Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Edward Campbell]

...  Who will we ask next?  Economists?  Accountatnts?
...

We had better start asking the economists. The climate is changing - has been changing for as long as there has been a climate. Some changes have been very beneficial to our species, others may be less so. When, not if, the climate changes in a manner which is less than beneficial for us then we will have to make adjustments - and adjustments have costs (and, potentially) benefits. It seems pretty clear, to me, that, since we are not going to stop burning fossil fuels or pumping chemicals into the atmosphere, we need to plot ways to mitigate the deleterious effects and to plan for living with new energy sources. The development of e.g. new technologies is, largely the business of scientists and engineers but the business of planning is, in large measure, the domain of economists.

Maybe we would be better with fewer ecologists and climatologists and more engineers and economists.

 

[Kirkhill]

Hear, Hear Argyll.

Nomads follow the water.  When the water relocates the nomads relocate with it.  But ever since those nomads buried Gobekli Tepe, around 10,000 years ago, and started building cities, the cost of relocation became increasingly high.  This made it justifiable to spend fortunes on diverting rivers and bringing water to the people rather than having people move to the water.  The trend has continued so that now it is prohibitively costly to contemplate moving San Diego (short of water) to Inuvik (lots of water).

In addition to consulting engineers, economists and geologists, the climatologists might also want to take note of archaeologists, anthropologists and astrophysicists - all of whom perceive evidence of change and seek suitable explanations - including workable models from climatologists.  Unfortunately for many of the climatologists their models don't seem to hold up well when fed data that describes the past.

There isn't a profession on the planet that isn't influenced by the weather and takes note of it in their planning......and that includes the oldest one.

 

[Haletown]

Sorry, since climate isn't a geological issue, remind me why anyone should particularly care what their opinion on it is?  Who will we ask next?  Economists?  Accountatnts?

It reminds me of someone presenting a list of a bunch of scientists who think evolution isn't real.  They weren't happy when I noticed that very, very few if any of them were biologists.

Two points for your consideration.

1.  You do realize that the entire basis of all the AGW fear mongering is based on claims that the climate historically was stable and it is only in the recent years that climate change has become extreme? 

2.  I'm guessing you do not have a background in Geology, Geomorphology, Glaciology, Limnology or any other Earth Science otherwise you too would know that climate is a well studied geologic process component.  Paleogeology is core component of climate studies and is well represented in the literature, public  and academic debate and the IPCC reports.


Al Gore flunked out of Divinity School, David Suzuki is a Zoologist, Michael Stern is an Economist, Michale Moore is a Physicist . . .  all Great Gods & Gurus of the global warming scam and not a Meteorology or Climatology course among the lot.

So maybe you might want to reconsider what these learned men of Geology have to say.  Rocks have a lot of historical records in them, including a lot to tell us about past climate conditions.

 

[Redeye]

We had better start asking the economists. The climate is changing - has been changing for as long as there has been a climate. Some changes have been very beneficial to our species, others may be less so. When, not if, the climate changes in a manner which is less than beneficial for us then we will have to make adjustments - and adjustments have costs (and, potentially) benefits. It seems pretty clear, to me, that, since we are not going to stop burning fossil fuels or pumping chemicals into the atmosphere, we need to plot ways to mitigate the deleterious effects and to plan for living with new energy sources. The development of e.g. new technologies is, largely the business of scientists and engineers but the business of planning is, in large measure, the domain of economists.

Yes - however, the entire basis of the bollocks spouted about climate change is that the status quo is just fine - that we don't in fact need to start really worrying about new sources of energy, or impacts on food production, migration patterns, freshwater access, etc.  The fact is that the tiny majority of people who dispute climate change is a real problem and that we are, in fact, making it worse are just dupes of industries who aren't prepared to deal with the very real impacts.  Why aren't they?  I guess they think it's not their problem, it won't impact them in their lifetimes or something... in reality, I don't especially care I guess, when I die that's it - I don't have kids and don't plan to so I've really got no rational reason to worry beyond my lifespan, except for the that that there may be problems in much shorter terms.

There's an interesting variation on Pascal's Wager that applies well here - either we assume the worst and get on with ideas to get ready and wind up pleasantly surprised if it's all wrong - or we keep making excuses not to get on with those changes, and find ourselves worse off the longer we wait.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Sorry, since climate isn't a geological issue, remind me why anyone should particularly care what their opinion on it is?  Who will we ask next?  Economists?  Accountatnts?

It reminds me of someone presenting a list of a bunch of scientists who think evolution isn't real.  They weren't happy when I noticed that very, very few if any of them were biologists.

I guess volcanos, ice fields and ocean currents have nothing to do with the climate after all, so I guess geologists can stop studying those too. After all, geologists don't know anything about cause and effect when those, and other natual earthly things, may cause climate change. :

 

[Edward Campbell]

Yes - however, the entire basis of the bollocks spouted about climate change is that the status quo is just fine - that we don't in fact need to start really worrying about new sources of energy, or impacts on food production, migration patterns, freshwater access, etc.  The fact is that the tiny majority of people who dispute climate change is a real problem and that we are, in fact, making it worse are just dupes of industries who aren't prepared to deal with the very real impacts.  Why aren't they?  I guess they think it's not their problem, it won't impact them in their lifetimes or something... in reality, I don't especially care I guess, when I die that's it - I don't have kids and don't plan to so I've really got no rational reason to worry beyond my lifespan, except for the that that there may be problems in much shorter terms.

There's an interesting variation on Pascal's Wager that applies well here - either we assume the worst and get on with ideas to get ready and wind up pleasantly surprised if it's all wrong - or we keep making excuses not to get on with those changes, and find ourselves worse off the longer we wait.

I have no problem with people telling me that the climate is changing: I am sure they are right. I do have a problem with many, many, many scientists telling me why climate change is happening. I doubt most of them are qualified to make that judgement. I object even more to people telling us that if we don't throw aside our 21st century way of life we will kill the planet. If they have useful ideas about e.g. plentiful, portable, clean alternative energy then let them advocate its use; if not they might want to stick to their knitting, with which I already agree.

I also agree that we use and misuse too much energy and we ought to penalize (tax) ineffective energy use (gasoline in static applications, for example) and highly polluting energy use (coal).

 

[Haletown]

Do ya ever wonder why, according to the AGW Believers, that everything that results from global warming due to mankind's deeds is Bad, Bad, Bad?

Isn't there anything that could be deemed good?  Maybe the extended growing season for wheat in Canada or the increased growth and yield level of plants due a to the additional carbon dioxide plant food in the atmosphere?

Or  are the only claimed changes bad because big, bad hairy-scary stories motivate people to make the changes the Enviro-Zealots have decided we must make to satisfy their Gaia deity, provides endless easy stories for the media to re-print from Greenpeace press releases and is  great fodder for Enviro Fund Raising schemes and scams based on photoshopped pictures of polar bears snoozing on icebergs?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Haletown, Kirkhill and Edward have said it well.

The climate is changing.  That is what a climate does.  I do not feel the evidence is sufficiently strong to conclude that burning carbon is the source of that change.  I find it much more likely that the real driver of climate on Earth is the Sun. 

And I am not about to give up the benefits of modern western industrial life to serve the ideology of Greenpeace.

 

[Sapplicant]

Some empirical evidence that the climate is, has been, and always will be, changing.

These are ice core samples taken from the Vostok station in Antarctica, dating back nearly half a million years. Our 'records' of civilization go back, what, 20 thousand years? I don't believe that we are capable of 'killing the planet' through anthropogenic climate change. I do, however, believe that the planet/universe is entirely capable of killing all/most of us. There are many, many other core samples which tell a similar story. Take from it what you will, yadda, yadda, I'm not a scientist but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[a_majoor]

The spectacle of Al Gore jetting around to speak about "global warming" or the masses of climate change activists and bureaucrats going to Cancun Mexico to discuss how to spend taxpayer dollars should be more than enough to tell you how much *they* believe in man made causes of climate change. Perhaps I might be willing to listen just a little if they start practicing what they demand others do. Of course, fudging or hiding data, manipulating "peer review" and other shenanigans have already poisioned the well as far as their credibility is concerned.

The video of a recent massive solar eruption shows a real problem we should be concerned about. If the energy released by tht eruption had struck the Earth, massive electrical disruption would have damaged everything from cellphones to the electrical grid. There is a cause to get behind, protecting the electrical and electronic underpinnings of modern civilization from natural disaster.

 

[Haletown]

In other  "well of course the UN is honest and has no corruption" news . . .

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32

"Dr. Gray's mission, in his new role as cofounder of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, is to stop the IPCC from spreading climate-change propaganda that undermines the integrity of science.

"The whole process is a swindle," he states, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming."


and in a related  meme  "I can't wait to read her book when it is finished"

"You gotta love the UN. The 31-member IPCC bureau includes representatives from undemocratic and unsavoury countries such as Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Malaysia, Madagascar and the Maldives. Soon, these countries may be deciding the fate of billions of UN-administered climate change funds."


http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/06/08/the-ipcc-as-un-funding-mechanism/

 

[Redeye]

Do ya ever wonder why, according to the AGW Believers, that everything that results from global warming due to mankind's deeds is Bad, Bad, Bad?

Isn't there anything that could be deemed good?  Maybe the extended growing season for wheat in Canada or the increased growth and yield level of plants due a to the additional carbon dioxide plant food in the atmosphere?

The problem is we can't look at Canada in isolation - sure, an extended growing season here would be just fine, so would a few extra weeks at summer, but if crop yields globally fall to the point that food production can't meet the needs of the whole planet, that's still going to impact us - there will be waves of migration to deal with, socio-economic factors, all sorts of things - the repercussions, potentially, are very, very serious.

And I'm not sure CO2 air concentrations have any positive impact on crop yields, can't say I've ever heard of anything like that.

You also seem to fail to understand that it's not just some small bunch of hippie zeolots worried about the problem - it's most people I suspect to some degree, and I think most would likely be happy to discover that fairly small changes could impact the situation, and overall make them better off anyhow.  Guess what?  Switching to LED or CFL lights saves a ton of money.  Driving a more fuel efficient car or commuting more efficiently does to, leaving you more disposable income to spend on whatever you want.

I don't support the idea that we somehow have to take some giant step backward to deal with the problem - in fact, most of the things I've done in my own life out of concern an interest have been steps forward.

Or  are the only claimed changes bad because big, bad hairy-scary stories motivate people to make the changes the Enviro-Zealots have decided we must make to satisfy their Gaia deity, provides endless easy stories for the media to re-print from Greenpeace press releases and is  great fodder for Enviro Fund Raising schemes and scams based on photoshopped pictures of polar bears snoozing on icebergs?

And this is when your argument degenerates to the point that you sound as ridiculous as those you would attack.

 

[Edward Campbell]

In other  "well of course the UN is honest and has no corruption" news . . .

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32

"Dr. Gray's mission, in his new role as cofounder of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, is to stop the IPCC from spreading climate-change propaganda that undermines the integrity of science.

"The whole process is a swindle," he states, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming."


and in a related  meme  "I can't wait to read her book when it is finished"

"You gotta love the UN. The 31-member IPCC bureau includes representatives from undemocratic and unsavoury countries such as Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Malaysia, Madagascar and the Maldives. Soon, these countries may be deciding the fate of billions of UN-administered climate change funds."


http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/06/08/the-ipcc-as-un-funding-mechanism/

See here for:

ROLE

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human- induced climate change ...

It doesn't matter how "objective, open and transparent" the IPCC's work is (or is not), unless and until it considers all causes of climate change its work is worthless.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Redeye,

You are linking energy efficiency (a good thing- who can argue against saving money?) with climate change (climates change- always have, always will.  And contrary to your belief, the evidence that mankind
has anything to do With this current round of change in just not that strong- certainly not as strong as many activists would have us believe).

Believe it or not, I have an open mind about all of this, but whenever I see groups or individuals calling for the shut down of the oil sands in Alberta in the name of "saving the planet"- whatever that is supposed to mean (a move that would put hundreds of thousands if not millions of Canadians out of work and beggar the economy),  I cannot help but notice underlying agendas that have nothing to do climate change and have no basis in science other than trumpeting the cry that we must "do something".

Tell you what, we should down the oil sands, right after the ownership of all private automobiles in vancouver, montreal and toronto is ordered.  After all, it is for the good of the planet, right?

 

[Kirkhill]

CO2

Trees grow faster  Nature/Telegraph

Plants grow bigger FAO

 

[Haletown]

CO2

Trees grow faster  Nature/Telegraph

Plants grow bigger FAO

Adding CO2 to greenhouses has been common practice since whenever . . . usually the vented flue gas from the building heating system.

Very profitable for the greenhouses.

 

[Redeye]

Redeye,

You are linking energy efficiency (a good thing- who can argue against saving money?) with climate change (climates change- always have, always will.  And contrary to your belief, the evidence that mankind
has anything to do With this current round of change in just not that strong- certainly not as strong as many activists would have us believe).

The two are generally linked, since the burning of fossil fuels is fingered as the problem, and why do we burn fossil fuels?  For energy.  So, if follows, that if we use energy more efficiently, we burn less fuel, generate less emissions, etc etc etc.

Believe it or not, I have an open mind about all of this, but whenever I see groups or individuals calling for the shut down of the oil sands in Alberta in the name of "saving the planet"- whatever that is supposed to mean (a move that would put hundreds of thousands if not millions of Canadians out of work and beggar the economy),  I cannot help but notice underlying agendas that have nothing to do climate change and have no basis in science other than trumpeting the cry that we must "do something".

That's why any response or effort has to be reasonable.  Shutting down the tar sands for example, without actually impacting demand for oil, won't really do that much, and it shouldn't be hard to convince someone who actually has an open mind and thinks a bit of that - the oil's going to come from somewhere, ultimately, unless we find ways to use less of it (and frankly, that's something we don't have that much of a choice about in the long term - eventually, at some point, the price will rise dramatically, as all the cheaply available oil gets used up).  That said, there are a host of other environmental issues related to the tar sands that make it problematic to some people, it's not just climate change that makes tar sands raise hackles.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Redeye,

It is oil sand, not tar sand.  The sand has been bound to heavy oil, not tar. Tar is extracted from coal.

Terminology, I'm sure you agree, matters.

Tell me, have you ever visited an oil sand operation? Do you know anything about the environmental impact of oil sands other than what you have read, or watched on TV?  I'm not looking to insult you if say no, i'm just trying find out where to baseline this discussion.

 

[KJK]

OK Redeye,

Bearing in mind that I have worked at a commercial SAGD oil sands operation and am currently working on a SAGD pilot start up please tell me about these 'environmental concerns' that you are referring to.

KJK

Edit - spelling

 

[Redeye]

OK Redeye,

Bearing in mind that I have worked at a commercial SAGD oil sands operation and am currently working on a SAGD pilot start up please tell me about these 'environmental concerns' that you are referring to.

KJK

Edit - spelling

Water consumption, tailings handing (remember the Syncrude tailings ponds killing a bunch of ducks), the source of the energy (heat and steam) used in extraction, transportation of the products (ie pipeline leaks), etc.  Some risks, of course, have to be assumed, and steps can be taken to mitigate them of course, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

And I'm not one of the people arguing that oilsands production should be shut down - not in the least - but I don't like the idea of glossing over the environmental impact either.