You are not logged in.
I talked about observations, theories, and inherent uncertainties in post 17 above. With respect to climate change risks and actions, the more reliable information has science behind it, even though the alarmist demagogues give it a bad rep. This is better and more reliable for decision-making than the unsupported belief systems that oppose it.
As for the profiteers and demagogues crying about the sky falling, those noisy few seem to swamp the public's attention from the many quiet workers who uncovered this over the last several decades. Dumbing-down the education system teaching to a low-ball standardized test has made this worse.
One of the points I tried to make is that the 19th century ice observations independently point to mostly the same conclusions as the climate modelers point to. When two independent sources tell you the same thing, that's about as good a recommendation as there can be.
I also tried to point out that what we do about it is not the knee-jerk, sudden-change, 180-degree shift. Instead you do what is needed, with due regard to the fact that one-size-fits-all never works. Different regions have to do different things. Yet, it would provide many benefits to encouraging a faster shift toward cleaner power sources and fuels. These are new jobs that can't yet be automated out of existence for profit, and still-cleaner air and water, even if we cannot really affect the warming.
Looks like addressing this change at "best practical speed" is a win-win situation. The only losers are the fat, lazy giants unwilling to go to the trouble of making money in a newer way.
The downside is still unaddressed in these conversations: nobody yet is seriously planning how to cope if the warming and sea level rise is unstoppable. There are a lot of critical assets and people to be moved to higher ground, and perhaps only a generation or so to get that done. We should have started over a generation ago, then it wouldn't have been so painful and expensive. (You don't wait to lance a boil, it's worse if you do.)
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-10-17 12:25:41)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
It's not an unsupported belief to assert that Planet Earth is greener thanks to global warming.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2- … erfor-now/
I talked about observations, theories, and inherent uncertainties in post 17 above. With respect to climate change risks and actions, the more reliable information has science behind it, even though the alarmist demagogues give it a bad rep. This is better and more reliable for decision-making than the unsupported belief systems that oppose it.
As for the profiteers and demagogues crying about the sky falling, those noisy few seem to swamp the public's attention from the many quiet workers who uncovered this over the last several decades. Dumbing-down the education system teaching to a low-ball standardized test has made this worse.
One of the points I tried to make is that the 19th century ice observations independently point to mostly the same conclusions as the climate modelers point to. When two independent sources tell you the same thing, that's about as good a recommendation as there can be.
I also tried to point out that what we do about it is not the knee-jerk, sudden-change, 180-degree shift. Instead you do what is needed, with due regard to the fact that one-size-fits-all never works. Different regions have to do different things. Yet, it would provide many benefits to encouraging a faster shift toward cleaner power sources and fuels. These are new jobs that can't yet be automated out of existence for profit, and still-cleaner air and water, even if we cannot really affect the warming.
Looks like addressing this change at "best practical speed" is a win-win situation. The only losers are the fat, lazy giants unwilling to go to the trouble of making money in a newer way.
The downside is still unaddressed in these conversations: nobody yet is seriously planning how to cope if the warming and sea level rise is unstoppable. There are a lot of critical assets and people to be moved to higher ground, and perhaps only a generation or so to get that done. We should have started over a generation ago, then it wouldn't have been so painful and expensive. (You don't wait to lance a boil, it's worse if you do.)
GW
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
The Earth being round is an observation.
Similarly, the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, and any warming or cooling that is occurring, is an observation. Depending on the quality of the measurement, it may or may not be an accurate one. The idea that it is warming due to increased CO2 levels is a *theory*, which may or may not be supported by the data. The predictions of the temperature under different levels of CO2 are based on *models*, which have to be checked and verified against empirical data.
The data supports the conclusion that global warming is due in part to human activity. Are you challenging NASA and other scientific studies and data on this matter?
If so, have you published your findings and submitted them to peer review? I'm assuming you're an expert in that field.
I haven't read any credible scientific studies challenging the finding that humans are partly responsible for global warming held by the following organizations. Are they all wrong?
Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole Research Center
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Last edited by EdwardHeisler (2017-10-17 13:02:11)
Offline
Like button can go here
So, do you deny that the additional CO2 and warming is helping make the planet greener?
Terraformer wrote:The Earth being round is an observation.
Similarly, the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, and any warming or cooling that is occurring, is an observation. Depending on the quality of the measurement, it may or may not be an accurate one. The idea that it is warming due to increased CO2 levels is a *theory*, which may or may not be supported by the data. The predictions of the temperature under different levels of CO2 are based on *models*, which have to be checked and verified against empirical data.
The data supports the conclusion that global warming is due in part to human activity. Are you challenging NASA and other scientific studies and data on this matter?
If so, have you published your findings and submitted them to peer review? I'm assuming you're an expert in that field.
I haven't read any credible scientific studies challenging the finding that humans are partly responsible for global warming held by the following organizations. Are they all wrong?
Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole Research Center
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
Louis, don't be so obtuse! If all else were equal, increased CO2 would increase vegetation growth. But all else is NOT equal. It NEVER is!
Out here where I live on the edge of the vast western desert of North America, increased CO2 has led to increased temperatures and decreased rainfall. The net effect has been browning, not greening. It has become more imperative to buy cattle feed, since the grass growth is less luxurious.
That's a local-to-regional effect, to be sure. Other places will see an increase in rainfall, which appears to be a far stronger effect than CO2 concentration.
All of which goes to prove that latching onto a single possible effect is only a way to deceive yourself with a belief system instead of real science.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-10-17 16:11:05)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
Heat build up in the dry areas of the world in general are still causing the areas to continue expanding and getting even hotter with less rain falling in the areas as well.
Offline
Like button can go here
Yes, but now you entering into public policy = politics if you prefer. You're asking is it better for some areas to suffer vegetation loss if the whole planet gains? Should we strive to maintain things at the average over the last 500 years? So on and so on. These are not matters of science. But that the planet is greener thanks to CO2 and warming, does appear backed by the science. That's all I was noting, and the point was completely ignored by EH who seems to think global warming if of necessity a complete disaster.
Louis, don't be so obtuse! If all else were equal, increased CO2 would increase vegetation growth. But all else is NOT equal. It NEVER is!
Out here where I live on the edge of the vast western desert of North America, increased CO2 has led to increased temperatures and decreased rainfall. The net effect has been browning, not greening. It has become more imperative to buy cattle feed, since the grass growth is less luxurious.
That's a local-to-regional effect, to be sure. Other places will see an increase in rainfall, which appears to be a far stronger effect than CO2 concentration.
All of which goes to prove that latching onto a single possible effect is only a way to deceive yourself with a belief system instead of real science.
GW
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
Who said the whole planet was experiencing a net greening? None of the scientists in the peer-reviewed journals are saying that! The real verdict of the science is that regions of green and brown are going to shift location, very disruptive to our economies and food production industries. The relative balance of which (greening or browning) dominates is unclear, but an educated guess says any shift is unlikely to be dramatic in an overall sense.
Really dramatic desertification (where the gigantic red sandstone deposits come from) hasn't really happened since the Triassic, when CO2 was well over 1000 ppm, but the sun was about 6 full % dimmer than it is today. We're unsure about the oxygen content, it may have been higher. (It had been double today's concentration during the Carboniferous.) Plus, the continents were lumped together into Pangea. Everything was different. No way to judge, and so latching onto one issue to make post-predictions is quite apparently silly.
THAT is why I say latching on to one issue to make predictions is silly today. The world is WAY too complicated for that to work.
The climate models are still inadequate to the task, but they're better than anything else we have, if you temper their use to include post-predicting what we know about the past. And THAT's exactly what they do. Read the damned journals for yourself!
As for public policy, I would much rather see decisions based on science's best approximations to fact, rather than political or religious belief systems. Belief systems gave us things like the Nazis and ISIS. Facts gave us modern medicine, and enhanced food production capable of supporting our ridiculous exponentially-growing (and therefore unsustainable) population on a finite planet.
There will NEVER be 100% certainty about science's approximation to actual facts, but it's the very best information we have ever had upon which to base public policy decisions. Turning from that is the path back to the misery of the Dark Ages. Or worse.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-10-18 10:14:46)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
I said the planet was getting greener, which is true. I didn't say every inch of land area on the planet was getting greener. Had I wanted to, I would have! I very much doubt you really misunderstood what I was saying. Warmer = more rain as well as hotter. No one really knows which way it will go.
Who said the whole planet was experiencing a net greening? None of the scientists in the peer-reviewed journals are saying that! The real verdict of the science is that regions of green and brown are going to shift location, very disruptive to our economies and food production industries. The relative balance of which (greening or browning) dominates is unclear, but an educated guess says any shift is unlikely to be dramatic in an overall sense.
Really dramatic desertification (where the gigantic red sandstone deposits come from) hasn't really happened since the Triassic, when CO2 was well over 1000 ppm, but the sun was about 6 full % dimmer than it is today. We're unsure about the oxygen content, it may have been higher. (It had been double today's concentration during the Carboniferous.) Plus, the continents were lumped together into Pangea. Everything was different. No way to judge, and so latching onto one issue to make post-predictions is quite apparently silly.
THAT is why I say latching on to one issue to make predictions is silly today. The world is WAY too complicated for that to work.
The climate models are still inadequate to the task, but they're better than anything else we have, if you temper their use to include post-predicting what we know about the past. And THAT's exactly what they do. Read the damned journals for yourself!
GW
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
Louis:
You said "warmer is more rain". But warmer is not necessarily equal to more rain. I already told you that here in Texas away from the coast, warmer is demonstrably less rain. That effect extends across multiple states and half of Mexico, about 1/3 of the North American continent. You are latching onto a single effect and making a generalization for predictive purposes. I already told you that doesn't work. And thousands of real scientists would tell you exactly the same thing.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
There's No Science Behind Denying Climate Change
By Ethan Siegel, Contributor
Astrophysicist and author Ethan Siegel is the founder and primary writer of Starts With A Bang! His books, Treknology and Beyond The Galaxy, are available wherever books are sold.
Forbes
May 2, 2017
[Excerpt]
If you didn't know anything about climate science, about the Earth's temperature, about carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases, but you wanted to, how would you go about doing it? You'd begin by constructing a plan for how you'd accurately scientifically investigate the problem. You'd think about the data you'd need to collect and how you'd gather it. You'd think about the measurements you'd want to make and how to make them. You'd think about the sources of error and how to account for them: how to properly calibrate your data from all over the world and from many different time periods. And then you'd bring it together, under one enormous framework, to try and draw a scientifically robust conclusion.
Scientists may debate whether the techniques used to calibrate the data are optimal or not, but no one says "don't calibrate your data." Scientists may argue over the limitations of temperature or CO2 reconstruction techniques from proxies, but no one says, "don't use proxies." And scientists may argue about the merits of various models and the accuracy of long-term projections, but no one says, "there are errors and uncertainties, so therefore it's all garbage." Those calling themselves skeptics who've actually gone and done the science themselves have either drawn the same conclusions as the other experts in the field, or have made egregious errors -- arguably deliberate errors -- that have been uncovered.
If you want to argue about the conclusions of climate science, you owe it to yourself to understand the science for yourself. If you think the Earth isn't warming, how are you measuring the Earth's temperature over time? If you think that carbon dioxide content isn't increasing due to human activity, how do you think it's happening? If you think that the proxies are no good (e.g., if you ever heard the phrase "hide the decline," it refers to the decline in the usefulness of tree ring width under certain conditions), can you quantify just how "no good" you think they are?
Many have argued that scientists should stay out of politics. That scientists should stick to science, and that more and better science will always carry the day in the end. But science has already carried the day here; no scientifically valid alternative conclusion remains. The world is warming; increasing CO2 from human activity is the cause; the temperature will continue to increase for approximately 50 years after the last bit of extra CO2 is emitted; the more we emit, the faster the temperatures rise and the greater the feedback mechanisms will be. What should a scientist do in the face of an overwhelming conclusion being ignored by the entire world outside of the scientific community?
There are still scientific disagreements over questions of "how much," "how fast," and "in what ways will the climate change in various locations," but there is no scientific doubt over the overall conclusions. In any scientific discussion, argument or debate, the starting point is to agree on facts. But if you accept the facts, you must allow them to dissuade you from your position. The truth must be allowed to challenge your preconceptions. You must not cling to your desired conclusions, massaging the facts to fit them and throwing away the ones that don't. And you must root your conclusions in the data itself, not in your assessment of the scientists taking it or the entities that stand to suffer or benefit from those conclusions.
Nearly a century ago, a volume of 100 papers from 100 different authors was published, challenging Einstein's theory of relativity. When a reporter asked him about it, Einstein responded with a question:
“ Why 100? If I were wrong, one would be enough.
Indeed, if there were a conspiracy, if climate science were a hoax, and if all this research were incorrect, all it would take was one scrupulous, competent scientist. But every scrupulous, competent scientist that investigates it has come to the same conclusion: it's real, it's warming, and it's our CO2 that's doing it. You are free to deny climate change if you want, but there's no scientific leg to stand on if you do.
Read the complete article at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith … 337d904ff7
Offline
Like button can go here
FROM WIKIPEDIA: "Siegel worked at Fermilab in 1997.[3] He received his undergraduate degree in physics, classics and integrated science from Northwestern University in June 2000.[4][1][5] He was unsure whether to continue studying and took the GRE Physics Test "just in case".[6] He taught in high school in Houston[2] and at King Drew Magnet High School of Medicine and Science in inner-city Los Angeles for a year and though he "liked some aspects" of teaching he then decided he did not want to teach any longer, had a crisis and, influenced by Carl Sagan's Cosmos,[6] he went back into academia to study the universe.[1][7][8]
He studied theoretical cosmology, in particular cosmological perturbation theory,[9] at graduate school at the University of Florida with advisor Prof. Jim Fry from 2001. He received his PhD in 2006.[1][7][8][5] During his graduate studies he was a teaching assistant and lecturer in physics, he sat on the graduate student affairs committee, and he was an assistant coordinator for REU students.[8]
Siegel was a teaching assistant in undergraduate general physics at the University of Wisconsin in Spring 2007 [10] and then took up a post-doctoral research post at the University of Arizona, known for its physics research. In 2008, Siegel moved with his then fiancée to Portland, Oregon, after deciding to not pursue an ambitious research career with long hours and instead focus on science outreach and have a "fuller, richer life".[11] He taught at the University of Portland and then Lewis & Clark College, where he is a visiting assistant professor.[7][11][12] He later became science and health editor for Trapit.[11] He moved to Toledo in late 2014, while continuing to occasionally teach at Lewis & Clark.[7] "
Hmmm...
https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl= … _B0IlQEwDw
There's No Science Behind Denying Climate Change
By Ethan Siegel, Contributor
Astrophysicist and author Ethan Siegel is the founder and primary writer of Starts With A Bang! His books, Treknology and Beyond The Galaxy, are available wherever books are sold.
Forbes
May 2, 2017[Excerpt]
If you didn't know anything about climate science, about the Earth's temperature, about carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases, but you wanted to, how would you go about doing it? You'd begin by constructing a plan for how you'd accurately scientifically investigate the problem. You'd think about the data you'd need to collect and how you'd gather it. You'd think about the measurements you'd want to make and how to make them. You'd think about the sources of error and how to account for them: how to properly calibrate your data from all over the world and from many different time periods. And then you'd bring it together, under one enormous framework, to try and draw a scientifically robust conclusion.
Scientists may debate whether the techniques used to calibrate the data are optimal or not, but no one says "don't calibrate your data." Scientists may argue over the limitations of temperature or CO2 reconstruction techniques from proxies, but no one says, "don't use proxies." And scientists may argue about the merits of various models and the accuracy of long-term projections, but no one says, "there are errors and uncertainties, so therefore it's all garbage." Those calling themselves skeptics who've actually gone and done the science themselves have either drawn the same conclusions as the other experts in the field, or have made egregious errors -- arguably deliberate errors -- that have been uncovered.
If you want to argue about the conclusions of climate science, you owe it to yourself to understand the science for yourself. If you think the Earth isn't warming, how are you measuring the Earth's temperature over time? If you think that carbon dioxide content isn't increasing due to human activity, how do you think it's happening? If you think that the proxies are no good (e.g., if you ever heard the phrase "hide the decline," it refers to the decline in the usefulness of tree ring width under certain conditions), can you quantify just how "no good" you think they are?
Many have argued that scientists should stay out of politics. That scientists should stick to science, and that more and better science will always carry the day in the end. But science has already carried the day here; no scientifically valid alternative conclusion remains. The world is warming; increasing CO2 from human activity is the cause; the temperature will continue to increase for approximately 50 years after the last bit of extra CO2 is emitted; the more we emit, the faster the temperatures rise and the greater the feedback mechanisms will be. What should a scientist do in the face of an overwhelming conclusion being ignored by the entire world outside of the scientific community?
There are still scientific disagreements over questions of "how much," "how fast," and "in what ways will the climate change in various locations," but there is no scientific doubt over the overall conclusions. In any scientific discussion, argument or debate, the starting point is to agree on facts. But if you accept the facts, you must allow them to dissuade you from your position. The truth must be allowed to challenge your preconceptions. You must not cling to your desired conclusions, massaging the facts to fit them and throwing away the ones that don't. And you must root your conclusions in the data itself, not in your assessment of the scientists taking it or the entities that stand to suffer or benefit from those conclusions.
Nearly a century ago, a volume of 100 papers from 100 different authors was published, challenging Einstein's theory of relativity. When a reporter asked him about it, Einstein responded with a question:
“ Why 100? If I were wrong, one would be enough.
Indeed, if there were a conspiracy, if climate science were a hoax, and if all this research were incorrect, all it would take was one scrupulous, competent scientist. But every scrupulous, competent scientist that investigates it has come to the same conclusion: it's real, it's warming, and it's our CO2 that's doing it. You are free to deny climate change if you want, but there's no scientific leg to stand on if you do.
Read the complete article at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith … 337d904ff7
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
Does anyone here have an energy solution to counteract the supposed problem that doesn't involve mass murder through denying energy resources to our fellow humans, just to stop the planet from warming half a degree over the course of the next century? If not, then are the people ringing the alarm bells in favor of mass murder? We'll just assume that the problem is as bad as Chicken Little thinks it is to humor "the sky is falling" crowd, even though there are considerable variances between the observational data and climate model projections.
If the solution that the people complaining about the warming of the planet advocate is mass murder, then I don't care if the Earth warms a few degrees. If people built things too close to the water, then maybe they'll have to rebuild elsewhere over the course of the next eight decades. Stop whining about the problem and start working on the solutions.
Offline
Like button can go here
If you look at the price trajectories for solar, wind and battery storage, I think fossil fuel usage will go into steep decline within 20 years and be virtually unheard of within 50 years. It will be a non-problem within a few decades. I think people got carried away after the very real threat of ozone depletion was overcome through global action and were simply looking around for the "next best thing" (or should that be "worst").
Does anyone here have an energy solution to counteract the supposed problem that doesn't involve mass murder through denying energy resources to our fellow humans, just to stop the planet from warming half a degree over the course of the next century? If not, then are the people ringing the alarm bells in favor of mass murder? We'll just assume that the problem is as bad as Chicken Little thinks it is to humor "the sky is falling" crowd, even though there are considerable variances between the observational data and climate model projections.
If the solution that the people complaining about the warming of the planet advocate is mass murder, then I don't care if the Earth warms a few degrees. If people built things too close to the water, then maybe they'll have to rebuild elsewhere over the course of the next eight decades. Stop whining about the problem and start working on the solutions.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
Louis,
I really hope you're correct, but I think you're going to be disappointed. Trying to "talk tech into existence" won't make it magically appear. There have been an endless flow of claims about new battery technologies that are "even better than Lithium-ion", but so far nothing has materialized. The incorporation of Graphene into Lithium-ion batteries is only starting to make its debut, but no pure Graphene batteries exist outside of the lab. Other technologies like Aluminum-air are nearly ready for use, but more suitable for portable energy storage than grid scale storage. The molten metal batteries look particularly promising. If startups like the Australian-based 1414 Degrees can build combined heat and power pilot plants, then grid scale storage may very well be coming to a town near you.
The latest fusion results from MIT are more promising than anything I've seen in years, but the reactor was shut down last month. Their He-3 experiment was repeated by your guys in JET with the same results. An order of magnitude greater output is nothing to sniff at. Combined with the new REBCO superconductors to eliminate the considerable losses characteristic of previous generations of coils, it might just be enough to make it past break-even. Then we're looking at another decade or two to perfect the technology. In any event, the minute after a fusion runs for 24 hours and produces more output than input, there won't be much of a future for solar, wind, coal, or fission.
Offline
Like button can go here
The latest fusion results are always more promising than the previous ones...but it seems the technology remains a dream.
The progress on solar is truly amazing and I think all analysts agree it will be cheaper than all rivals within the next decade or so. Of course it cannot yet provide the base load, but that will also change I believe as battery price continue to fall -
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/energy-r … irill-klip
EV automobiles look set to dominate in a couple of decades. If electric is cheaper than gas for home heating and cooking, that too will follow eventually.
Louis,
I really hope you're correct, but I think you're going to be disappointed. Trying to "talk tech into existence" won't make it magically appear. There have been an endless flow of claims about new battery technologies that are "even better than Lithium-ion", but so far nothing has materialized. The incorporation of Graphene into Lithium-ion batteries is only starting to make its debut, but no pure Graphene batteries exist outside of the lab. Other technologies like Aluminum-air are nearly ready for use, but more suitable for portable energy storage than grid scale storage. The molten metal batteries look particularly promising. If startups like the Australian-based 1414 Degrees can build combined heat and power pilot plants, then grid scale storage may very well be coming to a town near you.
The latest fusion results from MIT are more promising than anything I've seen in years, but the reactor was shut down last month. Their He-3 experiment was repeated by your guys in JET with the same results. An order of magnitude greater output is nothing to sniff at. Combined with the new REBCO superconductors to eliminate the considerable losses characteristic of previous generations of coils, it might just be enough to make it past break-even. Then we're looking at another decade or two to perfect the technology. In any event, the minute after a fusion runs for 24 hours and produces more output than input, there won't be much of a future for solar, wind, coal, or fission.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
Louis, you tend to see whatever you want to see. You never critically evaluate anything that you happen to believe in. You oppose any analysis that doesn't give you the answer you want. Solar electricity and electric cars will not be any better or worse solutions because you happen to find them romantically attractive.
We both come from a country where various forms of idiotic idealism have ruined just about everything. It has degenerated into a totalitarian state with nothing but crap political ideals, authoritarian control and no money. Since you are planning to colonize another planet, where life will be harder than anything we have known, isn't it time to dump predispositions and do some decent analysis?
Offline
Like button can go here
I wouldn't say we have no money. We've got enough to pay off the DUP, at least. Good thing, too - they need it to buy firewood.
From my conversations with people involved in the, er, "noble pursuit of science", I get the impression that you don't get funded if you don't get the results that are wanted. That does not fill me with confidence. A lot of people have careers riding on Anthropogenic Global Warming being right.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
Like button can go here
I've linked to studies showing projected price reductions for solar power and batteries. That is what I base my views of the future on, not a romantic view of green energy. I would add that in terms of electric vehicles, electric roads will be very important, as they remove the need to plug in and will at a stroke wipe out the charging issue for longer range journeys:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style … 60121.html
Idiotic idealism has indeed taken its toll on the UK, but green energy doesn't come under that heading in my view.
In terms of Mars, Musk has already indicated he is going for solar - so I am not alone in thinking that is the way forward.
Louis, you tend to see whatever you want to see. You never critically evaluate anything that you happen to believe in. You oppose any analysis that doesn't give you the answer you want. Solar electricity and electric cars will not be any better or worse solutions because you happen to find them romantically attractive.
We both come from a country where various forms of idiotic idealism have ruined just about everything. It has degenerated into a totalitarian state with nothing but crap political ideals, authoritarian control and no money. Since you are planning to colonize another planet, where life will be harder than anything we have known, isn't it time to dump predispositions and do some decent analysis?
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
Thanks for the link on the road as its simular to the cellphone charging plate RF transmitted to a reciever antenna with convertor circuit but even this is flawed as distance will cause less power to be recieved by what is needing the charge and the power you are recieving will not be free for use. This will become expensive as road need repair due to winter plowing, frost heaves in the spring ect... not to meantion the need to replace water lines, gas lines ect...
As for going cold turkey on things that burn why not build other power generating systems that recycle Co2 for methane from dirty water ect...with the use of power generated from hydro, wind or solar to aid in this fuel creation.
Offline
Like button can go here
To me it appears that Kbd512 is as hard-over skeptical about renewable energy as Louis is hard-over optimistic. The truth lies in between.
The facts on the ground are that with the advent of fracking technology, natural gas is simply displacing coal economically. Gas is cleaner than coal in every sense of the word, so this is a good thing. It even produces a lower CO2 amount for each KW-hour generated, which is why the US was well on its way to meeting the goals of the Paris agreement that Trump pulled us out of. No intervention or incentives were needed for that major accomplishment.
For large scale renewable, there are solar photovoltaics in mass farms, and there is wind power farms. Yes, these are subsidized, but then so is fossil fuel, mainly oil and gas now. Political arguments over subsidies for one but not the other are pointless. The playing field is fairly level with the subsidies in place for renewables and fossil. If you remove the subsidies for one, you must remove the subsidies for the other, or else you really are picking winners unfairly.
My point is, wind power already is economically competitive. We do a lot of it in Texas, precisely because it is competitive, AND (!!!) we finally built the transmission line infrastructure to get the power from the farms hundreds of miles to where it is needed. Because of the intermittency problem, wind should not be more than about 20% of the power mix, based on European experiences. That limit goes away if the massive storage problem gets effectively solved.
Solar is still slightly higher $/watt installed, and maintenance costs over decades are still a bit unclear. It used to be very high $/watt, but has dropped sharply over the last few years. But it may be economically competitive at large scale now (Germany thinks so), or at worst very soon. At small scale, it already is fairly competitive as rooftop solar. This will only improve as cell efficiencies increase and costs decrease.
Hydroelectricity is the cheapest, but if you'll forgive my choice of words, we in the US have pretty much already dammed up all the dammable rivers.
Those are the alternatives that are ready, other than uranium-based nuclear. Things like thorium nuclear and tidal/river current power really need some development effort. If they were to be made ready, they might be economically competitive or even superior. Especially the thorium stuff.
Intermittent storage, thorium nuclear, and maybe tidal are what government development funding needs to go for. Then the better economic competitors really will displace the older, dirtier forms. If speed is of the essence the way the climate scientists claim, then do storage first, so that solar and wind application is not intermittency-limited. The government development efforts should be large and intense, to get this done at "best practical speed".
One other point: fossil fuel, especially coal these days, is not a large source of high-paying jobs anymore, because of automation. Wind and solar are, because nobody has yet figured out how to automate their installation (thank God for that!). Trump's political promise to put Appalachian miners back to work is just utter bullshit. There is no hand mining done anymore. Most of it is now mountaintop removal with just a very few people operating gigantic machines. Those ex-miners would be better off if wind and solar factories were emplaced in those states, being industries where there really are still human jobs. And without black lung disease, too!
No one need die for lack of power in a sudden knee-jerk scenario. No one need flee rising seas precipitously, either. Ditch the ideologies (and the lying political hacks that propagate them), and just get on with the damned job!
The climate change response really will take care of itself, unless we let bullshit politics delay things further.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-10-21 11:17:27)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
Trump Pick Equated Belief in Global Warming to Paganism
President Trump’s nominee to be the White House senior adviser for environmental policy, Kathleen Hartnett White, in 2016 described the belief in “global warming” as a “kind of paganism” for “secular elites,” CNN reports.
"Hartnett White, currently a senior fellow at the conservative think tank Texas Public Policy Foundation, has long expressed skepticism about established climate science and once dismissed the idea that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, calling it ‘the gas of life on this planet.'”
As head of the Council on Environmental Quality, Hartnett White would oversee environmental and energy policies across the government.
Offline
Like button can go here
To me it appears that Kbd512 is as hard-over skeptical about renewable energy as Louis is hard-over optimistic. The truth lies in between.
I'd put it this way - I think a lot of sceptics have been seriously amazed at the progress made by green energy over the last 10 years, particularly in places like India and China. Of course there's a long way to go, but the direction of travel is all one way.
The facts on the ground are that with the advent of fracking technology, natural gas is simply displacing coal economically. Gas is cleaner than coal in every sense of the word, so this is a good thing. It even produces a lower CO2 amount for each KW-hour generated, which is why the US was well on its way to meeting the goals of the Paris agreement that Trump pulled us out of. No intervention or incentives were needed for that major accomplishment.
Yes, I see the use of natural gas as the obvious stop-gap while we transition to fully green energy. In terms of fracking, that's a lot easier to organise in the USA where you still have a lot of relatively unpopulated land, compared with the crowded UK.
For large scale renewable, there are solar photovoltaics in mass farms, and there is wind power farms. Yes, these are subsidized, but then so is fossil fuel, mainly oil and gas now. Political arguments over subsidies for one but not the other are pointless. The playing field is fairly level with the subsidies in place for renewables and fossil. If you remove the subsidies for one, you must remove the subsidies for the other, or else you really are picking winners unfairly.
My point is, wind power already is economically competitive. We do a lot of it in Texas, precisely because it is competitive, AND (!!!) we finally built the transmission line infrastructure to get the power from the farms hundreds of miles to where it is needed. Because of the intermittency problem, wind should not be more than about 20% of the power mix, based on European experiences. That limit goes away if the massive storage problem gets effectively solved.
Regarding wind, although the price drop has been less impressive than with solar, I think we will continue to see price falls because, judging from the experience with WW2 sea forts still going strong after 75 years, I see no reason why towers will need to be replaced at the end of the turbine's life. A lot of the cost of wind energy is in the installation, so if you already have towers or service roads in place that reduces overall cost...and maybe even the blades will last a lot longer than the theoretical 25 years. Likewise much cheaper battery storage will revolutionise the economics.
Some countries like Denmark have much higher percentages of wind energy generation - over 40 %. When you are looking at the USA, it's really a continental system...Denmark can go higher because it can import energy from Scandinavia and Germany when the wind resource isn't there i.e. it's a small part of a continental system.
Solar is still slightly higher $/watt installed, and maintenance costs over decades are still a bit unclear. It used to be very high $/watt, but has dropped sharply over the last few years. But it may be economically competitive at large scale now (Germany thinks so), or at worst very soon. At small scale, it already is fairly competitive as rooftop solar. This will only improve as cell efficiencies increase and costs decrease.
Hydroelectricity is the cheapest, but if you'll forgive my choice of words, we in the US have pretty much already dammed up all the dammable rivers.
Yes hydro is not really an option for expansion in the UK either - most places you would build hydro are now protected national parks.
I did see a plan for pumped storage on artificial islands off the coast of Belgium. That would be practical but incredibly expensive in terms of capital outlay. Of course there's a lot of energy available in the ocean - as waves, current or tides. Remains to be seen whether that can be tapped effectively.
Those are the alternatives that are ready, other than uranium-based nuclear. Things like thorium nuclear and tidal/river current power really need some development effort. If they were to be made ready, they might be economically competitive or even superior. Especially the thorium stuff.
Intermittent storage, thorium nuclear, and maybe tidal are what government development funding needs to go for. Then the better economic competitors really will displace the older, dirtier forms. If speed is of the essence the way the climate scientists claim, then do storage first, so that solar and wind application is not intermittency-limited. The government development efforts should be large and intense, to get this done at "best practical speed".
Thorium nuclear seems to be one of those things much talked about but never really implemented.
One other point: fossil fuel, especially coal these days, is not a large source of high-paying jobs anymore, because of automation. Wind and solar are, because nobody has yet figured out how to automate their installation (thank God for that!). Trump's political promise to put Appalachian miners back to work is just utter bullshit. There is no hand mining done anymore. Most of it is now mountaintop removal with just a very few people operating gigantic machines. Those ex-miners would be better off if wind and solar factories were emplaced in those states, being industries where there really are still human jobs. And without black lung disease, too!
No one need die for lack of power in a sudden knee-jerk scenario. No one need flee rising seas precipitously, either. Ditch the ideologies (and the lying political hacks that propagate them), and just get on with the damned job!
The climate change response really will take care of itself, unless we let bullshit politics delay things further.
GW
Yes, you get a lot more quality jobs with green energy since a lot of the cost is in maintenance and installation which still requires a lot of human input.
Really, for the future, I think a lot hangs on battery storage. Get those costs down to under 10 cents per KwH and a lot will become possible. My knowledge of grid management is pretty limited but I would have thought battery storage will also save you a lot of money in terms of grid management - it must be a pretty simple way to manage supply.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
There's definitely been some pretty impressive developments over the last few years as far as renewables (particularly solar) are concerned. Having said that, if we could go back in time to 1980 and do it all again I would have poured my research dollars into nuclear instead of Solar. We could have some really, really impressive nuclear technology if we hadn't stopped development after TMI and Chernobyl.
One thing I'd like to see more research into is rechargeable sodium batteries. The chemistry would be basically similar to that of Lithium, but Sodium is way cheaper. Lithium Hydroxide costs $18/kg, which works out to $62/kg lithium. For comparison, the most common Sodium compound, NaCl, costs roughly $50/tonne ($0.05/kg), which works out to $0.13/kg, 500 times cheaper. Lithium batteries will always have a better power density per weight and per volume, but for stationary applications where space and weight are less important I think sodium batteries can provide acceptable performance at better cost.
-Josh
Offline
Like button can go here
I wonder if we could make an Iron-Iron battery? Terrible energy density, but possibly incredibly cheap and durable.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
Like button can go here
