Global Climate Change

[Scott in Winnipeg]

So I called in about this tonight. My main points are that in order to understand the science that we need to see what the people doing the actual research are saying. Ziggy got it somewhat right when he followed after my call, in that scientists publish their research papers and other scientists try and falsify or verify those results. BUT, after the testing is done a majority trend can be seen and that's when we get consensus.

Here are some of the rebuttals to the objections that Mark and Ian brought up during my and Ziggy’s calls, taken from this webpage.

http://www.skepticalscience.com

BTW, I'm not "sacred", I don't advocate government intervention, I just care about acurate information going out over the airwaves.

"It's the sun" In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.

 "Climate's changed before" Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2.

"There is no consensus" That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organisations that study climate science. More specifically, 97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

"It's cooling" Empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.

 "Ice age predicted in the 70s" 1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.

"Mars is warming" Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming.

"It's just a natural cycle" The 1500 year cycles, known as Dansgaard-Oeschger events, are localized to the northern hemisphere and accompanied with cooling in the southern hemisphere. In contrast, current global warming is occuring in both hemispheres and particularly throughout the world's oceans, indicating a significant energy imbalance.

"Other planets are warming" There are three fundamental flaws in the 'other planets are warming' argument. Not all planets in the solar system are warming. The sun has shown no long term trend since 1950 and in fact has shown a slight cooling trend in recent decades. There are explanations for why other planets are warming.

"Scientists can't even predict weather" Weather is chaotic, making prediction difficult. However, climate takes a long term view, averaging weather out over time. This removes the chaotic element, enabling climate models to successfully predict future climate change.

"Pluto is warming" Pluto's climate change over the last 14 years is likely a seasonal event. Pluto experiences drastic season changes due to an elliptical orbit (that takes 250 Earth years). Any Plutonian warming cannot be caused by solar variations as the sun has showed little to no long term trend over the past 50 years and sunlight at Pluto is 900 times weaker than it is at the Earth.

"Animals and plants can adapt to global warming" A large number of ancient mass extinction events have been strongly linked to global climate change. Because current climate change is so rapid, the way species typically adapt (eg - migration) is, in most cases, simply not be possible. Global change is simply too pervasive and occurring too rapidly.

"Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate" Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising by 15 gigatonnes per year. Humans are emitting 26 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Humans are dramatically altering the composition of our climate.

"Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted" Weather is chaotic because air is light, it has low friction and viscosity, it expands strongly when in contact with hot surfaces and it conducts heat poorly. Therefore weather is never in equilibrium and the wind always blows. The climate is mostly explained by equilibrium radiation physics, which puts the brakes on variations in global temperatures. Effects from weather, the Sun, volcanoes etc. currently only causes a small amount of chaotic behavior compared to the deterministic, predictable greenhouse gas forcing for the next 100 years"

[BobRobertson]

http://www.climatedepot.com/

[Cognitive Dissident]

It's over.  They've been shown to be religious zealots, and the data they've manipulated for decades is worthless.  Fortunately, a global warming catastrophe is probably about as likely as the literal events in The Revelation, the Apocalypse of John.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

It's over.  They've been shown to be religious zealots, and the data they've manipulated for decades is worthless.  Fortunately, a global warming catastrophe is probably about as likely as the literal events in The Revelation, the Apocalypse of John.

Probably true, but pollution is still not good. They're right in that regard, and as it is 2010, I think we can move beyond burning dinosaur bones.

[BobRobertson]

Probably true, but pollution is still not good.

Now THERE is a very good point. Pollution, in a truly free market, is also very, VERY expensive.

It took government stepping in and PREVENTING law suits against the so-called "smokestack" industries during the 1800s in the name of "promoting progress" that gave us the burning rivers, etc.

Rockefeller's relentless drive for efficiency is what stopped oil producers from just dumping gasoline and asphalt and such, by creating products out of what had been just pollution.

High-tech is much cleaner, and therefore less expensive in that way. Intel, for example, saw a savings of MILLION$ changing their cleaning process from flourocarbons to distilled water.

I am all for 100% liability for pollution. Prove damages for CO2, if you can, but I think CO2 is going to be the LEAST "polluting" byproduct when actual science is applied to the problem.

[Cognitive Dissident]

It's over.  They've been shown to be religious zealots, and the data they've manipulated for decades is worthless.  Fortunately, a global warming catastrophe is probably about as likely as the literal events in The Revelation, the Apocalypse of John.

Probably true, but pollution is still not good. They're right in that regard, and as it is 2010, I think we can move beyond burning dinosaur bones.

I do what I can to limit my pollution.  I think that's a no-brainer for responsible individuals.  If you're burning dinosaur bones, you're doing it wrong...and if they're right about "peak oil," that problem will take care of itself anyway.

I also agree that CO2 will be pretty unlikely in a free market to be defamed as a "poison."  My plants sure like it.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

I do what I can to limit my pollution.  I think that's a no-brainer for responsible individuals.  If you're burning dinosaur bones, you're doing it wrong...and if they're right about "peak oil," that problem will take care of itself anyway.

I also agree that CO2 will be pretty unlikely in a free market to be defamed as a "poison."  My plants sure like it.

Peak oil is a liberal idea that strikes me as "wonky". They should leave the economics to the grown-ups.

But, we will eventually run out, and switching to nuclear is inevitable. Luddite NIMBY's be damned.

Carbon dioxide= what comes out of your lungs
Carbon monoxide= what comes out of your car exhaust

Just so everyone is on the same page here.

[BobRobertson]

Peak oil is a liberal idea that strikes me as "wonky". They should leave the economics to the grown-ups.

But, we will eventually run out, and switching to nuclear is inevitable. Luddite NIMBY's be damned.

Oil isn't dino bones anyway. It's a product of deep-hot-biosphere action on methane and other natural geologic compounds, through the same basic process as thermal depolymerization.

How else to explain Titan and its hydrocarbon atmosphere? Or will someone try to say that Titan was actually populated by massive numbers of dinosaurs?

_Coal_, indeed, is a fossil fuel. I do not like the byproducts of burning coal, that's some nasty shit.

If it weren't for the Federal killing of nuclear with their abominable Nuclear Regulatory Agency, we'd have clean, safe and cheap electric generation for everyone.

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

As much as I disagree with government policy in global warming, the fact remains the planet is coming out of a small Ice Age, so a rebound should be expected. Correlation with industrialization doesn't imply causation by same industrialization for the warming period. And trying to say the ice caps will melt doesn't make the climateology field look good either (considering that precipitation patterns changing is much worse, but just not a sexy of a sell to the media...).

[Diogenes The Cynic]

Peak oil is a liberal idea that strikes me as "wonky". They should leave the economics to the grown-ups.

But, we will eventually run out, and switching to nuclear is inevitable. Luddite NIMBY's be damned.

Oil isn't dino bones anyway. It's a product of deep-hot-biosphere action on methane and other natural geologic compounds, through the same basic process as thermal depolymerization.

How else to explain Titan and its hydrocarbon atmosphere? Or will someone try to say that Titan was actually populated by massive numbers of dinosaurs?

_Coal_, indeed, is a fossil fuel. I do not like the byproducts of burning coal, that's some nasty shit.

If it weren't for the Federal killing of nuclear with their abominable Nuclear Regulatory Agency, we'd have clean, safe and cheap electric generation for everyone.

Grow a humerus. I was being facetious.

Mercury is found in high concentrations in coal mines, and that too ends up in the atmosphere.

What really pisses me off is how its the government that instituted the moratorium on the building of new nuclear plants.

[hellbilly]

Mercury is found in high concentrations in coal mines, and that too ends up in the atmosphere.

But you see, the gov. knows this and so they enacted the Clean Air policies. So what the coal companies do is wash the coal that has been mined. They wash it and wash it some more with all sorts of corrosive and toxic stuff! That way it burns somewhat cleaner, you see. So they do care about the air.

Too bad about all the toxic sludge that is formed as a result of all that washing. Lead, Mercury.. all sorts of bad stuff gets pooled into "sludge ponds".

What happens to all that toxic sludge though? It eventually spills out into natural waterways, leeches down through barriers and contaminates the drinking water of the local populace. But at least the air is clean!

Here's an example of a sludge spill. Just so happens that I grew up on the creek this happened on, Wolf Creek.

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

Yep, gotta love how govts subsidize polluting motherfuckers.

[BobRobertson]

Yep, gotta love how govts subsidize polluting motherfuckers.

Regular people don't make regular campaign contributions, nor fund lobbyists with expense accounts.