Climate change

[Daniel1960]

But you had asked about the difference between the temperatures on Mars and Earth as an attempt to downplay the effect of CO₂ on warming the Earth. Why change the subject now? :rolleyes:

 

No doubt though, that your "I'll be dead!" argument plays a big role in convincing folks not to take action now to reduce mankind's spewing of CO₂.

 

Many hypothesis exist as to what happened to the Martian atmosphere. Another is a giant collision destroyed an oxygen-rich atmosphere, possibly resulting in the formation of the Martian moons. The large depression, named Vastita Borealis, covering the northern hemisphere is thought to be the result of such collision, being much smoother than the crater-pocketed surface of the rest of the red planet. This is all conjecture, of course. But makes for interesting discussions.

 

The current carbon dioxide rich Martian atmosphere is so thin, that its heat trapping ability is quite small. This surface pressure on Mars is about two orders of magnitude less than on Earth, which is a similar two orders less than Venus. The lack of volume to the atmosphere is what makes life impossible on Mars, not its composition.

[Al_U_Card]

The adiabatic lapse rate explains both Mars and Venus surface temps. HERE, water in its 3 phases does most of the rest

Btw the earth's magnetic field is currently reversing (for the last 50 years and likely the next hundred or so) with attendant anomalies. Another natural and variable process that we cannot mitigate but that we must and will adapt to with some difficulty no doubt.

[hrothgar]

 

To go from my earlier comments about other studies: Grinding up dead plants, rolling them in paper, setting it on fire, and inhaling the smoke sounds like a bad idea on the face of it. Same for having two 250 pound guys putting their heads down and running full tilt into each other, and get up and do it again, and again, until they cannot. Same for digging up all the oil and coal that we can find and burning it. Perhaps any or all of these activities are harmless, but they don't seem harmless.

 

 

Hi Ken

 

I know that you don't follow these topics too closely. There is a reason why Al is suddenly commenting about Exxon.

 

The LA Times and Inside Climate News just published a very interesting series of articles that show the following

 

1. During the 1980s, Exxon conducted internal research that showing that C02 emissions are linked to climate change

2. The company determined that publishing this information would hurt its bottom line

3. The company consciously decided to launch a massive PR campaign designed to emphasize the uncertainty about climate change

 

There's a good op ed piece abut this in the NYT this morning

[Winstonm]

How quaint. Seems like Exxon and Reynolds Tobacco use similar tactics to try to protect profits.

 

The political problem as I see it is that Adam Smith's concept of free market competition applies only to small local enterprises - when you add Reaganomics' influence that any regulation is bad you end up with mega-corporations and little competition.

[kenberg]

Hi Ken

 

I know that you don't follow these topics too closely. There is a reason why Al is suddenly commenting about Exxon.

 

The LA Times and Inside Climate News just published a very interesting series of articles that show the following

 

1. During the 1980s, Exxon conducted internal research that showing that C02 emissions are linked to climate change

2. The company determined that publishing this information would hurt its bottom line

3. The company consciously decided to launch a massive PR campaign designed to emphasize the uncertainty about climate change

 

There's a good op ed piece abut this in the NYT this morning

 

 

 

I'll take a look (well, I don't promise). I read that in NY they are investigating, perhaps with the intent of criminal filing. Not knowing the details I won't say anything too strong, but if we start arresting people for fudging the truth in their publicity, we had better build more prisons. The idea is that it is financial fraud on investors to withhold or skew the results of their investigation into the effects of carbon. . A stretch, I think.

 

Still, I grant it is a problem. If I lie, people can learn to ignore me. When a multi-billion dollar company sets out to stretch the facts, it's another thing entirely.

 

Still and still again, I recall one of my favorite movie lines as Bogart berates Mary Astor for her lies "That one doesn't count because we didn't believe you anyway". Quote is approximate, idea is right.

[hrothgar]

When a multi-billion dollar company sets out to stretch the facts, it's another thing entirely.

 

Agreed

 

And when Phillip Morris and a bunch of other multi-billion dollar companies decided to stretch the facts, they eventually were held liable for some massive settlements.

[y66]

I recall one of my favorite movie lines as Bogart berates Mary Astor for her lies "That one doesn't count because we didn't believe you anyway". Quote is approximate, idea is right.

The lead up to that line is also memorable:

 

Miss Wonderly: Mr. Spade, I've a terrible, terrible confession to make.

 

He makes a polite smile.

Miss Wonderly: That -- that story I told you yesterday was all -- a story.

 

Spade: Oh, that. (lightly) Well, we didn't exactly believe your story, Miss -- Miss -- Is your name Wonderly or LeBlanc?

 

Miss Wonderly: (working her fingers again) It's really O'Shaughnessy -- Brigid O'Shaughnessy.

 

Spade: We didn't exactly believe your story Miss O'Shaughnessy. We believed your two hundred dollars.

 

O'Shaughnessy: You mean...

 

Spade: I mean that you paid us more than if you'd been telling us the truth ... (blandly) ... and enough more to make it all right.

[kenberg]

The lead up to that line is also memorable:

 

It is such a fun script. I like the line in the form I put it above, but by now I realize that it wasn't that way exactly. Maybe it was that way in the book but, since it was very long ago that I read it, probably it is just my re-arrangement of reality.

 

Back to the climate.

 

Anyway, I would not go to Exxon for reliable info on the atmospheric impact of carbon.

[y66]

It is such a fun script. I like the line in the form I put it above, but by now I realize that it wasn't that way exactly. Maybe it was that way in the book but, since it was very long ago that I read it, probably it is just my re-arrangement of reality.

 

Back to the climate.

 

Anyway, I would not go to Exxon for reliable info on the atmospheric impact of carbon.

Your memory is correct. I posted the dialog which precedes the line you mentioned because "more than enough to make it right" seems particularly ironic in this context, as if Exxon could buy off the Bush administration, Congress and even the Water Cooler. O'Shaugnessy's lies didn't keep Sam Spade from figuring out what happened. Exxon's uncertainty campaign won't work either.

[Daniel1960]

Your memory is correct. I posted the dialog which precedes the line you mentioned because "more than enough to make it right" seems particularly ironic in this context, as if Exxon could buy off the Bush administration, Congress and even the Water Cooler. O'Shaugnessy's lies didn't keep Sam Spade from figuring out what happened. Exxon's uncertainty campaign won't work either.

 

Just like Sam Spade, no one believes Exxon. Does anyone really believe advertising? Companies are quick to promote the advantages of their products, but rather reluctant to point out any deficiencies. Similarly, politicians, like Gore and Inhofe, are quick to report on studies which promote their case, but dismiss those which do not. Climate change is an issue bigger than any corporation or politician. Too much information is readily available for someone to be completely fooled. However, there are those who want to believe one way or the other, who are readily taken in by one extremist side or the other, that they only believe that which supports their views, and dismiss that which does not as propaganda. Just as dyed-in-the-wool Democrats or Republicans will believe hook, line, and sinker whatever their respective party says, and completely dismiss the other's, those that believe that all changes to the climate are manmade or natural, will continue to believe so, whatever anyone else says.

[Al_U_Card]

As always, belief is the problem when it superceeds facts and reality as provided by (relatively) unbiased observational information.

Just look at the raw data and see where it leads and how people treat it.

The more strident and certain, the less likely the position is valid.

[y66]

From Paris climate deal to ignite a $90 trillion energy revolution by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

 

The fossil fuel industry has taken a very cavalier bet that China, India and the developing world will continue to block any serious effort to curb greenhouse emissions, and that there is, in any case, no viable alternative to oil, gas or coal for decades to come.

 

Both assumptions were still credible six years ago when the Copenhagen climate summit ended in acrimony, poisoned by a North-South split over CO2 legacy guilt and the allegedly prohibitive costs of green virtue.

 

At that point the International Energy Agency (IEA) was still predicting that solar power would struggle to reach 20 gigawatts by now. Few could have foretold that it would in fact explode to 180 gigawatts - over three times Britain’s total power output - as costs plummeted, and that almost half of all new electricity installed in the US in 2013 and 2014 would come from solar.Markets will do the job under the right terms and they are already making the switch as they discover a potentially lucrative new home for the world’s glut of excess savings and capital.

 

...

 

A Carbon Tracker forum in the City this week was packed with bankers and fund managers itching to find a way into the biggest investment boom of all time, which is what the Paris accord promises to ignite.

 

The COP21 emission targets imply an assault on multiple fronts at once. Fossil subsidies worth $600bn a year - or $5.3 trillion under the International Monetary Fund's elastic definition - are already sliding fast. They will inevitably fade away.

 

There will have to be a carbon price, whether a tax or a trading scheme, and it will have to rise over time as the “year zero” of negative CO2 emissions comes closer.

 

Carbon capture and storage can perhaps save large parts of the fossil industry if it moves in time, which is why the World Coal Association has belatedly become a cheerleader for what was once an outlandish idea of the greens.

 

Shell says a carbon price of $40 would bring CCS into play under current technology - some say $80 - but that in itself would shift the balance of advantage further in favour of renewables just as the cross-over point arrives. In large parts of Africa it already has: it is cheaper and quicker to install micro-grids based on solar power than to bother with power stations.

 

The old energy order is living on borrowed time. You can, in a sense, compare what is happening to the decline of Britain’s canals in the mid-19th century when railways burst onto the scene and drove down cargo tolls, destroying the business model.

 

Technology takes no prisoners. Nor does politics. World leaders have repeatedly stated that they would defend the line of a 'two degree planet’, and now they are taking the concrete steps to do so. Fossil investors have been warned.

[baraka]

those that believe that all changes to the climate are manmade or natural, will continue to believe so, whatever anyone else says.

 

Well said. The problem lies here... An attornay may be extremely brilliant and efficient in his field of work. But who is he to evaluate the science of climate change ? The same can be said of an accountant and people in many other spheres of human activity. Only someone with a formal education in science and the scientific approach, be it chemistry, physics, engeneering, etc, can evaluate the truth of a theory through experimental data measurements. Anyone else can have a belief but it will always be a simple belief, not a scientific evaluation. The proof of what I say is right here in many posts I've red. I have noticed that many people can't even distinguish between harmful and harmless chemicals. They can't even begin to imagine that you can scrub out harmfull chemicals comming out of a stack and let go of the harmless ones. How can they evaluate climate change ? Since most people dont have the scientific approach, the bigest propaganda will win in the end since people tend to stick to their beliefs no matter what !

 

Please... no hate responses !

[PassedOut]

...those that believe that all changes to the climate are manmade or natural, will continue to believe so, whatever anyone else says.

I'm not sure that anyone on these boards (except, possibly, Baraka) has such an extreme belief. However, the human contributions are those that we can control.

[PassedOut]

Only someone with a formal education in science and the scientific approach, be it chemistry, physics, engeneering, etc, can evaluate the truth of a theory through experimental data measurements. Anyone else can have a belief but it will always be a simple belief, not a scientific evaluation.

And yet you have offered a strong belief yourself, a belief that is contradicted by real scientists.

 

In fact, you insulted those real scientists when you wrote this:

 

Climate change due to CO2 levels in the atmosphere is just a hoax. They are out for your money in the form of a carbon tax. Don't let yourself be fooled.

I know a couple of those scientists personally, and they are bright, honest, and dedicated. They are not trying to fool anyone -- just the opposite really. And neither has a particular ax to grind concerning what the political solution to the climate change problem should be. They certainly don't deserve insults from posters like you, no matter how strong your beliefs.

[Winstonm]

people tend to stick to their beliefs no matter what !

 

I agree that we all tend to stick to our beliefs. The better question is: how do we develop those beliefs? Most rational people I know rely on facts - when the facts change they change their minds. In the case of something as complex as climate science, most people I know make a reasonable effort to understand what scientists in that field have to say on the subject and support those conclusions. Therefore, I do not believe this part of your statement to be accurate:

 

Since most people dont have the scientific approach, the bigest propaganda will win in the end since

Perhaps if one refused to accept the views of nearly all climate scientists then one might be swayed by propaganda. Propagandists have a motive; concerning climate, it would seem wise to follow the money to uncover motives.

[Al_U_Card]

Be wary of the "cost-effectiveness" of solar and wind as their intermittent nature (reliance on idling therm-electric plants) as well as massive subsidies (our tax $ ...) and short lifetimes, make them prohibitively expensive to say nothing about their hidden carbon costs.

 

As well, China has already embarked on a massive nuclear energy development that will do more to lower ghg than anything else.

[Zelandakh]

The more strident and certain, the less likely the position is valid.

Am I the only poster that sees the irony in this?

[Daniel1960]

I agree that we all tend to stick to our beliefs. The better question is: how do we develop those beliefs? Most rational people I know rely on facts - when the facts change they change their minds. In the case of something as complex as climate science, most people I know make a reasonable effort to understand what scientists in that field have to say on the subject and support those conclusions. Therefore, I do not believe this part of your statement to be accurate:

 

Perhaps I overgeneralized here. Yes, may people, including scientists have changed their mind regarding climate science (both in favor of and against anthropogenic climate change). However, this topic has become so politicized, that many people tend to stick to the party line, rather than rely on the facts. A big part of the problem is that the two parties tend to distort the facts to suit their own needs. The climate is complex, and our understanding of it is rather low (compared to other fields of science). A substantial number of scientists have been studying these effects for quite some time now, with each contributing in their particular field of expertise. While we have established many of the climate drivers, we are still lacking in the ability to attribute relative strengths to each. Even though some scientists claim to know which drivers predominate, science, has a whole, does not, and cannot, with any reasonable certainty, make predictions into the near future. This is where I believe that people's beliefs enter the picture. Since there are enough facts to support numerous beliefs, many people tend to accept those facts which support their own beliefs only, and rejects those that do not. Time will tell, which facts have the greatest climatic influence.

[baraka]

And yet you have offered a strong belief yourself, a belief that is contradicted by real scientists.

 

In fact, you insulted those real scientists when you wrote this:

 

I'm M.Sc. in chemistry.

 

So I guess I must have insulted myself :)

[PassedOut]

I'm M.Sc. in chemistry.

 

So I guess I must have insulted myself :)

No. You insulted real scientists.

[Al_U_Card]

Am I the only poster that sees the irony in this?

Ironic, isn't it. ;)

[baraka]

Since there are enough facts to support numerous beliefs, many people tend to accept those facts which support their own beliefs only, and rejects those that do not.

 

Well said.

 

There was a time when people in power would burn others at the stakes to protect their own beliefs and power. Happily those days are over. We just yell at each other these days.

 

What I see is climate change being stuck in the same room as creationism vs evolution. No matter what the science says, creationists will always stick to their antiquated beliefs. So, many will be stuck with what to believe or not in the CO2 propaganda, with no way to figure it out.

[baraka]

No. You insulted real scientists.

 

You don't even know who I am ! So I take it that this is a hate post.

[PassedOut]

You don't even know who I am ! So I take it that this is a hate post.

I do know who you are. You are an internet poster who puts up nonsense like this about real, honest, dedicated scientists:

 

Climate change due to CO2 levels in the atmosphere is just a hoax. They are out for your money in the form of a carbon tax. Don't let yourself be fooled.

Not something a real scientist would post. And, clearly, you are also an internet poster who likes to insult others, but is easily hurt yourself.