Brexit

[Matador]

It is well established science that the Earth's climate has changed over its lifetime. There is no reason to think this has suddenly stopped happening so of course there is Climate Change. Which direction is is going right now is anyone's guess - remember, we have only just emerged from the last ice age about 12,000 years ago which is no time at all geologically speaking.

Yes, this has happened before due to myriad reasons:  but doesn't explain what is happening now.

This is a good treatise : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5kejSYPD7U

 

[JohnRoberts]

The answer is A) yes, and B) yes.

Fire departments responding to a house fire will often spray water on the houses adjacent.  Why bother, if the burning house is a total loss?  Perhaps to keep the problem from spreading?  Your argument is like saying that any drug which merely slows down the advancement of aggressive cancers is pointless, since the person is going to die, and it's not a cure.  Slowing down a problem is a worthwhile goal in and of itself.  And in this case, the house is the only one we can live in, and we set the fire ourselves.

Not remotely my thought process... but speaking of cancer a roughly half million dollars worth of chemotherapy and treatments kept my brother alive for 5 years after he was diagnosed with gut cancer.  He told me he would have much rather put a new roof on his house and given the rest of the money to his family. (When i get cancer I'll probably spend my money on hookers and heroin, that won't take any 5 years either.    So far two of my three siblings succumbed to the big C.)

Back to the climate... and I have been discussing this here for years, if and when we decide on what the global temperature thermostat should be set to, we can apply actual remedies...  Warming or cooling the planet is as simple as changing the amount of heat absorbed from the sun or reflected off the upper atmosphere (like after volcanos).

I will also repeat my caution. We better be damn sure of what we are doing before we fool with mother nature because we don't have a good handle on chaotic aspects of climate (thats why they call it weather).

IMO the strategy to reduce carbon use is a global "feel good" group hug, tolerated by the rest of science community because it is mostly harmless, only wasting money.  If the world cut carbon emissions to zero, the climate would still warm for a couple centuries.

If continued research determines we need to take real action say 100 years from now, I'm sure the scientists can come up with a more practical plan then.  These climate scientists seem remarkably certain of global temperatures centuries from now. 

Trumps official position is that any regulation that might halt expanding profits is Bad TM:  even one job lost under the guise of protecting the environment is one job too many, and that mortgaging the environment gives a short term benefit, the costs of which will be paid by Someone Else TM.
That was said by Richard F-ing Nixon!

You don't have to take my word for it, we can all just read the list of executive orders and see the plan in action.

Rex Tillerson secretary of state has established a public record while at Exxon recognizing the human contribution to global warming, but he like many disagrees with the lengths that the Obama administration went.

Some call this a sham, scam, whatever...  IMO this is not remotely an immediate crisis  (crisis is political code for trust me I know better than you).  I have confidence that human ingenuity and technology can cool or warm the planet if required. I support more study (of all positions) over future centuries,  but less arm waving and less calls for immediate action.

JR

 

[ramshackles]

Why is it now called climate change? First it was Global Warming. Then someone decided they had better differentiate between the natural warming that has been happening for the last 50,000 years and any contribution made by mankind and call it  Anthropogenic Global Warming.

It is well established science that the Earth's climate has changed over its lifetime. There is no reason to think this has suddenly stopped happening so of course there is Climate Change. Which direction is is going right now is anyone's guess - remember, we have only just emerged from the last ice age about 12,000 years ago which is no time at all geologically speaking.

Cheers

Ian

Climate change and global warming are two subtly different things. I think I remember a module on atmospheric physics or something in my first year of uni...

Climate Change is a term used to describe...well just that - changes in long term weather trends throughout our climate. It is generic and encompasses all causes (natural or man made). Climate change has always happened and always will. Climate change  has been caused in the past by scenarios such as massive volcanic eruptions, changes in solar radiation or asteroids hitting the earth, among other things. It is often related to extinction events...

Global Warming is a term used specifically to describe climate change caused by human activities

In every scientific paper I've read, those two terms are used.
As for which direction it is going now and the causes, the scientific community is pretty much unanimous in its' opinion:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/meta
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/booklets/climate_change_2008_final.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

The likely consequences are up for debate...
Burning fossil fuels might even delay the next few glacial periods:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070829193436.htm

Of course, whether that is good or bad, I dont know. 

 

[ruffrecords]

In every scientific paper I've read, those two terms are used.
As for which direction it is going now and the causes, the scientific community is pretty much unanimous in its' opinion:

When will people learn that science is not about consensus.


Cheers

Ian

 

[micaddict]

JohnRoberts wrote:

I will also repeat my caution. We better be damn sure of what we are doing before we fool with mother nature

Taking millions of years worth of CO2 binding (=fossil fuel) and releasing that into the atmosphere, on a major scale and within a short span of time, that is fooling with "mother" nature.
Remedies regardless.
I could mention a couple, though.

 

[DaveP]

The UK recently had its first day ever without coal being used for electricity generation.

They have largely converted to gas to achieve this.

The amazing thing is that they have done this without a coherent energy policy

DaveP

 

[ruffrecords]

The UK recently had its first day ever without coal being used for electricity generation.

They have largely converted to gas to achieve this.

The amazing thing is that they have done this without a coherent energy policy

DaveP

Which is simply replacing one fossil fuel with another.

Cheers

Ian

 

[DaveP]

Yes, that's true and it's only a temporary measure until renewables start to make a bigger contribution.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

The UK recently had its first day ever without coal being used for electricity generation.

They have largely converted to gas to achieve this.

The amazing thing is that they have done this without a coherent energy policy

DaveP

NG releases less carbon to atmosphere than coal... The US has dramatically reduced carbon emissions also for these purely economic (cheaper energy) reasons.

My local $7.1B "clean coal" power plant  just missed another start up date...(blamed on leaks in the syngas cooler tubes).  When announced in 2006 it's cost was stated at $1.8B and online start up by 2014.  When finally operational (if ever) it will be more expensive to convert coal to gas, then to just burn NG (guess who gets to pay for this planet hugging exercise....? moi).

The rate commission if they do their job (protecting customers) , will just force them to forget the coal and burn NG at current prices. The plant has actually been running on NG for a while now. Later if NG price increases to be more expensive than gasified coal we can revisit. They could have saved billions of dollars and years jerking around if they just built a NG plant from the start. My brother (the one still alive) is a consultant in the power generation industry and he has only seen new  NG plants for several years now.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

Climate change and global warming are two subtly different things. I think I remember a module on atmospheric physics or something in my first year of uni...

Climate Change is a term used to describe...well just that - changes in long term weather trends throughout our climate. It is generic and encompasses all causes (natural or man made). Climate change has always happened and always will. Climate change  has been caused in the past by scenarios such as massive volcanic eruptions, changes in solar radiation or asteroids hitting the earth, among other things. It is often related to extinction events...

Global Warming is a term used specifically to describe climate change caused by human activities

In every scientific paper I've read, those two terms are used.
As for which direction it is going now and the causes, the scientific community is pretty much unanimous in its' opinion:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/meta
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/booklets/climate_change_2008_final.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

The likely consequences are up for debate...
Burning fossil fuels might even delay the next few glacial periods:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070829193436.htm

Of course, whether that is good or bad, I dont know.

Several of us are old enough to remember the arm waving about global cooling.  Calling it "change" avoids embarrassing empirical results.

There would be winners and losers from warming (not just losers).

Science and dependent government policy should be grounded in skepticism and proof.  I don't see enough of either with efforts from within the last administration to squelch scientific dissent using government force (use of RICO was suggested), and reward agreement with generous funding.

While politics is all about manufacturing consent (by hook or crook), science instead is all about hypothesis, debate, experiments, and proof.  It is impossible to know the future with certainty, but we need an honest investigation into probable futures.

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

When will people learn that science is not about consensus.


Cheers

Ian

Ian, that's a bit of a strawman though.

No "settled" science is framed as being absolute ultimate 100% fact, just overwhelmingly probable. It's all about when the test results conform to the predictions with such high probability that we essentially call it a "fact" despite there being a tiny chance of a prediction not coming true.

So, since it's about probability it actually makes sense to discuss this as a matter of whether or not scientists in general agree with something or not. When the overwhelming amount of scientists agree that the earth is warming, not cooling, then that's something to take very seriously. That consensus isn't what makes it true, and it's fair to say that unless we are equipped to evaluate the data ourselves we're appealing to authority (half empty glass) or to expertise (half full glass).

So, I would say then that you can find scientists, i.e. people with degrees in scientific areas, that say that the earth is only about 6-10,000 years old, and you'll find scientists that say evolution takes place only on a small level and that we didn't evolve from ancestral primates (apes).

Now, if you agree that that's the case, that there are in practice no 100% consensus on the age of the earth or evolution either, even within the scientific community, then if you're consistent you'll question those propositions as well. But of course we don't. Because we have an education and we trust this science to be true.

Really the question should be why on earth are we so bent on questioning this (global warming) science when it's about as settled?

 

[mattiasNYC]

Several of us are old enough to remember the arm waving about global cooling.  Calling it "change" avoids embarrassing empirical results.

So what you're saying is that empirical results show that the earth is warming?

There would be winners and losers from warming (not just losers).

Yeah, and we know how that will pan out: Winners will be those with power and money, losers will be those without.

Science and dependent government policy should be grounded in skepticism and proof. 

Ok, and isn't it more reasonable to listen to the scientific community globally rather than individual politicians whose campaigns were paid for by corporations?

And if we listen to the scientific community what is the overwhelming conclusion regarding global warming?

And if they're all wrong, just what is the proof that shows that they're wrong? The proof isn't that someone made an incorrect prediction in the past. If that was the case then we'd still not really know that the earth is round.

While politics is all about manufacturing consent (by hook or crook), science instead is all about hypothesis, debate, experiments, and proof.  It is impossible to know the future with certainty, but we need an honest investigation into probable futures.

And that is exactly what thousands of scientists have done all over the planet, yet here (predominantly) Americans and conservatives are pretending that hasn't happened.

Perhaps the pertinent question should be:

In your opinion; what would "an honest investigation into probable futures" look like?

 

[DaveP]

My local $7.1B "clean coal" power plant  just missed another start up date...(blamed on leaks in the syngas cooler tubes)

There are very great problems to overcome in building a reliable clean coal plant because of the impurities the coal contains.  In the lab it might be possible to use a catalyst to remove carbon from CO2, (a catalyst is the chemical equivalent of a wormhole in space time) but in reality they get contaminated and lose efficiency.  You would probably have to distil the coal to remove the gases (to make coke), clean them and then burn them along with the coke and hopefully strip some oxygen out of the CO2.  Much better to use the NG in the first place and leave the coal in the ground as you say.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

So what you're saying is that empirical results show that the earth is warming?

As I have said MANY times we are in the late interglacial period where warming has occurred in previous cycles.

Yeah, and we know how that will pan out: Winners will be those with power and money, losers will be those without.

One track mind much? I was thinking more about new arable farmland in Canada, etc. But another ice age will require more than carbon tax credits to deal with.

Ok, and isn't it more reasonable to listen to the scientific community globally rather than individual politicians whose campaigns were paid for by corporations?

I never said to listen to politicians... my white elephant clean coal power plant came from doing that.

And if we listen to the scientific community what is the overwhelming conclusion regarding global warming?

As I has also said many times before the question asked is  A "is the planet warming", not B "are the government policies reasonable." This is just politics to manufacture what looks like wide consensus, but A being True does not mean B is correct. Classic political manipulation of the sheeple.

And if they're all wrong, just what is the proof that shows that they're wrong? The proof isn't that someone made an incorrect prediction in the past. If that was the case then we'd still not really know that the earth is round.

It is impossible to prove their prediction about temperatures and events centuries from now, unless we wait.

There is a geological record that suggests with some non-zero probability that the repeating cycles of ice ages will not suddenly stop.

And that is exactly what thousands of scientists have done all over the planet, yet here (predominantly) Americans and conservatives are pretending that hasn't happened.

Perhaps the pertinent question should be:

In your opinion; what would "an honest investigation into probable futures" look like?

Like I said continue to research both pro and con warming thesis. At the same time experiment with strategies to force warming and cooling... I wouldn't be surprised if the contrails that the tin foil hats complain about are some secret studies, but there are already non secret studies.

Seeding the ocean with iron would cause a algae bloom that would absorb more heat... Dispersing aerosols into the upper atmosphere could increase reflections and cause cooling.  Thoughtful economists and scientists have been working on this for decades.  My summer job back in the 60s was in a machine shop that supported Columbia university's oceanographic research ships (they mapped the ocean floor and took core samples to create a historical record going way back from the sediment).   

You are making a political argument about a scientific question. The scientific literacy of the general public is so low they can't tell the difference, and vote for the "feel good" approach as is human nature. I claim we are all ignorant, especially the politicians than they claim to be.

I am reminded of the old toothpaste commercial that claimed 9 out of 10 dentists used crest toothpaste. Classic call to authority manipulation of sentiment "trust the experts" . 

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

There are very great problems to overcome in building a reliable clean coal plant because of the impurities the coal contains.  In the lab it might be possible to use a catalyst to remove carbon from CO2, (a catalyst is the chemical equivalent of a wormhole in space time) but in reality they get contaminated and lose efficiency.  You would probably have to distil the coal to remove the gases (to make coke), clean them and then burn them along with the coke and hopefully strip some oxygen out of the CO2.  Much better to use the NG in the first place and leave the coal in the ground as you say.

DaveP

The quitman clean coal power plant is so state of the art, that the art wasn't finished when it was started (2006), arguably it still isn't. In the meantime the regulators retroactively raised the carbon restrictions well after the plant was already started.(2010-2015) 

I mentioned I have a brother who consults to the power generation industry.  I recall asking him about clean coal probably last century. For those who don't recall (I have been paying attention for a long time) there was a government funded clean coal pilot project in IL that was abandoned because after millions of government dollars the results were not promising.  According to my brother, it would never be cost effective or practical because of the issues with heavy metals (mercury, etc).

Imagine my surprise when I learned that I would be getting my home's electricity from clean coal... Still haven't BTW (maybe my brother was right).

I have no problem with scrubbing arsenic and mercury from coal smokestacks but carbon seems a lot less problematic.

JR

 

[DaveP]

I have no problem with scrubbing arsenic and mercury from coal smokestacks but carbon seems a lot less problematic.

No the opposite.
Look at it this way, energy is released by burning carbon (coal) in oxygen (air).  In theory you have to put a similar amount of energy into breaking the bonds between Carbon and Oxygen to split them up again, but sometimes a catalyst provides a shortcut.  The whole process is fraught with technical problems and science that is working against you rather than for you.

DaveP

 

[DaveP]

It is well established science that the Earth's climate has changed over its lifetime. There is no reason to think this has suddenly stopped happening so of course there is Climate Change. Which direction is is going right now is anyone's guess - remember, we have only just emerged from the last ice age about 12,000 years ago which is no time at all geologically speaking.

Sometimes its better to trust your own common sense than politicians who invariably have another agenda.
Yes there have been ice ages and warmer times recorded in the geology which I accept, but I believe that recent human activity has superimposed a warming effect  over the underlying trend.  If the underlying trend was warming, then we have made it worse, if it was cooling then we may have some cancellation.  There is no way of knowing with certainty which of those will prove to be true until later on, which may be too late.

My personal gut feeling is that its too risky to bet on and that we should assume a worse case scenario to be on the safe side.  The ever rising CO2 content will make the world hotter and wetter and windier like turning up the heat on a kettle.  The results of extreme climate change will fall the most heavily on the poorest and most overpopulated parts of the world.  You do not need to be a genius to see that this will result in mass migration and wars over diminishing resources.  This is a lousy legacy to leave our children and grandchildren to deal with.  Sometimes too much information just leads to confusion, just use some common sense to see how human nature works. 

DaveP

 

[tands]

At the end of the day, the cause is capitalism, which demands exponential growth in order to exist. It's either continued capitalist growth and an ailing planet, or slowed growth and a healthier one. This is why capital fights against the idea.

 

[ruffrecords]

Sometimes its better to trust your own common sense than politicians who invariably have another agenda.
Yes there have been ice ages and warmer times recorded in the geology which I accept, but I believe that recent human activity has superimposed a warming effect  over the underlying trend.  If the underlying trend was warming, then we have made it worse, if it was cooling then we may have some cancellation.  There is no way of knowing with certainty which of those will prove to be true until later on, which may be too late.

I agree it is often better to use your own common sense possibly tempered with a liberal dose of suspicion concerning the motives of certain people (politicians and scientists in this case)

My personal gut feeling is that its too risky to bet on and that we should assume a worse case scenario to be on the safe side.  The ever rising CO2 content will make the world hotter and wetter and windier like turning up the heat on a kettle.  The results of extreme climate change will fall the most heavily on the poorest and most overpopulated parts of the world.  You do not need to be a genius to see that this will result in mass migration and wars over diminishing resources.  This is a lousy legacy to leave our children and grandchildren to deal with.  Sometimes too much information just leads to confusion, just use some common sense to see how human nature works. 

DaveP

My personal gut feeling is we are being led up the garden path in order to cover up the real issues. There are two dangers. The obvious one is that it is in the interests of politicians and a lot of scientists to promote human CO2 emissions as the culprit. The more subtle one is the assumption that that reducing human CO2 emissions, assuming it actually happens, will actually make a difference. Human CO2 pundits  studiously ignore two major factors that quite possibly have a far greater influence on climate than human CO2. The first is that big ball of nuclear gas in the sky called the sun. It is the power supply and we all know what happens when you get noise on a power supply. The second is water vapour which is much more of a greenhouse gas than CO2 and appears as clouds. The thing is they act as a moderator. If it gets hot and sunny the seas evaporate and produce clouds which cut down the heat reaching the surface by reflecting it back into space. I never see these two factors discussed.

What is more alarming to me is the climate could go either way independent of what we humans do. We could get a lot of warming no matter what we do but we are not prepared to meet the consequences. Equally, back in the 70s, scientists were predicting we were entering another ice age. This could yet be the case but again we are not prepared to meet it.

And don't get me started on the huge island of rubbish in the Pacific.

Cheers

Ian

 

[ramshackles]

When will people learn that science is not about consensus.


Cheers

Ian

When you have a problem with an analytical solution, then yes, it is not about consensus.
When your model is stochastic and finding an analytical solution is impossible (as is the case with all atmospheric, geological, geophysical and hydrological models), then consensus is a huge part of it.