www.ncdc.noaa...q/anomalies.php

http://data.giss.nas...temp/graphs_v3/

http://pubs.giss.nas...s/mi08910y.html

http://www.bloomberg...-like-it-s-1997

 

Check it out yourself, PassedOut did not only provide a fancy graphic but the sources behind it and how it is measured. But Idk why I am being involved in this discussion, it has been going on here in watercooler for so many years and I do believe both parties will defend their position to death. What purpose does a topic serve when it is so obvious that no one will agree with other party. Why not call it "let's agree to disagree" and get over with this pissing contest of graphics?

 

You can easily disregard my suggestion if you are being paid for this of course or if you have no other interest in BBF, such as Bridge. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif

 

I believe that they are more than two parties involved. Bloomberg, et. al. are of the belief that all the warming observed recently is manmade. The opposite party believes that all the warming is natural. There exists are large faction of us in between, who contend that both natural and manmade forces are at work, affecting the temperature. As opposed to the two divergent parties, who maintain high degrees of certainty in their belief, the middle faction acknowledges a large uncertainty in our knowledge of the entire system. Some will even suggest that either extreme position has a change of being correct.

 

The major problem involved is politics. Al Gore, etc. are championing the way for mankind, while Jame Inhofe is leading the way for the naturalists (the irony is my terminiology). Many from the major political parties have lined up behind their respective leaders, to push for support for legislation favoring their beliefs - and benefitting corporations. When you delve deeper into the science, one finds that neither parties has a high probability of being correct. Of course science has its own form of politics; astrophysicists believe that the sun is the dominant player, vulcanologists maintain volcanoes play a larger role, oceanographers point to the world's ocean as the major source, ecologists claim that deforestation and land use changes are primary, and climatologists hold strong to carbon dioxide. Each of these disciplines has research and data supporting their case, just as Bloomberg referenced. There exists enough data to selectively support any of these claims. The question is why would one dismiss the data relating to other areas, and focus soley on one discipline. The climate of this planet is simply too complicated to reduce to a simple scientific equation. Long term, temperatures have been rising. But not at the rate some have claimed, and there is currently no acceleration thereof. Will they continue at the current rate? Possibly. Possibly not. I defer to Newton's first law that an object will stay in motion until an external force acts upon it. The temperature is likely to maintain its current oscillating rise of ~06C per century until such time.

[hrothgar]

Will they continue at the current rate? Possibly. Possibly not. I defer to Newton's first law that an object will stay in motion until an external force acts upon it. The temperature is likely to maintain its current oscillating rise of ~06C per century until such time.

 

Does dumping tons and tons of C02 into the atmosphere not constitute such an external force?

[billw55]

While my technical knowledge on climate science is mediocre, I'm pretty sure that temperature is not an object.

[Daniel1960]

Does dumping tons and tons of C02 into the atmosphere not constitute such an external force?

 

No, unless that force changes over time. The CO2 is already accounted for in the current trend. A significant change, either up or down, would alter the force.

[Daniel1960]

While my technical knowledge on climate science is mediocre, I'm pretty sure that temperature is not an object.

 

Techincally, no. However that does not negate Newtonian physics.

[hrothgar]

No, unless that force changes over time. The CO2 is already accounted for in the current trend. A significant change, either up or down, would alter the force.

 

As I recall, when additional C02 gets emitted into the atmosphere, it takes some considerable length of time for the impulse to fade. (When I say a "considerable amount of time" I'm talking centuries).

 

Each additional year that you dump large amounts of additional C02 represents a change to the system.

[Daniel1960]

As I recall, when additional C02 gets emitted into the atmosphere, it takes some considerable length of time for the impulse to fade. (When I say a "considerable amount of time" I'm talking centuries).

 

Each additional year that you dump large amounts of additional C02 represents a change to the system.

 

The "considerable length of time" scenario is based on theory only. Data still supports a realtively short residence time of about 5 - 15 years:

 

http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1345952.html

 

http://jennifermarohasy.com//wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Carbon-dioxide-residence-time.jpg

 

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/climategate-anzeige/neue-studie-zur-co2-konzentration-anthropogener-anteil-irgendwo-zwischen-0-und-max-30-vortrag-von-prof-murry-salby-am-13315-in-essen/

[billw55]

Techincally, no. However that does not negate Newtonian physics.

Indeed. But it does mean that Newton's laws of motion do not apply to temperature.

[hrothgar]

The "considerable length of time" scenario is based on theory only. Data still supports a realtively short residence time of about 5 - 15 years:

 

http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1345952.html

 

http://jennifermarohasy.com//wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Carbon-dioxide-residence-time.jpg

 

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/climategate-anzeige/neue-studie-zur-co2-konzentration-anthropogener-anteil-irgendwo-zwischen-0-und-max-30-vortrag-von-prof-murry-salby-am-13315-in-essen/

 

Take a look at athe Marohasy chart. There is a reason that there is such a sharp skew between the the IPCC and the other studies. (Hint: Its not that the IPCC is lying, its that you are comparing apples and oranges)

 

The studies that you are citing that talk about residence times of 5 years are talking about the residence time for an individual atom.

The IPCC number is talking about the total amount of time for the impulse to dissipate from the system

 

Very different things.

 

Nice try at moving the goalposts though!

[Daniel1960]

Take a look at athe Marohasy chart. There is a reason that there is such a sharp skew between the the IPCC and the other studies. (Hint: Its not that the IPCC is lying, its that you are comparing apples and oranges)

 

The studies that you are citing that talk about residence times of 5 years are talking about the residence time for an individual atom.

The IPCC number is talking about the total amount of time for the impulse to dissipate from the system

 

Very different things.

 

Nice try moving the goalposts though!

 

Actually, the IPCC long time of dissipation is based on a long residence time of carbon dioxide. Their assumption is that the initial impulse will remain for a considerable time. However, we know that only about half of the emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere initially. If not, then the measured atmospheric levels would be approaching 500! This is a critial component of the theory.

 

This is not apples and oranges. Maybe a single apple vs a bushel, but a bushel is just the summation of individual apples. The goal posts have not moved, the IPCC just missed.

[y66]

From Power to the People. Why the rise of green energy makes some companies nervous. by Bill McKibben:

 

Mark and Sara Borkowski live with their two young daughters in a century-old, fifteen-hundred-square-foot house in Rutland, Vermont. Mark drives a school bus, and Sara works as a special-ed teacher; the cost of heating and cooling their house through the year consumes a large fraction of their combined income. Last summer, however, persuaded by Green Mountain Power, the main electric utility in Vermont, the Borkowskis decided to give their home an energy makeover. In the course of several days, coördinated teams of contractors stuffed the house with new insulation, put in a heat pump for the hot water, and installed two air-source heat pumps to warm the home. They also switched all the light bulbs to L.E.D.s and put a small solar array on the slate roof of the garage.

 

The Borkowskis paid for the improvements, but the utility financed the charges through their electric bill, which fell the very first month. Before the makeover, from October of 2013 to January of 2014, the Borkowskis used thirty-four hundred and eleven kilowatt-hours of electricity and three hundred and twenty-five gallons of fuel oil. From October of 2014 to January of 2015, they used twenty-eight hundred and fifty-six kilowatt-hours of electricity and no oil at all. President Obama has announced that by 2025 he wants the United States to reduce its total carbon footprint by up to twenty-eight per cent of 2005 levels. The Borkowskis reduced the footprint of their house by eighty-eight per cent in a matter of days, and at no net cost.

 

I’ve travelled the world writing about and organizing against climate change, but, standing in the Borkowskis’ kitchen and looking at their electric bill, I felt a fairly rare emotion: hope. The numbers reveal a sudden new truth—that innovative, energy-saving and energy-producing technology is now cheap enough for everyday use. The Borkowskis’ house is not an Aspen earth shelter made of adobe and old tires, built by a former software executive who converted to planetary consciousness at Burning Man. It’s an utterly plain house, with Frozen bedspreads and One Direction posters, inhabited by a working-class family of four, two rabbits, and a parakeet named Oliver.