homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: The Thread Where Everyone Argues If Man-Induced Climate Change Is Real (Page 11)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: The Thread Where Everyone Argues If Man-Induced Climate Change Is Real
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158

 - Posted      Profile for Teufelchen   Email Teufelchen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:


1. Who the hell is Frosty Burrage Jnr?

Who the hell are you?
I'm a Shipmate, which to the best of my knowledge Mr Burrage Jr is not. I've also studied cosmology, which it appears Mr Burrage Jr has not. I've no idea why you think anyone should take this nonentity's opinion seriously.

Do you have the faintest idea how the Drake Equation is properly used?

quote:
quote:
2. I've never seen Drake's equation used in the way he describes, for the excellent reason that it can't be done. Drake's Equation takes a set of numbers - some of them wild guesses - and multiplies them together to get an expectation for the number of inhabited planets in the galaxy. It has nothing to do with specific conditions here on earth, and takes the expected lifetime of a civilisation as an input - so it can't possibly deliver it as an output. Mr Burrage (whoever the hell he is) is lying.
The garbage in data for global warming is as arbitrary and deliberately excludes conflicting evidence.
There's a saying about two wrongs; it's on the tip of my tongue...

Mr Burrage Jr's article claims that 'greenies' (whatever those are) assert that the Drake Equation predicts an imminent demise for our civilisation. As I've mentioned, it does no such thing, and Mr Burrage Jr fails to cite any actual examples of anyone asserting otherwise. The Drake Equation, in fact, has nothing to do with global warming. So a (probably false) assertion that the Drake Equation is being misused by some anonymous person tells us precisely squat about the accuracy or otherwise of anybody's climatology.

So why on earth did you copy and paste a slab of Burrage's diatribe?

T.

--------------------
Little devil

Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:


1. Who the hell is Frosty Burrage Jnr?

Who the hell are you?
I'm a Shipmate, which to the best of my knowledge Mr Burrage Jr is not. I've also studied cosmology, which it appears Mr Burrage Jr has not. I've no idea why you think anyone should take this nonentity's opinion seriously.

Do you have the faintest idea how the Drake Equation is properly used?

quote:
quote:
2. I've never seen Drake's equation used in the way he describes, for the excellent reason that it can't be done. Drake's Equation takes a set of numbers - some of them wild guesses - and multiplies them together to get an expectation for the number of inhabited planets in the galaxy. It has nothing to do with specific conditions here on earth, and takes the expected lifetime of a civilisation as an input - so it can't possibly deliver it as an output. Mr Burrage (whoever the hell he is) is lying.
The garbage in data for global warming is as arbitrary and deliberately excludes conflicting evidence.
There's a saying about two wrongs; it's on the tip of my tongue...

Mr Burrage Jr's article claims that 'greenies' (whatever those are) assert that the Drake Equation predicts an imminent demise for our civilisation. As I've mentioned, it does no such thing, and Mr Burrage Jr fails to cite any actual examples of anyone asserting otherwise. The Drake Equation, in fact, has nothing to do with global warming. So a (probably false) assertion that the Drake Equation is being misused by some anonymous person tells us precisely squat about the accuracy or otherwise of anybody's climatology.

So why on earth did you copy and paste a slab of Burrage's diatribe?

T.

Because he's an ordinary oik just like you and I and I liked what he said. His only credentials being that in a poor school he was taught how to think and teachers put in their own time to give their pupils science lessons not on the curriculum.

" I've never seen Drake's equation used in the way he describes, for the excellent reason that it can't be done."

He gave it as an example of bad science.

quote:
A Drake Equation is generally accepted to be any formidable looking equation that really doesn't mean anything. Why? Because many, if not all, of the variable terms mean nothing or can never be quantified...at best their values can only be guessed. When we have an equation of variables that can't be quantified all we have is meaningless felgercarb.
"Mr Burrage Jr's article claims that 'greenies' (whatever those are) assert that the Drake Equation predicts an imminent demise for our civilisation. As I've mentioned, it does no such thing, and Mr Burrage Jr fails to cite any actual examples of anyone asserting otherwise."


I suggest you read what he actually wrote, he said no such thing.

quote:
We're pummeled with Drake Equations when the greenies attempt to prove to us that if we don't do something now about our greenhouse gas emissions, the gasses they proclaim to be greenhouse gases, the planet will be uninhabitable in another hundred years.
He's giving the Drake Equation as a type. And I agree with him, I've found nothing scientific in the mishmash of 'supporting evidence' that proves any such thing as global warming let alone anything that proves there's been a dramatic rise in CO2, anything that proves rising CO2 levels are catastrophic for the planet, anything that proves that man-made CO2 levels bear any correlation at all to the global warming of the last couple of hundred years since we've been warming up after the recurring theme in our climate history of a mini-ice age, anything, well, you get my drift. Like the Drake equations, the so called scientific facts produced have a dream like quality of the non-real and the nightmare it's creating for us ordinary oiks bears a remarkable correlation to the effect he produced with his nonsense science.


Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
re: the Drake Equation. It's not really bad science, the formula is sound - the number of civilizations in the galaxy equals the product of a number of probabilities and the number of stars in the galaxy. That many of those probabilities have large uncertainties means that the answer is consistent with any number of civilisations from one to millions. Which gives us a focus for research - if you want to get a better estimate of the number of civilisations in the galaxy we know which probabilities need to be worked on to reduce uncertainties.

I'm not sure where the Drake Equation is analogous to climate science. The uncertainties in the various parameters in climate modelling come no where near as being a killer as something like "probability of life emerging" in the Drake Equation. ie: whereas current science means we can't get a meaningful answer from the Drake Equation, we can get meaningful answers from climatology. Which is something even most skeptics accept - you can't say "climate science produces answers as meaningful as the Drake Equation" and "there was a LIA and MWP". If you accept the LIA & MWP you've already accepted that the data climate scientists work with is much more strongly constrained than the Drake Equation.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
So why on earth did you copy and paste a slab of Burrage's diatribe?

Because he's an ordinary oik just like you and I and I liked what he said.
One point that strikes me. These are discussion boards, where people are free to share their opinions and ideas. But, in doing so those opinions and ideas are opened to being challenged. When challenged, it's expected that you support your ideas and opinions - either by restating them in a clearer way explaining why you believe that, or by providing some authority beyond yourself to support your position. Many people here have done both on many occasions. Quoting some "ordinary oik like you and I" does neither; it simply shows that others agree with you, which doesn't help take the discussion forward unless they have some reasonable credentials to make their opinion meaningful.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
1. What would happen to me if, say, I cut and pasted vast numbers of enormous random pages from the internet onto these forums to no point whatsoever?

2. Can we be sure that Myrrh isn't actually some kind of ExxonMobil cyberbot that will forever ignore science and generate more random quotes no matter how ludicrous? Someone should research this - if the term "Junk Science" appears in the webpage metatags of Myrrh's last half a dozen quotes, I think Myrrh is a company robot.

3. Oh God, this is the second irritable post I made today that I'll regret later. Can't help myself, sorry.

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
OK, one last time of requesting this.

Please show me just one specific line of reasoning in the global warming theory claims, prove that man-made CO2 since the industrial revolution has actually made the earth a hotter place than it was at the end of the mini ice age we came out of, has been driving that rise in temperature - which is what this is all about.

Is that too much to ask?

Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What, other than the physics of greenhouse gases? Because I've gone over that line of evidence repeatedly. And, you consistently fail to see the plain correlation between CO2 concentrations and mean global temperatures in the 20th century(though not perfectly exact, it's a complex phenomenon afterall so exact is never going to happen). And, you seem to consider models as totally unreliable so the correlation between model outcomes and historical records won't be impressive either.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What, other than the physics of greenhouse gases? Because I've gone over that line of evidence repeatedly. And, you consistently fail to see the plain correlation between CO2 concentrations and mean global temperatures in the 20th century(though not perfectly exact, it's a complex phenomenon afterall so exact is never going to happen). And, you seem to consider models as totally unreliable so the correlation between model outcomes and historical records won't be impressive either.

No, please, not the bl**dy physics of greenhouse gases again. The claim to disaster by the global warmists is that it is man induced. That the global warming of the last century and a half or two is UNPRECEDENTED in the last 1000 years and it's all the fault of man pumping out extraordinary levels of CO2 since the industrial revolution.

So no more pussyfooting, this is the claim being made, this is why Kyoto, this is why some poor gits are in danger of the thought police if they idle their car engines longer than three minutes and other ridiculous restrictions to the habits of ordinary oiks as well as on international scale, this is why extra taxes loaded and this is probably why you're in a job right now, I'm guessing here.

It takes only one contradictory fact to blow a theory to smithereens, you have simply avoided all of them presented here.

So, if you, and the others here should have a go, cannot show EXACTLY how you come to this conclusion by producing a fact not fantasy backed scientific argument proving that this global warming is the DIRECT result of man's imput, then you have to admit that you can't prove it's real (OP).


Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
OK, one last time of requesting this.

Please show me just one specific line of reasoning in the global warming theory claims, prove that man-made CO2 since the industrial revolution has actually made the earth a hotter place than it was at the end of the mini ice age we came out of, has been driving that rise in temperature - which is what this is all about.

Is that too much to ask?

Myrrh

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html


http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11649


http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638


http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11647


http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11645


http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp


http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/25/181237/51


http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/25/181237/51


http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/13/215043/37


Now for God's sake, please read them, look at the graphs, follow their links where needed. It has been explianed a billion times that absolute proof is impossible so stop asking for it, but the overhwelming evidence is uncontestable.

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
No, please, not the bl**dy physics of greenhouse gases again.

As I said, there seems little point going through it again. It's just that, for me the physics is the strongest part of the argument (maybe that's because I'm a physicist). The physics says "greenhouse gases warm the planet" with "all else being equal, more greenhouse gases -> a warmer planet". The fact that the models (albeit imperfect because of the complexity of the system) more or less match the observations is the nail in the coffin.

But, others are likely to find other lines of argument more convincing. That there are several lines of argument all pointing in the same direction is, in itself, extremely compelling.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
No, please, not the bl**dy physics of greenhouse gases again.

As I said, there seems little point going through it again. It's just that, for me the physics is the strongest part of the argument (maybe that's because I'm a physicist). The physics says "greenhouse gases warm the planet" with "all else being equal, more greenhouse gases -> a warmer planet". The fact that the models (albeit imperfect because of the complexity of the system) more or less match the observations is the nail in the coffin.

But, others are likely to find other lines of argument more convincing. That there are several lines of argument all pointing in the same direction is, in itself, extremely compelling.

It's this "compelling" you've used before that I have a problem with.

That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not in dispute, it's in the physics. What's in dispute is how that plays in your theory of Global Warming which positively says that it is the unprecedented latest rise (in dispute) created by man's industry (in dispute) which has driven (in dispute) the current temperature rise of the the last 150-200 years (in dispute) and the consequences we are bombarded with are dire for all humanity (in dispute) and we should curtail our production of it to maintain a constant norm of climate (in dispute) which preceded the hockey stick (in dispute) and any who object to this are worse than holocaust deniers (in dispute).

What I have found. There is absolutely no data corroborating any of the above, I've looked. I have posted actual real data which contradict all the above.

What I conclude. That there is a similiar correlation to the rise of of man-made CO2 and the global rise in temperature since the Little Ice Age as there is, say, in the rise of education.

None.

But both can produce a lot of hot air.

This is what has really p*ssed me off in this discussion, the basic premise of Global Warming which constantly bombards us and is forcing us to move in specific law enforced directions to change our society and personal way of thinking by imposing a specific belief on all is junk science, it is forcing us to believe that irrational thinking is rational. It is an ideology maybe, but it's not science. It is not proved that man-made CO2 from the industrial age on has driven the warming we are currently experiencing.

Unless you can actually prove that beyond reasonable doubt you have no moral right to even think to impose your belief on anyone else.


All I'm asking for, and I'm now sure what I'm asking for is impossible, is for one or all of you here who so assiduously promote this particular and specific man-made earth shattering conclusion to show your reasoning behind this claim which would inevitably lead us to proof of this claim.




Myrrh

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What's in dispute is how that plays in your theory of Global Warming which positively says that it is the unprecedented latest rise (in dispute) created by man's industry (in dispute) which has driven (in dispute) the current temperature rise of the the last 150-200 years (in dispute) and the consequences we are bombarded with are dire for all humanity (in dispute) and we should curtail our production of it to maintain a constant norm of climate (in dispute) which preceded the hockey stick (in dispute) and any who object to this are worse than holocaust deniers (in dispute).

Maybe it'll help if we went through each of your disputed points in turn and see where that gets us.

"unprecedented latest rise". There are good measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration, eg: from Muana Kea, which show a dramatic rise in the last 50 years or so. I can't see how that rise can be in dispute. Which leaves us with the "unprecedented" bit. There are long-term records of atmospheric CO2 concentrations trapped in glacial ice; assuming you accept that these air bubbles are representative of historic atmospheres (there are valid concerns that the gases may leak out, though the scientists doing the work take measures to try and get it right) these show changes associated with the start and end of interglacials of a similar magnitude to that observed in recent times. So, there is precedent for the scale of change. Where there isn't precedent is for such an increase to occur within an interglacial, and the current concentration is higher than at any time in the ice record (though not geological history). And, of course, the concentration is continuing to increase such that if it continues it will be larger than the end of glaciation increases.


"created by man's industry". This one seems totally indisputable. The carbon isotope ratios of atmospheric CO2 show a clear fossil source (prior to 1950, when bomb testing confused things, CO2 in the atmosphere had less 14C than it should have. The only source of low 14C CO2 is fossil fuels. The conclusion is unambiguous - burning fossil fuels is adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

"which has driven". If you're not disputing the physics, how can the rise in CO2 not drive temperature increase? There may be other factors that might drive the climate in the opposite direction, but CO2 will drive things towards warmer conditions. It can't do otherwise.

"current temperature rise of the the last 150-200 years". Are you actually disputing that the mean global temperatures have been increasing over the period when direct measurements have been available? Or, are you simply disputing these rises are driven by human activity?

"the consequences we are bombarded with are dire for all humanity"OK, on this I'd accept that's hype from journalists and propogandists rather than being scientific. I'd say the consequences will probably be dire for many people (especially the poor in poor countries). The consequences may even be "the end of civilisation as we know it", which is a long way short of the end of civilisation (after all, "civilisation as we know it" ends regularly - just compare life now with 50 or 100 years ago). Can we just forget the hype for this discussion and stick with the science?

"we should curtail our production" Well, if the above is true and we're affecting the climate in a way that's quite probably detrimental to many people, and may be highly detrimental to very many people, then taking steps to mitigate those effects is the only reasonable thing to do. Reducing carbon emissions is the easiest and cheapest of the possible steps - in fact, the first steps in carbon emission reduction actually save money and are thus worth doing anyway.

"maintain a constant norm of climate"
Actually, though a very small minority of radical greens do want us to stabilise the climate as though we don't exist, most people are more than happy with slowing the rate of change to something that's maneagable. And, that almost certainly means stabilising our contribution - there's some debate about just what level that stabilisation needs to be at (which balances predictions for the climate at different CO2 levels with estimates of the cost and practicality of stabilising at that level - which is the primary work of the IPCC, to give governments the information they need to make policy).

"the hockey stick". I'm just so not going to go back to that

"any who object to this are worse than holocaust deniers". More hype and propoganda that doesn't have any place in discussion of the science.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126

 - Posted      Profile for JonahMan   Email JonahMan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What Alan said, plus the need to account for the rate of increase in the average global temperature which has gone up much more rapidly over the last few decades. Previous naturally generated changes in temperature have taken place over much longer periods of time. The only major difference in the situations is the intervention by humans in burning fossil fuels.

Jonah

--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave

Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What's in dispute is how that plays in your theory of Global Warming which positively says that it is the unprecedented latest rise (in dispute) created by man's industry (in dispute) which has driven (in dispute) the current temperature rise of the the last 150-200 years (in dispute) and the consequences we are bombarded with are dire for all humanity (in dispute) and we should curtail our production of it to maintain a constant norm of climate (in dispute) which preceded the hockey stick (in dispute) and any who object to this are worse than holocaust deniers (in dispute).

Maybe it'll help if we went through each of your disputed points in turn and see where that gets us.
Alan, you've given me a hard time here for using inappropriate terms when discussing this pretence to science theory, so, whether in standard, colloquial or scientic English what don't you understand in the phrase "in dispute"?

As I've noted before, I find your cavalier attitude to contradictory and conflicting data inexplicable, for a scientist that is.

Let's put aside all pretence here. You're a physicist and I'm an oik, neither is an advantage or disadvantage in this argument - it's in dispute, it's a matter of opinion.

In my opinion, the vast amounts of conflicting data and criticism of the Global Warming Theory and Its Methods is cause to have zilch respect for the analysis of anyone who claims this is proved by science.

And that is precisely the claim made by those who promote this junk theory.

I'll come back to the rest of your post later.


Myrrh

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Alan, you've given me a hard time here for using inappropriate terms when discussing this pretence to science theory, so, whether in standard, colloquial or scientic English what don't you understand in the phrase "in dispute"?

As I've noted before, I find your cavalier attitude to contradictory and conflicting data inexplicable, for a scientist that is.

Myrrh, that's just rubbish. Complete and utter rubbish. Alan has patiently explained endlessly that the evidence is overwhelming. It is not watertight proof, which is impossible, but it IS overwhelming. It is the opinion of 99% of an academic discipline versus people in tin hats in sheds. There is no equivalence. If there is a dispute at all in the field, it is the opinion of a tiny minority compared with a huge majority. You seem to equate the two as equal - no wait, that the minority is, for no reason whatsoever, correct (because you can't stay away from that great far-right phrase "Junk Science") Every question you have raised has been answered (and dutifully passed on by Alan), there is no great unknown mystery here.

Stop being so disengenuous about Alan, who has shown more patience than can reasonably be expected from anybody.

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Simple question.

How come the temperatures have gone up so much over the last few decades, allegedly because of fossil fule burning, when we have been burning less and less fossil fuels over that same period compared to the first half of the 20th century.

Also, can anyone tell me in words of one syllable, just what the average global temperature rise has been in the last 100 years and how much of that degree rise has been in the last 50 years.

ie, what was the average temperature in 1900 and what was it in 2000?

Please, thank you.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hiro's Leap

Shipmate
# 12470

 - Posted      Profile for Hiro's Leap   Email Hiro's Leap   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Simple question.

How come the temperatures have gone up so much over the last few decades, allegedly because of fossil fule burning, when we have been burning less and less fossil fuels over that same period compared to the first half of the 20th century.

Hi Mudfrog,

What makes you think we've been burning less and less fossil fuel? We're burning more and more. The most recent research shows:

quote:

CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning and industrial processes have been accelerating at a global scale, with their growth rate increasing from 1.1% y-1 for 1990-1999 to >3% y-1 for 2000-2004. The emissions growth rate since 2000 was greater than for the most fossil-fuel intensive of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emissions scenarios developed in the late 1990s.

We're burning them at a faster rate than the most pessimistic IPCC forecasts. At the same time, the north pole is melting faster than the worst case of their models.

Naysayers try to paint the IPCC as alarmist. Actually, the IPCC is a group of mainstream scientists, and their report represents the stuff virtually all of them agree on - i.e. the most conservative estimates. It seems likely that the actual situation will be worse.

Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
As I've noted before, I find your cavalier attitude to contradictory and conflicting data inexplicable, for a scientist that is.

And, as I'm pretty sure I've said before, there's nothing unusual in science about contradictory and conflicting data - especially in a subject dealing with complex phenomena such as the climate. Scientists routinely build up massive bodies of data and seek to make sense of that data through the processes of drawing up theories, hypotheses and models - which in turn leads to clarity about what new data is needed to test those means of making sense of the data. Whenever a scientist draws up a hypothesis to explain the data available there's practically always some data that doesn't fit. What's not known is whether the hypothesis is wrong or incomplete, or whether the data is wrong. Generally the only wat to proceed if you have a good fit between theory and the vast majority of the data is to examine the data that doesn't fit in intense detail - and, even after that examination you might just have to accept the anomaly. One piece of contradictory data doesn't invalidate a theory. Even a relatively large body of contradictory data doesn't invalidate a theory, though it would almost always result in some minor modification to the theory.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126

 - Posted      Profile for JonahMan   Email JonahMan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mudfrog, a simple question with a reasonably simple answer!

Avg temp in 1900 = about 13.7 C
Avg temp in 2000 = about 14.4 C

Rise in temp = .74 C

The rate of increase has been about twice as much over the last 50 years as in the previous 100.

I got these figures from the IPCC summary report - page 6. The graph wiggles about quite a bit so taking one specific year isn't necessarily that useful if it is a particularly hot or cold one, but the graph clearly shows the trend.

I think Hiro's Leap is right in saying that the world consumption of fossil fuels has not gone down in recent decades - but I'd be interested to know why you thought it had.

Two important points are that 1) there are many factors affecting the global temperature, hence the changes from year to year, but over a reasonably long period these remain the same, whereas man-made CO2 keeps increasing 2) the impact of a change in fossil fuel burning (whether more or less) would not be seen immediately. Even if we stopped all human-caused CO2 production tomorrow, the global temperature would still continue to go up for some years.

Jonah

--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave

Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
More questions:

What was the average temperature rise between 1800 and 1900?

And why is .7 degree rise over 100 years such a catastrophe?


My point about buring fossil fuels comes from simpl observation. In the last 50 years fewer and fewer households are burning coal. Industries have closed and those that remain are not using the same technology as they once were - pollution has significantly decreased from what it was in the 200 years up until the war.

I simply cannot see how we are polluting the atmosphere no more than we were when pollution was so bad people died in the smogs of London.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One final question:

What is the overall rise in temperature between 1998 and 2005?

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Between 1800 and 1900 there was no significant temperature rise. Between 1900 and 1940 about 0.4°C then a 40 year approximately level period (partly due to economic factors from post-war recovery and the oil crises). Since 1980 temperatures have increased about 0.8°C at a fairly steady 0.3°C per decade. Those are values for the mean global temperature - local variations mean some areas heat up a lot more, others barely change, some areas may even cool. For comparison, the end of the last glaciation was accompanied by a mean temperature increase of about 0.2°C per cuntury - current warming is about 10 times as rapid as the end of the last glaciation.

On the amount of carbon produced. We're not burning coal to heat our homes directly - we burn it in electricity generating plants, and use the electricity to heat our homes. We've introduced clean technology that reduces the amount of particulate pollution from burning fossil fuels, which is good for our lungs, but we still burn a lot of that fuel. Ironically, the cleaner technology means there's less particulate pollution which acts to cool the world, so adding to global warming. Arguably we're slightly reducing carbon emissions in Europe and other developed nations (though still way above the amount we were producing in 1950), the rest of the world is burning loads more.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hiro's Leap

Shipmate
# 12470

 - Posted      Profile for Hiro's Leap   Email Hiro's Leap   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

My point about buring fossil fuels comes from simpl observation. In the last 50 years fewer and fewer households are burning coal. Industries have closed and those that remain are not using the same technology as they once were - pollution has significantly decreased from what it was in the 200 years up until the war.

I simply cannot see how we are polluting the atmosphere no more than we were when pollution was so bad people died in the smogs of London.

People died because coal was burned directly in cities. As Alan said, now there is much less visible pollution because the power plants are further away, and they extract most of the obviously nasty stuff (particulates, NOx, SOx). The UK's coal use has plummetted over the 20th century - partly because of the discovery of North Sea oil and gas. This hasn't happened in most countries, including the developing world and the US.

Although far less coal is burned in the UK now, oil and gas consumption has increased massively. These tend to be less obviously dirty, but still produce lots of CO2.

As you point out, the UK's manufacturing industries have largely closed - but that only means we're getting other countries to make the goods for us, and so exporting the CO2 emissions. Also, energy use in homes, offices and (especially) shops has gone up hugely.

This shows worldwide energy consumption over the last 40 years. Everything on the graph except nuclear and hydro produces CO2, and it's all rising sharply.

Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616

 - Posted      Profile for Littlelady     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
As you point out, the UK's manufacturing industries have largely closed - but that only means we're getting other countries to make the goods for us, and so exporting the CO2 emissions. Also, energy use in homes, offices and (especially) shops has gone up hugely.

Um. We are 'getting other countries' to make goods for us? Were you around in the UK during the 1980s? It isn't a question of us 'getting' others to make stuff; they started to make stuff cheaper than our own manufacturing companies and so we started buying from 'them'. The UK isn't some energy overlord. Like everyone else, we didn't want to pay a fortune for something when we didn't have to.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Between 1800 and 1900 there was no significant temperature rise. Between 1900 and 1940 about 0.4°C then a 40 year approximately level period (partly due to economic factors from post-war recovery and the oil crises). Since 1980 temperatures have increased about 0.8°C at a fairly steady 0.3°C per decade.

How has the development of technology influenced the recording of temperature rises?

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hiro's Leap

Shipmate
# 12470

 - Posted      Profile for Hiro's Leap   Email Hiro's Leap   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
It isn't a question of us 'getting' others to make stuff; they started to make stuff cheaper than our own manufacturing companies and so we started buying from 'them'. The UK isn't some energy overlord. Like everyone else, we didn't want to pay a fortune for something when we didn't have to.

Agreed (and 'energy overlord' is a great phrase). But the result is that we export services which are relatively low energy, and import goods which aren't. This means that we've effectively outsourced CO2 production, and this doesn't show up in the statistics.

Interestingly (to me!) energy consumption per person hasn't changed much in the UK in the last 100 years, apart from the outsourcing above. Coal has declined, oil and gas have grown. The huge improvements in standard of living are largely a result of far more efficient technology, not using more energy. It's pretty optimistic, and shows that living standards can keep improving, even if CO2 emissions have to fall...we don't need to live cod-Medieval lifestyles.

Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
People died because coal was burned directly in cities. As Alan said, now there is much less visible pollution because the power plants are further away, and they extract most of the obviously nasty stuff (particulates, NOx, SOx). The UK's coal use has plummetted over the 20th century - partly because of the discovery of North Sea oil and gas. This hasn't happened in most countries, including the developing world and the US.

One of the awful double-binds of climate change is that all that nasty stuff (aerosols) used to have an effect in reducing global temperatures. So in order to clean up the atmosphere and save lives, we at the same time (unknowingly) made the global warming problem even worse.

The pheomenon of aerosols cooling is connected to a phenoemenon called Global Dimming, which has been used in the past couple of years to make even more alarmist predictions on the future of climate change (since, arguably, pollution will continue to decrease). However, the phenomenon has been known for a years, and is already factored into the climate change models (more on this here).

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Are we completely buggered, then?

The US rejects all G8 proposals on Climate Change

I wonder what Germany has in mind? The article above ends with:

quote:
The scene is set for a showdown between the US and other G8 countries who want early action on climate change. Germany's environment minister, Sigmar Gabriel, said the country was prepared to block decisions on other issues unless the US and other G8 members made concessions on the environment. "America doesn't want to commit to firm goals. We can't put the global future of our children at risk because of the narrow-mindedness of individual negotiating partners."
What other issues? What could they realistically do?

On the issue of carbon markets, I have wondered if only countries who are part of carbon markets can trade with each other, or at least other countries would be subject to a levy on all traded goods. Don't think this is what the Germans have in mind though...

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Hiro's Leap

Shipmate
# 12470

 - Posted      Profile for Hiro's Leap   Email Hiro's Leap   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Are we completely buggered, then?
The US rejects all G8 proposals on Climate Change

Did you expect anything different? This is the government that's effectively blocking California's new vehicle standards, driving Arnie and the Governor of Connecticut to write in the Washington Post:
quote:

It borders on malfeasance for [the federal government] to block the efforts of states such as California and Connecticut that are trying to protect the public's health and welfare. [...] that again sounds like more of the same inaction and denial, and it is unconscionable.

It's high time the federal government becomes our partner or gets out of the way.

The only real question is what will the next administration do.
quote:
On the issue of carbon markets, I have wondered if only countries who are part of carbon markets can trade with each other, or at least other countries would be subject to a levy on all traded goods. Don't think this is what the Germans have in mind though...
Yes, I've wondered that too. It seems the best way to stay competitive with countries that aren't tackling emissions, as well as putting political pressure on them. But I bet it'd be hellishly hard to do in the current political climate - lots of free-trade agreements to leave, as well as the possibility of a trade war.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
How has the development of technology influenced the recording of temperature rises?

In most instances, very little. Remember, when you're talking about "global mean temperatures" (or even mean temperatures for a fairly localised area such as "south east England") you're talking about a mean of a wide range of actual temperatures (irrespective of how well they're measured). Technology has improved the precision of individual measurements, but most importantly increased the frequency and geographical distribution of measurements. This has been an enormous benefit to weather forecasting, but except where there are now measurements being taken that formerly were absent from the data (and, that's mostly the oceans where before weather buoys you had to rely on measurements made on passing ships) very little impact on climate science. For weather forecasting, being able to know how the temperature at a given location is varying in realtime to within 0.1°C precisions is useful, for climate studies where you're interested in the mean temperature over an extended area and time period that's just way more data than you need.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Ofcom Complaint

I received this today from Ofcom:

quote:
Thank you for contacting us with your concerns about this programme. We have received a considerable number of complaints raising similar issues to those addressed by you. We have also had notice of a substantial complaint about the programme from a group of scientists. We have been told not to expect this complaint in full before the end of June.

I am writing to let you know that, as the issues to be considered by Ofcom under its Broadcasting Code by this later complaint are likely to be similar to those you have already raised, we have decided - in order to avoid any duplication in our work - to consider all complaints about this programme only once this later complaint has been lodged.

This will clearly lead to some delay in our final response to you and I thought it would be helpful if I could make you aware of this at this stage. I will be in touch with you further when we have completed any investigations into the programme which we may find necessary to carry out.

So there we go, and I am intrigued. A vast collection of eminent scientists (including John Houghton) has already written to Ofcom (and have published their submission here). I wonder if this new submission to Ofcom is more detail from this group, or another group? Anyone know?
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126

 - Posted      Profile for JonahMan   Email JonahMan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A few days ago Mudfrog asked
quote:
And why is .7 degree rise over 100 years such a catastrophe?
and I don't think anyone has answered directly yet, but it's a good question.

I think the answer is that a .7 degree rise over 100 years is not a catastrophe in itself. If the temperature stabilised now, there would be only minor problems which would be relatively easily dealt with. Problems which have occured which are probably attributable to climate change (bear in mind you can't categorically say that some specific event was a direct consequence, as it is more a statistical increase than new categories of events happening)include heatwaves in Europe (15,000 extra deaths in France last year wasn't it?), worse droughts in Africa, more hurricanes.

The problem is that if we continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the temperature gets higher and the problems get proportionately worse. By projecting the anticipated temperature rise for different scenarios (e.g. current levels of emissions; continued increases in emissions; different levels of reductions in emissions) the impacts of each are estimated.

Basically, under any scenario approximating to business as usual the consequences are pretty disastrous; hence the need to cut emissions in the very near future, to minimise the temperature rise and hence reduce the bad effects.

Jonah

--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave

Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is an alternative take on all this.

quote:
(NASA) Administrator Griffin elaborates on his position on global warming by saying "I guess I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Conversely, those who advocate doing little or nothing to mitigate the effects we're having on our climate are effectively saying that a warmer climate's better for humanity (or, at least the same quality). Isn't that also a rather arrogant position for people to take?

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616

 - Posted      Profile for Littlelady     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alan - thanks for the explanation. Would the availability of more accurate data relating to mean temps of the oceans influence the recording of global climate change to any significant degree? Over the longer term, I mean.

206 - interesting perspective, though it's a shame the link didn't elaborate more on Griffin's comments. I do think he has a point, though I'm not sure it's necessarily arrogance that is at the root of any assumption that today's climate is the best for human beings (in some areas of the world, of course, it isn't: the Sahara maybe or the Arctic). It's hard to know how well we would survive under different climatic conditions and perhaps this fear of the unknown is what motivates many into a need to 'do something' about climate change?

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Alan - thanks for the explanation. Would the availability of more accurate data relating to mean temps of the oceans influence the recording of global climate change to any significant degree? Over the longer term, I mean.

Ooh, measurement and instrumentation! Keep in mind that accuracy and precision are actually two different things. As Alan said, we now have access to more data from more precise instruments. If the measurements are reasonably precise, the average of those measurements won't change significantly whether you take 10 measurements or 10,000. Whether or not the data is accurate is a separate issue, and that's established by calibrating the instrument. A quick and dirty way to do that is to measure the temperature of something that is known to be a particular temperature e.g. ice water (0C) or boiling water (100C). These particular reference points have been used by scientists for more than 200 years. OliviaG

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Where the precision and number of measurements really pays off is inputs to models - whether that be for weather forecasting or climatology. The non-linear nature of weather and climate makes such models very sensitive to initial conditions. Improve those input data and you should get better constrained outputs - though ultimately you still can't account for that darned butterfly except by running the models repeatedly with slightly different input data and look at the spread of outcomes.

[ETA my main point, I should be going to bed I think, better data means that you can run more sophisticated models and get to reasonable outcomes with less runs because you've got better constraints on the inputs]

[ 31. May 2007, 21:47: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
206 - interesting perspective, though it's a shame the link didn't elaborate more on Griffin's comments. I do think he has a point, though I'm not sure it's necessarily arrogance that is at the root of any assumption that today's climate is the best for human beings (in some areas of the world, of course, it isn't: the Sahara maybe or the Arctic). It's hard to know how well we would survive under different climatic conditions and perhaps this fear of the unknown is what motivates many into a need to 'do something' about climate change?

It's not fear of the unknown that drives my concern so much as fear (or alarm) at the projected results from the world's scientists. The figure of a total rise of a 2 degrees rise seems to have been settled on in order to stay within what is manageable (but still very serious). Above that, and there is a very serious risk of the runaway effect. So not so much "unknown" as "predicted" from my perspective.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126

 - Posted      Profile for JonahMan   Email JonahMan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Following on from Noiseboy above, a headline in today's Guardian: Bush kills off hopes for G8 climate change plan

quote:
Bush kills off hopes for G8 climate plan US recognises global warming danger but wants to lead response outside UN
It would be nice to think that the US is actually taking a lead, but I remain cynical as it does seem very strange to start a process outside an existing one, and try to tackle a global problem without working with the global organisation already taking action (though I am not a fan of some of the proposals such as carbon permit trading as they seem to me to miss the point and be liable to misuse and corruption, at least the forum for negotiation and discussion is there).

It rather puts paid to the theory that all the governments, including the US, are in cahoots with the environmental lobby in order to provide tehm all with tax revenue and jobs.

Jonah

--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave

Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not quite sure what the US administration is trying to do. The only thing I can think is that they want to be seen to be taking the lead - a US led "War on Climate Change" rather than a UN or G8 led initiative (which at the moment a G8 initiative could be seen as German led). I could understand a position where the US administration was saying "we don't believe it's as serious a problem and in need of the drastic action some propose, therefore we'll enter negotiations within existing frameworks to fight our case for less severe action" (though I'd probably disagree). But, why try and start a whole new initiative rather than work in the existing ones for a favourable outcome for the US - at the end of the day if they don't get what they want they can do what they did with Kyoto and simply not sign up (which would probably scupper the deal, but I don't see that they're going to get what they want if they chair the system either).

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hiro's Leap

Shipmate
# 12470

 - Posted      Profile for Hiro's Leap   Email Hiro's Leap   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
At a guess, I'd say that since Kyoto the scientific evidence for AGW has become even more overwhelming, and public opinion has shifted in favour of action. The US was going to be very isolated at the G8 conference, and backing out would have been much harder than it was at Kyoto. By creating an alternative forum they've delayed decisive action, and can count on China/India making negotiations trickier.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alan, my hunch is the same as yours. The current US administration clearly intensely dislikes the UN, and sees itself as the world's policeman.

From Bush's speil, it sounds like they don't want to do any of the things that the rest of the world thinks is necessary, instead saying the solution is technology. Whatever that means.

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
From Bush's speil, it sounds like they don't want to do any of the things that the rest of the world thinks is necessary, instead saying the solution is technology. Whatever that means.
Here's my theory: the US recognizes the hypocrisy of the political posturing from nations who say they'll do what is 'necessary' but don't and feels a different approach may actually lead to 'practical measures'.

Because IMO very few nations who badmouth the US are practicing what they preach. Further, if the environmental situation is as bad as some allege ONLY measures which will harm economies are going to be effective and there aren't many, if any, national leaders willing to use the power of the state necessary to achieve those measures.

Therefore, the US attempting to rein in the rhetoric may well be the best hope the world has to actually accomplish something even marginally useful.

Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
Because IMO very few nations who badmouth the US are practicing what they preach.

I fear you may be right (interesting commentary on this very subject today on the BBC website). However, I'm far from convinced that the US has the balls to address the shortcomings in other countries either. Ironically perhaps the greatest motivation might come from self-interest - the US is politically determined to reduce reliance on foreign oil, so may well drive through greener alternatives for that reason.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
However, I'm far from convinced that the US has the balls to address the shortcomings in other countries either. Ironically perhaps the greatest motivation might come from self-interest - the US is politically determined to reduce reliance on foreign oil, so may well drive through greener alternatives for that reason.
I'm not suggesting the US is hypocrisy free, by any stretch.

And unfortunately I think you are too optimistic about politics being an adequate motivator: IMO the US and the world will use primarily oil until it either becomes unavailable or something else becomes less expensive.

Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
And unfortunately I think you are too optimistic about politics being an adequate motivator: IMO the US and the world will use primarily oil until it either becomes unavailable or something else becomes less expensive.

Yes, indeed. And I think the the politics is driven by the thought that supply is (or will be) unreliable, and will potentially be very expensive too.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
Here's my theory: the US recognizes the hypocrisy of the political posturing from nations who say they'll do what is 'necessary' but don't and feels a different approach may actually lead to 'practical measures'.

Because IMO very few nations who badmouth the US are practicing what they preach.

Which seems somewhat strange given that, with the exception of Canada, those nations that have ratified the Kyoto agreement have at least cut their carbon emissions. Even if many are struggling to actually cut them enough to meet the requirements of the Kyoto agreement. Now, one could indeed argue that only those few nations (such as the UK) who are going to reach their Kyoto commitments are practicing what they preach, but I'd extend that to say that those nations which are trying hard. People who are trying to do the right thing, even if they're failing, stand on higher moral ground than those who declare it too hard and don't even attempt it.

And, of course, it doesn't make it easier to try hard if someone else who's in a position to make some relatively easy, yet significant, steps refuses to do anything at all. The UK isn't going to be far off a 20% cut in carbon emissions relative to 1990 in a few years, most of the EU isn't that far behind in making slightly smaller cuts, and all without any significant economic impact. Why isn't it possible for the US to at least try and follow the European example? Even a stabilisation of US carbon emissions at current levels would show some acceptance of the need to do something, and would hardly break the stride of US economic growth.

quote:
Further, if the environmental situation is as bad as some allege ONLY measures which will harm economies are going to be effective and there aren't many, if any, national leaders willing to use the power of the state necessary to achieve those measures.
Well, there's some debate as to exactly how much needs doing. The best estimate for stabilising temperatures at 2°C above the historic mean by 2050 is a cut of carbon emissions to about 50% that of 1990, which is still a long way above carbon emission levels of the 1950s. If 20% cuts can be achieved without any significant economic harm to developed nations (and, the UK is close to that) then 50% shouldn't be too bad either. The UK, incidentally, already has a 60% reduction by 2050 commitment irrespective of any international agreements; if other developed nations took a similar stance it would allow developing nations a chance to increase their emissions slightly while meeting the overall 50%target, which seems only fair to me.

And, of course, the economic effects would be less severe if we all faced them together. It's much harder if other nations aren't playing the same game and so undercut everyone who's picking up the costs of reducing carbon emissions.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616

 - Posted      Profile for Littlelady     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
OliviaG and Alan: thanks for the further explanations. I had to read both posts a couple of times - nothing new when I'm tackling the technical! - but I got there in the end.

On the point about America's announcement, I think this quote from the Gruniad link offers some insight into motivation:

quote:
However, he was critical of using emission caps or setting temperature control, the main instruments of Europe's approach, and repeated Washington's opposition to the European goal of limiting climate change to 2C. "We don't think that's a very practical approach," he said. "You can't manage the temperature."
The US culturally isn't keen on such things as caps generally, so far as I can remember from my time there. Such an approach, I would imagine, smacks of too much state (ie federal) control. Aside from any issues America has concerning reliance on external sources of fuel (and the UK potentially has a similar issue to consider viz gas supply from Russia) and assuming the administration are genuine, America appears to be choosing a route most appropriate to their own situation and approach to perceived problems. There does seem to be recognition that, along with China and India, they are the biggest producers of emissions so it does make sense to connect with others who share their position in the first instance rather than with those who do not. I find it perfectly understandable that America are opting to work out their own way of dealing with the issue. Asserting that the approach initiated by European nations is the only and/or best way forward is arrogance on the part of those nations.

[ 01. June 2007, 20:09: Message edited by: Littlelady ]

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The report I read in another newspaper this morning included one bit that seemed to be common sense to me. That is the US administration in making the announcement of this new initiative also called for a removal of tarrifs on low carbon technology. That would make it easier, and cheaper, for people to access such technology - though economically it would benefit the manufacturers, and the US administration is claiming a lead in such technology (though I'm not sure where; Europe is well ahead in renewable energy systems with the possible exception of concentrated solar power, where mirrors reflect sunlight into a tight focal point to heat water to drive turbines, which has been a feature of parts of the South Western US deserts for decades).

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Well, there's some debate as to exactly how much needs doing.
Alan Cresswell: Master Of Understatement. [Big Grin]

And I agree the US could be doing a lot more but human nature comes into play: when someone tells you to do something they either can't or aren't willing to do (and there's at least some of that), it rankles.

Whatever. When they elect me Prez I'll immediately start building nuke plants all over creation and incessantly use the bully pulpit to STRONGLY encourage voluntary conservation. But given that part of my platform will be to assert our 'economy' is not the be all and end all of what our nation should be, don't hold your breath waiting for me to appoint you to a cabinet position...

Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 206 on another thread:
quote:
Besides, at present, solar activity is reducing anyway through its own natural cycles (not that it's stopping the earth warming).
Alan,

If you don't mind I'd like to hear you unpack this a bit. I assume the sun's changing cycles causally affect the earth by either heating or cooling it?

If yes, is there a time lag? Any other thoughts on the topic appreciated.

Basically, the solar cycles affect the amount of energy incident on the Earth. There are two groups of cycles.

One is related to the orbit of the Earth - the Milankovich cycles - which operate on thousand year plus time scales with the Earth sometimes slightly further from the Sun (and hence getting less energy) sometimes slightly nearer. At present were near, and slightly past, the closest point of the major cycle which has been driving the sequence of glaciations and and inter-glacials over the last million years or so.

The other set of cycles relates to the activity of the Sun itself. There are sun-spot cycles, with maxima at about every 11 years) that result in changes in solar-flare rates and hard radiation, and slight changes in solar irradiance (the amount of energy reaching the Earth). Peaks of the solar cycle (the last was in about 2000) give an average of 1366.5 W/m², minima (where we are now) of 1365.5 W/m². That's a 0.07% difference. There are longer-term cycles in solar activity that are not clearly understood, though it does appear that we're in a slightly more active phase now than in the past. Though how that affects climate isn't clear - the so-called "Medieval Warm Period" coincided with both the "Oort Minimum" and "Medieval Maximum" periods of solar activity, although both those events appear to be higher solar activity than intervening periods. Longer term still, we've been experiencing a general decline in solar activity over the last 4000 years or so.

This Wikipedia page gives some nice pretty graphs of the various cycles.

The effect on the climate is to impact one side of the equation that determines the equilibrium temperature of the Earth. The Earth's temperature is in equilibrium when the energy input from the Sun matches the energy output from the Earth, with the Earth radiating more energy when it's warmer. So, increase the solar energy input and you'll raise the equilibrium temperature; decrease the solar input and you'll decrease the equilibrium temperature - all else being equal*.

The Earth does, however, have a thermal lag. Oceans, land and air all hold onto heat and release (or absorb) it at different rates. Dry air responds quickly (as you'll know if you've ever been in a desert at night), moist air takes longer to respond. The solid land responds slowest of all (as you'll know if you've been down caverns which maintain practically constant temperature regardless of the temperature above ground).

* Of course, all things aren't equal because there are other factors, especially atmospheric chemistry, that are likely to change in response to changing solar irradiance.

[ 04. July 2007, 10:05: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools