Skeptic Confirms GW Real, Arctic Melt Accels, SRM Testing

[cgzro]

While China is a large contributor of emissions, they are also investing heavily in solar energy and are being stonewalled by the US government for trying to sell their technology.

I believe that the Chinese government is building many new nuclear reactors, dams and coal and natural gas generating stations. 100's of billions are being invested in these energy sources. Chinese private companies on the other hand are reacting to demand from Europe and selling turbines and solar panels at I'm sure a nice profit ... however I doubt seriously their government investment in these companies is but a miniscule drop compared to what they invest in traditional sources of energy and these companies are expected to repay the loans they get! Basically its Capitalism with a capital 'C' over there.

[Rockie]

But its also crazy to do something for the sake of doing something when you can't change the outcome. It really comes down to a costs vs benefits analysis. I don't think we should crash civilization as we know it just to feel like we're trying.

Who says we can't change the outcome? You? Scientists don't agree and as usual I'll go with their opinion over anybody on this forum. Also what makes you think doing something about it will crash civilization? You talk about scientist being alarmist but that is the most absurd statement I've ever heard.

If we lose the race, we lose the race. We'll deal with that when it comes. After all, for as strong as you believe in the matter Rockie, I don't see you giving up your aviation career to support the reduction in hydrocarbon consumption and returning to subsistence farming so the drastic need for change can't be that great can it?

If you're trying to make me feel guilty or discredit my opinion with the fact I have a job and a car it won't work. Fundamental structural changes like this require political will on a global scale and years of gradual development and carefully orchestrated change, not individuals choosing to live like mennonites. I think you're smart enough to figure that out.

So start already ... whats stopping you?

Nothing, that's why I express my opinion to my elected representatives and you good folks. What are you doing?

[robertsailor1]

History shows that Governments only act in a crisis so I wouldn't be holding my breath on this one if your expecting something proactive.

[Topspin]

Good points ... why does no one worry about our Sun going
super-nova?

Because it lacks the mass to go supernova and with the current rate of consumption of core hydrogen we've got about 5 billion years give or take before it goes into a red giant with shell burning hyrdogen. However, I hope I am alive to see Betelgeuse go supernova, but that has been only predicted within a one million year window....

I think Eta Carinae is a much better bet.

[cgzro]

Nothing, that's why I express my opinion to my elected representatives and you good folks. What are you doing?

I write software that reduces the energy use in Data Centers and previously wrote software that helped control hydro networks which was used actually during the Ice storm in Quebec. I know one of the other commenters here writes software that keeps oil platforms safer and reduces the chances of oil spils.

[Rockie]

Nothing, that's why I express my opinion to my elected representatives and you good folks. What are you doing?

I write software that reduces the energy use in Data Centers and previously wrote software that helped control hydro networks which was used actually during the Ice storm in Quebec. I know one of the other commenters here writes software that keeps oil platforms safer and reduces the chances of oil spils.

Excellent. I have no idea how to write software myself so my personal contribution is limited to recycling and running my house, car and airplane as efficiently and cleanly as I can.

Oh...I also vocally support responsible stewardship of our planet to my government and anybody else who will listen. If enough people did that things would change faster and much more dramatically than recycling and flying my airplane efficiently could accomplish.

[Shiny Side Up]

Who says we can't change the outcome? You?

Well actually the scientists quoted in the opening post did.

The above process likely constitutes runaway warming, in which no amount of emissions reductions by humans will stop (but perhaps slow) the process.

Again pertinent to the discussion

According to numerous scientists (Oxford 4 degree Conference) and present IPCC data, we must begin adaptation for a hotter world since dangerous warming is now inevitable.

Apparently the scientists don't think we can stop it either, so again, why should we go through a lot of effort to prevent global warming?

If you're trying to make me feel guilty or discredit my opinion with the fact I have a job and a car it won't work. Fundamental structural changes like this require political will on a global scale and years of gradual development and carefully orchestrated change, not individuals choosing to live like mennonites. I think you're smart enough to figure that out.

Indeed. I only sought to demonstrate that there is no individual will to combat global warming even by many of its crusaders, how can one expect that there will be a collective will to affect political and a global scale change. After all we don't need individuals to live like mennonites, we need everyone to live like mennonites. I guess at the heart of this discussion maybe you believe that the human race will act in a concerted fashion peacefully to enact such change, but I don't share your optimism. Currently most of the planetary population is still too concerned with day to day survival to worry about such things. The rest for the most part are either distracted by their iPhones and what's on reality tv, or think that their invisible sky-friend is going to bail them out if it gets bad. Personally I think the species is doomed. Until we can make real progress getting past all these other problems we have in cooperating, it just ain't going to happen. So sit back enjoy it while you can.

[Rockie]

Apparently the scientists don't think we can stop it either, so again, why should we go through a lot of effort to prevent global warming?

Because the actions necessary to stop it also happen to be necessary to slow it. Part of that "adaptation" thing they're talking about. Plus the scientific consensus isn't that we can't stop it but rather that we are getting close to the tipping point and immediate action is necessary. There's a difference.

Indeed. I only sought to demonstrate that there is no individual will to combat global warming even by many of its crusaders, how can one expect that there will be a collective will to affect political and a global scale change. After all we don't need individuals to live like mennonites, we need everyone to live like mennonites.

Where do you get this idea that combatting global warming means driving horse drawn buggies? It doesn't. It means developing alternate sources of energy to replace fossil fuels which even the dimmest bulb among us must admit will have to be done eventually anyway. It's not that hard a concept to understand, but implementing it will as I said take innovation, imagination, determination and science. Something we humans are emminently capable of as we've shown in the past.

Individual will comes from recognizing the dangers and determining that action must be taken to deal with it. In this case that comes proactively from education and public awareness, or retroactively when widescale famine, lack of water and mass migration to cooler and richer countries begins to occur. Which would you prefer?

Collective will comes from all the informed individuals pressing their government to act. People who dispute global warming either through ignorance or more self serving reasons prevent proactive responses to this threat. People who finally admit the threat but don't want to act because it's "too late" are just as dangerous.

In other words, denyers are finally recognizing (if not admitting) that scientists actually knew what they were talking about afterall. It would be best for everybody if they either pressed the government to take real action on it or just shut the hell up.

[iflyforpie]

I think Eta Carinae is a much better bet.

Won't be visible from where I'll likely be...

[System Message]

That article was intended to be misleading. Professor Richard Muller was never considered a global warming contrarian. His work did expose the program used to create the hockey stick temperature graph as fraudulent, as it would make a rising graph from any data used. For this work the cause nearly crucified him.

This was a well timed press release coming just after climategate version two became public.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/

Early this morning, history repeated itself. FOIA.org has produced an enormous zip file of 5,000 additional emails similar to those released two years ago in November 2009 and coined Climategate. There are almost 1/4 million additional emails locked behind a password, which the organization does not plan on releasing at this time.

The original link was dropped off in the Hurricane Kenneth thread at about 4 AM Eastern. It is still there.

Some initial snippets floating around the blogosphere:

<3373> Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
"reconstruction”.

<3115> Mann: By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.

<3940> Mann: They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted
upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a
bit.

<0810> Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
doing, but its not helping the cause

<2440> Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process

<2094> Briffa: UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
task.

[Shiny Side Up]

Where do you get this idea that combatting global warming means driving horse drawn buggies? It doesn't. It means developing alternate sources of energy to replace fossil fuels which even the dimmest bulb among us must admit will have to be done eventually anyway.

[sigh] Missing the point. The problem is that until we have one of those solutions in hand we have no means of going without fossil fuels shy of forcibly de-indutrializing a majority of the population. We still must adress the issue of the rapidly increasing rate at which we consume which is directly tied to how many of us there are. Why are these problems not looked at hand in hand, otherwise we'll be looking at the same problem with whatever other resourse we decide to tap. There is no magic free source of energy. Why would you assume that your life can just continue at the same with some magic flip of the switch fix?

It's not that hard a concept to understand, but implementing it will as I said take innovation, imagination, determination and science. Something we humans are emminently capable of as we've shown in the past.

But we rarely get motivated to improve for improvement sake itself. Capable of? Yes. Likely to? No. I personally am tapped out on ideas as to how to solve the problem, so like you I'm hoping someone else out there is going to figure out a better plan. Remember when I talked about sacrifice the people are going to have to make to advance? Innovation and science both have shown that we advance them considerably more rapidly when we are pressed. As of yet, War has been our biggest motivation to innovate. I personally don't think a majority of the populace is prepared to do what is necessary to make the change until it gets dire.

Individual will comes from recognizing the dangers and determining that action must be taken to deal with it. In this case that comes proactively from education and public awareness, or retroactively when widescale famine, lack of water and mass migration to cooler and richer countries begins to occur. Which would you prefer?

Matters not which I would prefer, it matters more which I think will happen. People will only get really interested in change when there is widescale famine, lack of water and mass migration. Have you read Collapse? We don't have a really good track record of operating otherwise.

[Rockie]

[sigh] Missing the point. The problem is that until we have one of those solutions in hand we have no means of going without fossil fuels shy of forcibly de-indutrializing a majority of the population.

[Sigh] Missing the point.

Find a solution(s) and implement it, and quit wasting time debating whether all the ice is melting or not and why. It is, and HEAT causes it.

Is it really that impossible to understand? What is it about that simple idea that confuses you? Nobody is suggesting winding the industrial clock back 200 years except you.

[mcrit]

Find a solution(s) and implement it

And your proposed solutions are........?

[Rockie]

Find a solution(s) and implement it

And your proposed solutions are........?

My proposed solution is to seriously put the big brains and resources of science, industry and government to work developing sustainable non-GHG energy sources to start. Then get them to work devising ways to deal with the dramatic climate changes that will occur because we were too stupid to heed scientists warnings to begin with.

I thought that was glaringly obvious.

[Siddley Hawker]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/ ... story.html

[WileyCoyote]

I think the solution is for a massive change in how energy is generated and distributed. If everyone made their homes generate the energy they consume(Primarily through solar), and quality public transportation was in place, the problem would be largely reduced. North America's love affair with the car, and transportation of goods is what consumes the most oil.
For the change to happen, people would have to start thinking of investing in solar instead of big screen TV's, and building trains instead of new roads and football stadiums. Until people start waking up to the world around them, start co operating with instead of killing each other, and trying to outdue each other financially; collapse is the only way it will happen...
I think the issues happening today(Occupy movement, global warming, degradation of the middle class, religious fighting, corporate greed), are all symptoms of the same, larger problem. We, as a people, need to pull our heads out of our asses and realize that no matter what race, religion, or nationality; we really are only all the same. We are all inhabitants of a pale blue dot, and if we all don't start acting as inhabitants of it, we all die.

[cgzro]

If everyone made their homes generate the energy they consume(Primarily through solar),

If you don't care about cooking, heating, cooling, refrigeration, charging cell phones, shaving, bathing, charging an electric car or laundry, then yes you could light 6 rooms with 100watt bulbs. Say you have them on for 12 hours. Thats 600x12 or 7200watt-hours per day.

Given that current technology can produce about 70 milli-watts per square inch when fully lit and assuming we had about 5 hours of sunlight in 24 hours in winter on average, thats 350 milliwatt-hours per day per square inch (with you on the roof cleaning the cells all winter, so just imagine how many people will die falling off roofs...) anyway ..

Therefore you need about 7200/.350 square inches or about 21,000 square inches. At 144 square inches to the square foot, we need 145 square feet of solar panels just to keep the lights on.

That translates to 24 square feet of solar panels to light one 100w light bulb for 12 hours........ at a cost of probably $20,000 every 10 years.... not counting battery costs, inverters, battery disposal costs etc.

You can extrapolate to a fridge, hot water heater, stove etc. to see how currently this is not practical and a lot more expensive than a giant screen TV.

Thats not to say its not a good idea to research and improve these technologies .. just to point out that they are not usable yet in the manner you suggest and its not a good idea to try to mandate things that don't work.

I am however all in favor of providing money to engineering schools to research these topics but government mandates .. we are not there yet.

[Shiny Side Up]

[sigh] Missing the point. The problem is that until we have one of those solutions in hand we have no means of going without fossil fuels shy of forcibly de-indutrializing a majority of the population.

[Sigh] Missing the point.

Find a solution(s) and implement it, and quit wasting time debating whether all the ice is melting or not and why. It is, and HEAT causes it.

Is it really that impossible to understand? What is it about that simple idea that confuses you? Nobody is suggesting winding the industrial clock back 200 years except you.

Nice deflection, we're not debating whether its melting or not, we're debating on what we can do about it. I'm only saying that winding the industiral clock would be the only way to immediately reduce our consumption/pollution footprint to possibly enact a solution on a reasonable timeline. Given the timeline that was given in the opening post - looking at the worst effects to be fully manifest around 2100 - We don't have any cards to play. All the technologies as to this point explored while many may ease the issue, none have proven to be golden hammer solutions.

And your proposed solutions are........?

My proposed solution is to seriously put the big brains and resources of science, industry and government to work developing sustainable non-GHG energy sources to start. Then get them to work devising ways to deal with the dramatic climate changes that will occur because we were too stupid to heed scientists warnings to begin with.

What do you think these people are already doing? Though to be fair using the terms "big brains" and "government" together doesn't happen very often. Part of the problem is the fact that some of the "big brains" are working on solutions to the problem, but not necessarily to benefit people as a whole. Hence why I don't have a lot of faith in us getting a working solution until its probably too late.

[Rockie]

What do you think these people are already doing? Though to be fair using the terms "big brains" and "government" together doesn't happen very often. Part of the problem is the fact that some of the "big brains" are working on solutions to the problem, but not necessarily to benefit people as a whole. Hence why I don't have a lot of faith in us getting a working solution until its probably too late.

I said "seriously" working on the problem. Industry is not at all interested because they really really like making all the money oil provides and lack the imagination to see the potential of alternate energy. Science is trying, but between the denyers, defeatists and powerful parties working against them for their own interests (including our own government) they aren't being given the resources needed to do what they do best. Which brings us to government.

The regulations required to clean up our act and at least part of the funding must come from government. A government like we've had in the past that paid only lip service to the issue, and like the one we have now that eagerly anticipates global warming so they can capitalize on it doom any effort to combat the actual problem. We aren't searching for an answer to global warming, we're accelerating it.

Rex Murphy (you might remember him as the uncompromisingly right wing commentator on the communist propaganda station) devoted his piece last night to scornfully attacking environmentalists for taking Canada to task over our environmental record and policies, but not China or Venezuela. What he doesn't understand (or maybe he does and doesn't care) is that Canada is looked to for leadership in ethical matters, so when we disappoint by getting down in the mud with the worst of them it still gets attention. When our disgracefully irresponsible conduct no longer elicits harsh criticism we will have successfully reached the bottom of the barrel.

That day is getting uncomfortably closer and it does not make me proud.

[System Message]

We know that oil is not fossilized so the term fossil fuel needs some clarification. This is what I found.

The modern term “fossil fuel” is a linguistic relic from the sixteenth century and earlier times when any natural object or substance dug from underground was a fossil. Conradi Gesneri, published his book On Fossil Objects in 1565, in which the term “fossil” referred to any interesting object found in the ground.