More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

ERRORIST · 2005-01-13 20:46:06

Not talking about the ice! Just the water!

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-13 21:37:28

On the other hand, Cobra has essentially conceded that the goal is to so muddy up the public discussion space that meaningful public discourse on global warming becomes essentially impossible. Something that entirely benefits the "do nothing" agenda.

Not so much the goal as a contingency plan. The preferable outcome is a truly objective, non-sensationalist scientific examination of all the evidence with a focus on avoiding damage from the results of severe climate change rather than a crusader zeal to lay blame for climate change.

Next in line is do nothing.

The least desirable outcome is blind acceptance of the unproven assertion that industrialized Western man is directly responsible for any climate change recorded and the instituting of policies whose effect has no bearing whatsoever on climate but economically destroys Western nations in general and the United States specifically.

The first option is what I want, but I'll take the middle if it's the best I can get.

BWhite · 2005-01-13 22:36:57

The least desirable outcome is blind acceptance of the unproven assertion that industrialized Western man is directly responsible for any climate change recorded and the instituting of policies whose effect has no bearing whatsoever on climate but economically destroys Western nations in general and the United States specifically.

Once again, I will repeat my double wall tank story.

Here in Illinois, about 15-20 years ago, legislators wanted to require that all gas stations store their gas in double walled underground tanks. If one wall burst the 2nd would prevent soil contamination.

For years, the big companies (Shell, Texaco, Amoco etc. . .) fought tooth and nail. Then, they all magically said okay and the law passed in a heartbeat.

Then, it was discovered that only the big companies had the resources to comply. Small gas stations went out of business overnight. Sad, in a way. But the small stations really were not able to comply and many stations were discovered to have contaminated soil that had to be remediated at taxpayer expense because the owners were bankrupt.

= = =

Apply the example to Kyoto. China is exempt, today. But if we were to comply with Kyoto by going to effiicent technologies and hydrogen (which we can do with our superior technology) then in future years - - maybe ten years out or fifteen years - - we ally with the European greenies and bash the heck out of China for carbon dioxide emissions.

Like the big gas stations we can comply and we can use that as a hammer, after we comply.

Now, all we do is piss off the Europeans and lose our moral leverage for allies to compel others to do anything.

= = =

After reading Dennis Wingo's book, a move to a hydrogen fuel cell economy will create substantial new demand for platinum for making fuel cells. It's only a piece of the puzzle for the hydrogen economy but it's a very real incentive for lunar resource exploitation.

But, if the US government has it's interests attached to business as usual - - military dominance of the Persian Gulf and higher miles per gallon is a purely private virtue that government has no business being involved with, where will the money come from to mine lunar platinum?

= = =

As for the science, we are dumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. That cannot be argued. The consequences may be unproven.

But, a runaway greenhouse will end up destroying billions of lives, many of them in nations that possess nuclear weapons.

Regardless of the science, diplomacy requires at least a decent respect for the appearance of taking it seriously.

BWhite · 2005-01-13 22:47:52

The least desirable outcome is blind acceptance of the unproven assertion that industrialized Western man is directly responsible for any climate change recorded and the instituting of policies whose effect has no bearing whatsoever on climate but economically destroys Western nations in general and the United States specifically.

Here is a http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … l]National Geographic link.

Let's forget about blame. Let's suppose its an entirely natural phenomenon. So what?

Suppose your apartment building is on fire. Do you say, "not my problem, I didn't start it?"

Seems to me that even if industrialism does not cause global warming, the western world would be well advised to investigate how to stabilize our climate.

When you own the biggest, best home in town, common sense says to pay for the best fire department possible.

Despite the Pentagon's sanguine assessment that the US will weather climate change and retain a position of global dominance, a cavalier, "up yours" attitude to the rest of the world will only invite retaliation - - whether deserved or not.

GraemeSkinner · 2005-01-13 23:01:16

The least desirable outcome is blind acceptance of the unproven assertion that industrialized Western man is directly responsible for any climate change recorded and the instituting of policies whose effect has no bearing whatsoever on climate but economically destroys Western nations in general and the United States specifically.
Here is a http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … l]National Geographic link.
Let's forget about blame. Let's suppose its an entirely natural phenomenon. So what?
Suppose your apartment building is on fire. Do you say, "not my problem, I didn't start it?"

That is one of the problems with environmental issues, the idea that just because we did not directly cause it means it will not affect us in any way.

We know so little about the environment in reality that any theory at the moment could probably be made to fit the facts if you tried hard enough.

I'd rather take the stance that if we can prevent pollution as much as reasonably possible then we are already on the way to reducing global warming (if the theories are correct).

Graeme

ERRORIST · 2005-01-13 23:40:24

I doesn't matter. We can just wait for the next global extinction to occur and then start over again like Adam and Eve. But if just Adam and Steve survive its curtains.

GraemeSkinner · 2005-01-14 00:03:20

I doesn't matter. We can just wait for the next global extinction to occur and then start over again like Adam and Eve. But if just Adam and Steve survive its curtains.

Is this for real, or an attempt at sarcasm?

Just sit back, wait for extinction and start over?

(I won't even comment on the relevance of Adam and Eve, thats one hell of a gene pool to believe in).

Graeme

Euler · 2005-01-14 00:27:40

Apply the example to Kyoto. China is exempt, today. But if we were to comply with Kyoto by going to effiicent technologies and hydrogen (which we can do with our superior technology) then in future years - - maybe ten years out or fifteen years - - we ally with the European greenies and bash the heck out of China for carbon dioxide emissions.
Like the big gas stations we can comply and we can use that as a hammer, after we comply.
Now, all we do is piss off the Europeans and lose our moral leverage for allies to compel others to do anything.

Lets look at the goals for Kyoto: National targets range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland." The EU, Japan, and Russia all have stagnant economies and declining populations. Why should the US have to reduce emissions by the same amount when it has an increasing population and relatively robust economy?

If we really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions, the most cost-effective way would be to start with China. Since China does not have as much fossil fuel dependent infrastructure, it would be much easier for the Chinese to start building renewable energy infrastructure. Of coarse the Chinese would not agree to limit their emissions without getting anything in return, but if the rich countries agreed to subsidize the development and construction of renewable infrastructure, I think that the Chinese would go along with the deal.

After reading Dennis Wingo's book, a move to a hydrogen fuel cell economy will create substantial new demand for platinum for making fuel cells. It's only a piece of the puzzle for the hydrogen economy but it's a very real incentive for lunar resource exploitation.
But, if the US government has it's interests attached to business as usual - - military dominance of the Persian Gulf and higher miles per gallon is a purely private virtue that government has no business being involved with, where will the money come from to mine lunar platinum?

Hydrogen powered cars would actually increase CO2 emissions unless we stop getting our electrical power from fossil fuels. Fuel cells are also very expensive, fuel cell cars would have a limited range, and the conversion from petroleum to fuel cells would take a very large amount of investment. I am far from convinced that fuel cells are the answer.

GraemeSkinner · 2005-01-14 00:38:24

As long as people claim Kyoto is just an underhand economical attack on some countries the idea behind it will not progress any further.

Just as you can say that with an every increasing population you can not keep down CO2 emissions, you could look at it from another angle and say that with more people the effectiveness of CO2 controls could be improved.

It's too easy to keep passing the buck, eventually it has to stop somewhere, if every country keeps going "you start".... "no, you start" we'll be able to see which model on global warming is correct.

Graeme

Euler · 2005-01-14 01:14:01

As long as people claim Kyoto is just an underhand economical attack on some countries the idea behind it will not progress any further.
Just as you can say that with an every increasing population you can not keep down CO2 emissions, you could look at it from another angle and say that with more people the effectiveness of CO2 controls could be improved.
It's too easy to keep passing the buck, eventually it has to stop somewhere, if every country keeps going "you start".... "no, you start" we'll be able to see which model on global warming is correct.

You could have every country that releases CO2 contribute funds in proportion to the amount of CO2 that they release. This money would then go to fund climate research and the development of renewable sources of energy.

BWhite · 2005-01-14 06:18:00

If we really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions, the most cost-effective way would be to start with China. Since China does not have as much fossil fuel dependent infrastructure, it would be much easier for the Chinese to start building renewable energy infrastructure. Of coarse the Chinese would not agree to limit their emissions without getting anything in return, but if the rich countries agreed to subsidize the development and construction of renewable infrastructure, I think that the Chinese would go along with the deal.

China's present and future coal burning is the largest threat, I agree. But it's a "do as I say, not as I do" sort of prescription that would be buried under a mountain of cynicism. And the direct wealth transfer needed to accomplish this would be staggering.

As for the hydrogen to feed fuel cells, I would consider cracking H2O using fission.

ERRORIST · 2005-01-14 07:09:38

As for the hydrogen to feed fuel cells, I would consider cracking H2O using fission.

Why not crack H2O using a laser?

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-14 09:36:36

Apply the example to Kyoto. China is exempt, today. But if we were to comply with Kyoto by going to effiicent technologies and hydrogen (which we can do with our superior technology) then in future years - - maybe ten years out or fifteen years - - we ally with the European greenies and bash the heck out of China for carbon dioxide emissions.
Like the big gas stations we can comply and we can use that as a hammer, after we comply.

Depending on the expense of complying. If we can do it without serious negative consequences it makes sense, assuming we accept direct confrontation with China as a given. If we lose too much in the process, we're better off not doing it.

So let's try to renegogiate the treaty, we'll sign if our obligations are altered to X, then we can sign and make manageable changes for long-term economic reasons, not pseudo-science "the sky is falling" doomsday prophecies.

Unfortunately as Kyoto now stands, it is classic old-Left "hit the rich" strategy, only now applied to entire nations.

Seems to me that even if industrialism does not cause global warming, the western world would be well advised to investigate how to stabilize our climate.

Assuming stablization is possible, I'm not convinced it is. aside from all the natural sources of greenhous emissions the sun is variable as well. We may well find upon an honest examination that the climate is getting warmer and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it. Unfortunately there are far too many people out there with a vested interest in blaming us for it regardless.

Perhaps we'd be better served looking into how to adapt to the effects of climate change rather than trying to stop it and impose an artificial stability onto a system far more powerful and complex than we care to admit.

I'd rather take the stance that if we can prevent pollution as much as reasonably possible then we are already on the way to reducing global warming (if the theories are correct).

This is actually a disservice that the enviromental movement has done to itself, equating pollution and global warming. Pollution is something to be reduced as much as possible, even if global warming doesn't exist.

But if we cut back on filth in the air and nothing much happens, they'll claim they were right and we owe the continued existence of life on this planet to their foresight, never once considering that the imminent greenhouse doom was a figment of their imaginations.

Hydrogen powered cars would actually increase CO2 emissions unless we stop getting our electrical power from fossil fuels. Fuel cells are also very expensive, fuel cell cars would have a limited range, and the conversion from petroleum to fuel cells would take a very large amount of investment. I am far from convinced that fuel cells are the answer.

I heartily agree. The idea of fuel cells as an enviromental solution isn't ready for prime-time yet.

I support many of the same alternative energy concepts and pollution controls as the more environmentaly obsessed, just for very different reasons.

BWhite · 2005-01-14 09:54:24

So let's try to renegogiate the treaty, we'll sign if our obligations are altered to X, then we can sign and make manageable changes for long-term economic reasons, not pseudo-science "the sky is falling" doomsday prophecies.
Unfortunately as Kyoto now stands, it is classic old-Left "hit the rich" strategy, only now applied to entire nations.

Fair enough, but just walking away from the process and promising vague voluntary measures for the indefinite future doesn't work well, either. As usual, Cobra, we find agreement between the extremists on either side. What are those song lyrics,

Clowns to the left of us, jokers to the right. . . ?

I would rather use intellectual jujitsu on the extreme greenie-wackos by applying the principle that a good diplomat can tell someone to "go to hell" and they end up being grateful for the suggestion.

If our leaders spoke as you just did - - we don't know for sure what is happening, maybe we can stop it, maybe not - - but we need to adapt either way and here's how we can start, I believe most of the middle would go along.

The geologic record does suggest that the last 10,000 years have been astonishingly stable, compared to geologic time as a whole. Maybe climate disruption is someting we did not cause with SUVs.

However, unless we arrange a global response and coerce or leverage the Chinese and Indians to participate, we will face this issue fighting amongst ourselves which can only make finding solutions or acceptable adaptations that much harder.

= = =

On a related political point, if our current GOP leaders would say:

"Listen, folks. Radical Islam is a big problem and we need to be united to deal with it. Therefore, we propose a truce on the contentious social issues that divide us. Once we finish dealing with the terrorists, then we can return to squabbling. We propose that neither side take advantage until job #1 is finished."

I would be far more willing to support genuine bi-partisanship.

Relevant to global warming / climate change, how?

If the US said:

"Kyoto is flawed. But we do face serious issues. Let us figure out a way to solve them. We will not permit solutions that are intended to bring us down but we also agree not to propose solutions that advance or solidify American global hegemony."

Then, people might listen.

Edited By BWhite on 1105719337

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-14 10:08:11

Fair enough, but just walking away from the process and promising vague voluntary measures for the indefinite future doesn't work well, either. As usual, Cobra, we find agreement between the extremists on either side. What are those song lyrics,
Clowns to the left of us, jokers to the right. . . ?

Stuck in the middle... with you This seems to happen quite frequently.

However, unless we arrange a global response and coerce or leverage the Chinese and Indians to participate, we will face this issue fighting amongst ourselves which can only make finding solutions or acceptable adaptations that much harder.

Again, I'm generally in agreement though for reasons other than enviromental concerns. I'm far more inclined to agree with arranging a global response as opposed to submitting to a global dictate as well. Everyone needs to cede some ground here.

BWhite · 2005-01-14 10:18:58

Fair enough, but just walking away from the process and promising vague voluntary measures for the indefinite future doesn't work well, either. As usual, Cobra, we find agreement between the extremists on either side. What are those song lyrics,
Clowns to the left of us, jokers to the right. . . ?
Stuck in the middle... with you This seems to happen quite frequently.
However, unless we arrange a global response and coerce or leverage the Chinese and Indians to participate, we will face this issue fighting amongst ourselves which can only make finding solutions or acceptable adaptations that much harder.
Again, I'm generally in agreement though for reasons other than enviromental concerns. I'm far more inclined to agree with arranging a global response as opposed to submitting to a global dictate as well. Everyone needs to cede some ground here.

Agreed!

= = =

A good hegemon would arrange things without leaving fingerprints. Our current hegemonic leadership has the diplomatic touch of a brickmason.

If you can't be a good Machiavellian, don't even try.

Edited By BWhite on 1105719646

John Creighton · 2005-01-17 13:00:57

I remember a while back someone said that the depletion of the ozone would have a net cooling effect. There logic being that ice is reflective so the light that gets in at the poles should just be reflected off the ice. There are two questions that come to mind. The first bring does ice reflect UV light well because it is the UV light that gets in with the depleted ozone. Even still I don’t much light gets in at the poles anyway. I would think the important thing to considered is how does the ozone level change over the equator. The sun would emit a greater percentage of its black body radiation in the UV region than the earth because the sun is hotter. I am surprised ozone is not at least a mild green house gas.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-11 09:32:16

This is the newest of threads so here goes:
We have since the 1800's and maybe even before, recorded temperatures and other weather percipitation as a means of tracking growing seasons that were good but we have also seen that it was effected by man with release of CF's into the atmosphere since an ozone hole over the artic formed.

The advent of the global satelite system as well has allowed an even more broad acknowlegdement that maybe global warming is more than just a trend of a single input it why it may happen but into understanding what effect will come about from other inputs.

Earth Gets A Warm Feeling All Over

Last year was the fourth warmest year on average for our planet since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists.

Then you have the contradiction that we are not in a global warming trend. The use of indirect data from tree rings and ice sheet to show how past climates have changed and how soon.

Natural Climate Change May Be Larger Than Commonly Thought

This study builds on an analysis of indirect climate data, such as information from ocean and lake bottoms, ice sheets, caves and annual tree rings. The use of this kind of material to reconstruct climate far back in the past is nothing new in itself. The difference between the new study from previous ones, is the selection of data series and the method used to estimate temperatures from them.

C M Edwards · 2005-02-23 14:52:53

Hello all.

Here's an excerpt of an interesting Scientific American article with yet another take on global warming:

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa0 … Scientific American Article

The complete article claims a regular cycle of CO2 and CH4 concentrations over time, corresponding to the precessions of Earth's orbit (and consequent changes in solar radiation). It further claims that ice ages tend to correspond quite closely to these orbital cycles and corresponding CO2 & CH4 cycles.

According to this, CO2 concentrations tend to be highest immediately after an ice age rather than before, then slowly decreases until the start of the next ice age. (Sorry, The Day After Tomorrow isn't consistent with their data.) The only period that differs from this pattern is the last 8000 years, which roughly corresponds to the invention of agriculture. They go on to claim that not only did global agriculture cause a global warming event, but that major changes in atmospheric CO2 over the past 2000 years have all corresponded with major pandemics and famines in human history.

In short, dramatic drops in the amount of cultivated land caused dramatic drops in atmospheric CO2.

They say that, according to this cycle they've discovered, Earth should already be entering a new ice age. However, the current cycle is different, with much more stable CO2 levels over time, and the cause of that is agriculture. The last two centuries of fossil fuels are just an unusually quick and large spike.

Farming altered the global climate, and farmers are holding back the ice sheets.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-23 15:01:32

Bwa ha ha ha... more fun to annoy enviro-mental-ists (as in really mental) with.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-29 13:10:47

Scientists Confirm Earth's Energy Is Out Of Balance

Using satellites, data from buoys and computer models to study the Earth's oceans, scientists have concluded that more energy is being absorbed from the Sun than is emitted back to space, throwing the Earth's energy "out of balance" and warming the planet.
The current imbalance is 0.85 watts per meter squared (W/m2) and will cause an additional warming of 0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) by the end of this century.
This is equal to a 1-watt light bulb shining over an area of one square meter or 10.76 square feet. Although seemingly small, this amount of heat affecting the entire world would make a significant impact.
To put this number in perspective, an imbalance of 1 W/m2 maintained for the last 10,000 years is enough to melt ice equivalent to 1 kilometer (6/10ths of a mile) of sea level. The Earth's energy imbalance is an expected consequence of increasing atmospheric pollution, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), and black carbon particles (soot).

Its funny how the very satelites that monitor this are currenty being reviewed to be cancelled to make way for the CEV and manned space exploration.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-02 08:58:41

Well as indicated in the article New probe may silence climate sceptics the Traceable Radiometry Underpinning Terrestrial and Helio Studies or TRUTHS would put the sensitivity and non calibration question to rest.

BWhite · 2005-06-02 09:56:23

Well as indicated in the article http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? … 25023.600] New probe may silence climate sceptics the Traceable Radiometry Underpinning Terrestrial and Helio Studies or TRUTHS would put the sensitivity and non calibration question to rest.

If you believe God planted the fossil record as a "test of faith" no new satellite is going to convince you not to drive an SUV. :;):

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-02 10:09:11

If you believe God planted the fossil record as a "test of faith" no new satellite is going to convince you not to drive an SUV.

Nor should it.

So another satellite supports the assertion that the climate is changing, so what? As far as I'm concerned that isn't really in dispute, the climate is always changing and always has been. But if even the most ardent skeptic is made to accept the premise it still in no way shows a causal relationship between human activity and the recorded change. The problem is that way too many people fail or refuse to draw a distinction between climate change and the religion of man-caused climate change. Recording a one or two degree average increase in temperature over a few decades doesn't prove man burning fuel is making the planet turn into Venus any more than the existence of a rabbit proves that God made it.

BWhite · 2005-06-02 10:22:23

If you believe God planted the fossil record as a "test of faith" no new satellite is going to convince you not to drive an SUV.
Nor should it.
So another satellite supports the assertion that the climate is changing, so what? As far as I'm concerned that isn't really in dispute, the climate is always changing and always has been. But if even the most ardent skeptic is made to accept the premise it still in no way shows a causal relationship between human activity and the recorded change. The problem is that way too many people fail or refuse to draw a distinction between climate change and the religion of man-caused climate change. Recording a one or two degree average increase in temperature over a few decades doesn't prove man burning fuel is making the planet turn into Venus any more than the existence of a rabbit proves that God made it.

Two alternatives:

(a) If human caused CO2 release is driving climate change, humanity needs to adjust its activities.

(b) If CO2 from human activities is not causing our current climate change, we have a bigger problem since we then need to learn how to terra-form Earth and preserve a reasonably benign climate.

Our global economy is premised on a benign climate. If the relatively benign climate (which has existed for the last 10,000 years and which corresponds to the rise of human civilization) returns to the more typical chaotic patterns existing over geologic time, the potential human die-offs will be substantial, and since India and China have nukes, that die-off will not be peaceful.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-01-13 20:46:06

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#27 2005-01-13 21:37:28

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#28 2005-01-13 22:36:57

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#29 2005-01-13 22:47:52

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#30 2005-01-13 23:01:16

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#31 2005-01-13 23:40:24

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#32 2005-01-14 00:03:20

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#33 2005-01-14 00:27:40

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#34 2005-01-14 00:38:24

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#35 2005-01-14 01:14:01

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#36 2005-01-14 06:18:00

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#37 2005-01-14 07:09:38

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#38 2005-01-14 09:36:36

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#39 2005-01-14 09:54:24

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#40 2005-01-14 10:08:11

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#41 2005-01-14 10:18:58

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#42 2005-01-17 13:00:57

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#43 2005-02-11 09:32:16

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#44 2005-02-23 14:52:53

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#45 2005-02-23 15:01:32

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#46 2005-04-29 13:10:47

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#47 2005-06-02 08:58:41

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#48 2005-06-02 09:56:23

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#49 2005-06-02 10:09:11

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

#50 2005-06-02 10:22:23

Re: More on Global Warming - This is interesting...

Board footer