Sound science counts itself as one of the many victims of the Bush administration’s assault on reason, and sound science is fighting back—finally, with support from Congress. Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation held a hearing on Feb. 7 to explore allegations that the government has attempted to censor 150 climate scientists by… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (126)Page 1 of 1 pagesIt is so tempting to sound authoritarian on such a heated topic and not difficult to arouse people on something which will be unproved in our lifetimes.
One of the advantages of growing old is being able to remember so many terrible disasters which never came to be.
It was either TIME or NEWSWEEK which in 1950 (or there abouts) predicted that by 2000 the Population Explosion would have us all standing shoulder to shoulder.
The Soviet Union and the U.S. would unite to fight off the hoards of Chinese military as they launched a move to take over the world. (Less messy to do it economically.)
Certainly this is an issue which should be looked into, but Al more heat & light than anyone needs Gore aside, the scientific community, wherever and whoever they may be, is anything but unanimous on IF this is a problem and if so, WHAT or WHO is the cause.
Google on global warming dissent for a wide variety of views. Heres just one which I picked due to the common point involving censorship. The censorship issue is a more urgent problem than the scientific one.
————————-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xmlLeading scientific journals ‘are censoring debate on global warming’
By Robert Matthews, Last Updated: 2:08am BST 01/05/2005Two of the world’s leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming.
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 4, 2007 at 3:35 PM WTH, another great posting ! Science has been wrong many times and is not immune to fashionable cultural-intellectual trends as the current
global warming hysteria indicates. There was the forthcoming Ice Age
of 1975 lore. Al Gore is a big phony and thank god he never got elected.
With Zionist neocon Lieby, they would have gotten us into the same wars but domestically they would never have cut taxes. So we’d be worse off.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 4, 2007 at 8:52 PM WTH,
Climate change can happen very quickly once it has hit a tipping point and this one probably will be within our lifetime. Past flips from glacial periods to interglacial has happened in a few decades and the current warming is unprecedented as to any known geologic record. The main argument today is whether what we are experiencing is man-made or a natural cycle. By FAR, most climate scientists consider it man-made and among them there are various scenarios of what they expect in the future. Some feel warming is happening very fast and that climate changes will occur in a madcap way. Others feel the warming will continue to be gradual. Others think that the Earth will indeed flip into a glacial period as a response to this quick warming period. That’s BM’s 1975 ice age theory, it’s still around and not as he tried to portrait it, it wasn’t some consensual theory back then. It never had the massive consensus that global warming has today. Yet, it still has merit, as a quick flip, the Earth trying to re-balance itself.
Many climatologists believe the Earth has already reached a tipping point or soon will. The problem is trying to understand what this warming will provoke or elicit. For instance, vast stretches of Siberia are thawing, exposing long frozen peat bogs that release methane. Methane unlike carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that has a shorter lifespan in the atmosphere, but as the Earth has been warming more methane has been added at the same time that carbon dioxide continues to be added, a sort of double attack that didn’t exist even a few decades ago.
There is the Atlantic conveyor, warm water that circulates from the south moving north along the North American coast until near Greenland it sinks, circulates east and then back south. There is a theory that this conveyor will be shut down by melting from the Arctic and Greenland. The theory has it that if the conveyor does shut down than the Northern hemisphere will begin to cool again. This may lead to that flip back to an ice age.
There is a sort of competing theory that it is the Equatorial belt that drives warming and cooling. That as the Earth continues to warm that prevailing winds will change and put places like the South American tropical rain forest in danger of less rainfall and the possibility of drying it out producing conditions that make them more fire prone. Tropical rain forests have a tough time in drought conditions. Another consideration is that changes could occur in the timing of the monsoons (this is already probably happening) and that the Saharan Desert actually could become wetter.
I could go into so much more, but the worry is that places all over the world will have different regional adjustments for the people that live there. India for instance so dependent on a reliable monsoon season could be devastated if it changes (less rain or shorter season). In America if the desert Southwest increases desertification (which is currently happening) smacking against its’ increasing population, places like Phoenix and Las Vegas in just a couple of decades may have to go through some major depopulation. Already the Midwest has had a lowering of it’s aquifier partially due to corporate farming practices and partially due to mild droughts.
At any rate, only a few climatologist have some set-in-stone dire predictions, most are merely collecting data that points to possibilities. Most are raising their eyebrows at what the data is pointing to, and wondering what the future will be. They worry, but they don’t scream about it, but they do want a public airing of the possibilities, as do I.
Posted by Jon B on Apr 5, 2007 at 1:03 PM Jon B,
Well, were in agreement that this should be addressed by scientists. Obviously you have been interested enough to read a good deal of the competing theories. (more than I have) I have read about most of what you point out here, but have read nearly as much (non-media hypedmore scientific) in opposition to the urgent arguments as in favor.
I am consistently skeptical of nearly everything which gets the kind of media attention this has. I suggest that some of your comments are media influenced, for example:
By FAR, most climate scientists consider it man-made…
How many climatologists are there in the world? What are the percentages as believers, disbelievers and merely interested? Real data not an AP/UP or other news assertions.
It never had the massive consensus that global warming has today.
How can we accurately compare 1975 reporting with 24/7 reporting of 2007? Every sex crime with a pretty girl involved gets global coverage on a soap operas schedule. We hear what happens in the most remote corners of the world whether we are interested or not.Consensus is built on repetition: pro-war or anti-war, Barack Obama/Hillary, good economy/bad economy. We are a nation obsessed with polling and speed, not accuracy.
There is always an abundance of expert testimony on distant events. You get as much pay and attention for being wrong as for being right. Ask people about this afternoon and they will hedge their comments.
What really bugs me is the attention and calls for spending on this questionable issue and the avoidance of those things which to many of us are happening, we anticipate very soon or worry about for our kids.
Global warming takes a back seat for me compared to lowering of job quality, the Social Security/Medicare shortfall, the millions of people with no health insurance, the cost and quality of education, the influence of lobbyists on legislation…Global warning is a godsend to politicians everywhere.
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 5, 2007 at 1:51 PM WTH,
When I say “by far” that’s from books I’ve read on the subject. It’s like 80%. Climate scientists number in the mid 100s. I don’t have the actual stats on me, and don’t really want to spend the time searching the net right now (maybe later), but I’m not far off. When I speak of consensus, it has nothing to do with the media, that’s from the scientific community.
You know how it works. One person (or team) who is concentrating on a specific aspect will eventually propose a theory. It then goes through a debate within the scientific community undergoing plenty of criticism because any new idea usually will compete with a prior theory and old theorists don’t go quietly into the night, even against overwhelming evidence. The media does pick up on the debate, they read science journals for stories.
Very few science ideas and theories have 100% consensus. Some opposition to any idea base it on personal opinion or an agenda. Look at creation science, there are “scientists” who still claim bones were put there by God to fool us. Much of even the plausible creation science is filtered to agree with a Biblical Genesis.
And an agenda is what the accusations are in regards to global warming. As the article pointed out, it seems convincing that opposition to man-made global warming really comes from the fossil fuel industries who hire scientists to fix the theory to their agenda. And from the deniers of global warming comes accusations that the agenda from the other side is simply an attack on the fossil fuel industries.
But to me I look at Occam’s Razor, you know “the simplest solution…” Considering the impact of the industrial revolution on the atmosphere and what if we could somehow erase all that. It’s visually obvious that we affect the air, just look at major cities all across the world and the choking smog. A few months back I saw some show that was highlighting the longest burning tire fire. It was in California and lasted more than a year. Back when I saw it I had Googled tire fire and found that tire fires are not uncommon.
Consider whether Mother Nature has ever assembled the numerous chemicals that go into making a tire, then collect up millions of them, throw them into a huge pile and wait for lightning to strike or some stupid arsonists (both causes of tire fires) to come along to burn it.
When has Mother Nature assembled Earth-locked coals, gas, minerals, etc. and then set them on fire and do that in a relatively short period of time? But I’m not against the thought that global warming is in a natural cycle as the deniers will explain, but then I think about tire fires and coal plants and cars and, and, and, realize that it’s more than likely we are adding a wrinkle to the natural cycle that Mother Nature never did.
Posted by Jon B on Apr 5, 2007 at 10:23 PM ...Continued.
You worry more about jobs? Well global warming will affect jobs, social security, health insurance, education costs, etc. It won’t occur in a vacuum. Look at the heat wave that hit Europe in 2003 blamed on global warming. It caused a health crisis which of course affects the economy. If our Midwest were to suffer long term drought conditions, that won’t affect people in all sorts of ways? If California were to climatically change enough to only have one growing season, that wouldn’t have an impact?
Look at the Gulf Coast , Florida and New Orleans. If the increase of hurricanes in last few years is due to global warming (and I do understand that there is a good argument that they are cyclical), but if it was global warming, there was a huge impact economically and directly to people, death and injuries. After the Florida four even a year later people were sleeping in their cars due to a lack of housing in some areas.
The oceans could indeed rise very quickly. There are several ice shelves that scientists are beginning to wonder whether they will slide off within a decade or two. This wasn’t even indicated just a decade back. And as we saw in Inconvenient Truth, the coasts will very much be affected. A persons job doesn’t exist if the business is under water.
The problem with the Gore movie is that too much is made on the messenger rather than the information, he should have collaborated with a Republican. Yes, some of the predictions could be more dire than what will happen, but on the other hand do we sit back and test the theories until proven correct? We can make some changes that really aren’t that much of a hardship. Coal plants can indeed clean up their act, but they fight it tooth and nail.
There are plenty of changes we could make that really doesn’t affect all the things you worry about. When we changed from a rural to an industrial age, people had to adapt. Then adaption occurred again as industries changed. We had to adapt to a new information age and we should not fear adapting to a cleaner industrial age. We do what we have to do when change comes, people always have. There is fear mongering coming from both sides, fear of change, fear if no change, and that’s not making decisions based on clear thinking.
Posted by Jon B on Apr 5, 2007 at 10:31 PM Let’s see, it’s been hot in the summer and cold in the winter—......ummmm, must be global warming. scientists are no more immune from herd thinking than anyone and considering that most of it has been government funded or financed they are probably more vulnerable to peer approval and conformist logic than most groups. I personally am not losing any sleep over this, do not expect tsunamies to wipe out SF or NYC or DC or London and if it does, well, worse things could happen. There’s a lot of $ to be made on Greenland real estate once those caps melt. Was reading there are real lands there, not just water.
The prevalent consensus could just as easily be based on opinion and an agenda as the dissent.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 5, 2007 at 10:44 PM Maybe so, but dig this…
Has Al Gore’s CO2 Theory Fizzled Out? (part one)A Crimes of the State Investigation
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/If you track the popular Internet videos, you may have come across a British TV production called The Great Global Warming Swindle (Google Video). I do not wish to defend the propaganda, the personalities, or the several straw man arguments that appear in this lengthy program.
All I want to focus on is the science.
This is a study of some global warming dissenters in the climate field.
Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth is also explored, in particular Gore’s central claim, the theory of manmade global warming as a result of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere:
“The relationship is very complicated, but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others, and it is this: when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer.”—Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth
This quote is presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle at around 20 minutes in, and then it is mercilessly shredded by the climate scientists.
According to Al Gore’s theory, increased levels of carbon dioxide CAUSE an increase in global temperature. But, interestingly enough, Al Gore does not prove this in his film. Far from it. The very real possibility that increases in temperature cause an increase in carbon dioxide levels (and not vice-versa) is never addressed. Al Gore has short-changed humanity in this most glaring omission: establishing causation.
So, which is it?
Does a rise in carbon dioxide cause a rise in the temperature?
OR, does a rise in the temperature cause a rise in carbon dioxide?This is no small question. The entire global economy is being reengineered on the assumption that the first scenario is true. But is it really?
What About 800 Years of Lag?
The big counter-argument to Gore is made by Professor Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa. Clark says that the ice core record shows that changes in atomospheric carbon levels come after the temperature has already changed, in one example by as much as 800 years.
“CO2 clearly cannot be causing temperature changes. It’s a product of temperature. It’s following temperature changes.”—Professor Ian Clark
This is highly significant, if true, as it completely disproves Al Gore’s theory of manmade global warming. This view is seconded by Professor Tim Ball, a Climatologist at the University of Winnipeg:
“But the ice core record shows exactly the opposite. So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change—due to humans—is shown to be wrong.”—(emphasis in original) Professor Tim Ball, Dept. of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
Is There a Better Alternative Theory?The film presents an alternate theory that better matches the data: Changes in sun activity cause changes in global temperature.
Other scientists who study sunspots, which are actually gigantic storms and indicate more solar activity, present their case.
The data record of changes in solar activity can be corroborated by multiple data sources. The conclusion of the film is that this record proves that sun activity correlates to global temperature far better than CO2 levels do.
This is a simplified, scaled-down summary of the claims made by the two camps.Further investigation will be needed.
Continues.
Posted by johndoraemi on Apr 5, 2007 at 10:57 PM Enter The Politics
If the CO2 theory is completely wrong, and the effects of human CO2 emissions are negligible, and therefore do not affect temperature in any measurable way, then the political side of this argument must be examined in detail.
The global economy includes numerous energy sectors (oil, coal, nuclear, ethanol, as well as clean alternatives), farm and agriculture (biofuels), international trade and agreements, and even proposed new industries that allow “trading” of newly defined “caps on emissions,” a fictional concept somehow given monetary value.
This means that big players have a stake in the outcome, as does every man, woman and child on planet earth.
Unsurprisingly, Al Gore has an investment, possibly a conflict of interest in the “carbon trading” game. Gore is a co-founder of Generation Investment Management LLP, and we learn that:
“As an Associate member of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Generation [Gore’s firm] has made a legally binding commitment to purchase Carbon Financial Instruments (CFIs) sufficient to 100% offset the greenhouse gas emissions caused annually by our firm’s electricity use and business travel for the period 2005-2010.”—Generation Investment Management LLP website
Albert Gore has a responsibility to answer these charges, and to prove the former scenario, if he is going to go to congress and give his seal of approval to building new nuclear power plants as a response to this purported carbon dioxide “pollution” problem.
As long as carbon dioxide can be called a “polllutant,” you and your family are by definition—as biological organisms—“polluters.” I really don’t like the road this line of reasoning points down. It has the quasi-religious flavor of “Original Sin.” Leveraging guilt into political and economic activity is a very old game indeed.
Professor Ball states that CO2 is only .054 percent of the atmosphere. All human contributions of CO2 combined remain a small fraction of that amount. It’s time we got to the actual truth, no matter to whom it is “inconvenient.”
###
Posted by johndoraemi on Apr 5, 2007 at 10:57 PM Thanks for the information, a lot to take in so let me try to absorb it when I have more time. I appreciate your research here.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 6, 2007 at 12:46 AM Jon B, johndoraemi, Mike,
I have no quarrel with studying the issue to determine if there is a genuine problem and to seek a solution if need be.
My objection is in the attempt to rush spending $ billions of dollars, limit products and processes which may not contribute to temperature change and all the political/media blather passed on to us as gospel.
The Gore movie, regardless of how many scientists chime in, is a political ploy at best or a Dont forget about ME! cry from a failed pro-pol.
The carbon credits crap is like someone who maxes out the credit card when there is a sale as if, The more you spend the more you save, puts a balance in your account. His zinc mining, energy splurging and the family ties to big oil (Armand Hammer/OXY) are so well documented either he is senile or thinks the country is. (Come to think of it the national memory IS very selective.)————————
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml
Leading scientific journals are censoring debate on global warming
——————-The above link (a repeat) is to an article also pointing out censorship on the other side of the issue.
Whether or not the global temperature rise is due to man made pollution or not, anyone who thinks we should not try to cut the choking fumes is probably still smoking two packs a day.Without waiting for definite scientific evidence the media will trumpet the Kyoto Treaty advocates once more. The finger pointing at the percentage of energy used by the U.S. will be featured and attempts to limit us will ignore the fact that we have been a major force behind environmental concern for decades.
Our concern to protect the environment and people’s health a major reason our companies have moved offshore. To avoid the constraints of the EPA and OSHA they’ve gone where those factors are ignored.
We need to constantly remind ourselves that EVERYTHING is related. China is getting our companies and jobs while continuing to be the worlds major polluter. Check where coal is being shipped.
Here in Illinois, our Governor Badboyovich, wants to add a tax on gross sales. In his first term he drove out many businesses by tripling state fees on civil engineering projects, purchases of major equipment items and hit the truckers especially hard. In already perilous economic times he seems intent on destroying what little profit margin is left.
Nationally we could do the same thing in the name of global warming. We cannot adjust the job market anywhere near as fast as we can legislate destruction of the job climate.Millions of Americans are now serviving on the service economy jobs mowing lawns, doing handyman projects, and working at the grocery store. That 60-something bagboy used to run a lathe.
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 6, 2007 at 12:58 PM WTH, thanks again for your thoughtful comments. George Reisman’s massive book, “Capitalism,” has a strong refutation of environmentalism. The publisher is in Ottawa, Illinois too.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 6, 2007 at 4:03 PM Mike,
Thanks for the book title. Capitlism is getting a bad rap these days just like guns. Neither is good nor bad apart from the people involved with them, but are such convenient scapegoats.
Pople need to make time to think rather than just react as the media so often does.
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 6, 2007 at 7:20 PM The composition of the Earths atmosphere…..
Nitrogen N2 78.084%
Oxygen O2 20.947%
Argon Ar 0.934%
Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.033%
Neon Ne 18.2 parts per million
Helium He 5.2 parts per million
Krypton Kr 1.1 parts per millionSulfur dioxide SO2 1.0 parts per million
Methane CH4 2.0 parts per million
Hydrogen H2 0.5 parts per million
Nitrous Oxide N2O 0.5 parts per million
Xenon Xe 0.09 parts per million
Ozone O3 0.07 parts per million
Nitrogen dioxide NO2 0.02 parts per million
Iodine I2 0.01 parts per million
Carbon monoxide CO trace
Ammonia NH3 trace
I have an inconvienent truth for all hippies.CO2 BECOMES A GREENHOUSE GAS AT OR ABOVE 33 PERCENT. TO REACH THIS LEVEL WOULD IS A PHYSICAL IMMPOSSIBILITY. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CARBON PRESENT ON THIS PLANET IS LESS THAN 15 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL FOR ALL ELEMENTS.
Posted by texasindependent on Apr 6, 2007 at 9:56 PM Omigod, is THIS you’re first INTELLIGENT posting ? Congragulations, TacoCon ! And by the way, brown is the color of excrement. While we’re on the subject of physical science.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 7, 2007 at 1:05 AM Texas,
Are you getting your “science” from Alex Jones?
VTer
Posted by Vermonter on Apr 7, 2007 at 2:55 PM No. From a decent education.
If these eco-hippies would study real science and not Peruvian Banjo Playing they would have a basic comprehension of how the system works.
Posted by texasindependent on Apr 7, 2007 at 3:42 PM Ahh, then you were joking with us. I wondered why you didn’t offer any citation to back up such an over-the-top statement.
Posted by Vermonter on Apr 7, 2007 at 3:44 PM For those interested in debunking “The Great Global Warming Swindle” on Channel 4, here’s George Monbiot’s take on it:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/#m more-1047
I notice a lot of people saying that the global warming alarmists have economic interests. I doubt very much that these economic interests, whatever they are, outweigh the economic interests of the oil companies, the car companies, the shipping companies, the airline industry, and everyone interested in cheap transportation of Chinese goods to the U.S. So whose grinding axe is bigger?
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 7, 2007 at 7:29 PM There is no doubt that the Bush Administration is the first modern administration to have real problems with modern science. First evolution, then stem cell research, now a new prescription drug which suppresses the adrenalin surge in PTSD victims so they can relieve the hyper-reactions they normally experience and live their lives, and now the ever present global warming issue. A new UN study which assembled over 2000 of the worlds most respected scientists has confirmed global warming as a fact (as if we needed to add yet one more peer reviewd study to the existing 950) and still Bush doesn’t get it. Global warming and green house gases are real.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Apr 7, 2007 at 8:57 PM All the political dogma aside crack open a chemistry book once in a while people. Carbon while the sixth most common atom in the universe doesn’t even crack the top ten elements on Earth. We have more titanium in the earths crust than carbon.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/5525/2310
Data from fossil core samples debunks the central holy “truth” about the eco movement. CO2 levels are the same now 350-400 ppm as in the Paleocene era which had a far greater diversity of life than the present. The argument that somehow we have “created” the largest amount of CO2 present in our atmosphere in history is junk science. Science is only now begining to understand the climate of our planet. Historical data shows that Earth has cycles of climate stability followed by severe changes.
The sun is the driving force behind all climate changes on this planet. The sun heats the oceans. The cooler air flows over the water and picks up energy from it. A small area of lower pressure when passing over an area of high humidity creates rain. More energy released equals more changes. Recent astronomical data has determined the rate of cycle the sun follows and its corollation between intense periods of solar flares and the ice ages.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020607073439.htm
The climate models used by the UN to justify this farce are flawed. Statistical models use valid data to estimate an outcome. When weather ballon data is used on the climate change model it shows a drop in average termpature of over a degree since the 1950’s. The UN model uses flawed satellite data and refuses to change its modeling procedure. Even with this flawed basis for computation the UN models still have to be force fed a ridiculously high diet of numbers that are not physically possible in order to show any change.
The predicitions of the “experts” over ten years ago have not come true. The Kyoto treaty has cost developed countries hundreds of billions of dollars without any tangible benefits to demonstrate. I am reminded of Chicken Little when ever I read an article devoted to our ficticious destruction. As climate is a non-linear process it’s outcome can not be accurately predicted.
.
Once you deflate the carbon boogeyman this whole farce reveals itself as another bogus wealth transfer dreamt up by UN diplomats and supported by granola eaters.
Posted by texasindependent on Apr 8, 2007 at 6:32 AM Here’s another article debunking the “Great Global Warming Swindle”:
http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&a amp;Itemid=83
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 8, 2007 at 6:56 AM “All the political dogma aside crack open a chemistry book once in a while people. Carbon while the sixth most common atom in the universe doesnât even crack the top ten elements on Earth. We have more titanium in the earths crust than carbon.”
This factoid would be relevant only if the commonness of an element on earth directly determines how it affects global warming. What is actually important is not how common an element is but what its chemical properties are with respect to trapping heat.
“Data from fossil core samples debunks the central holy âtruthâ about the eco movement. CO2 levels are the same now 350-400 ppm as in the Paleocene era which had a far greater diversity of life than the present.”
And it may be that there might be great diversity of life even after global warming. But this doesn’t mean that millions of people won’t be killed or have to move due to flooding of coastlines. Impact on people/economy could be great even if diversity remains the same.
“The sun is the driving force behind all climate changes on this planet.”
This doesn’t mean that other factors (such as greenhouse gases) cannot make decisive changes in climate. Remember that it is colder at higher altitudes despite the fact that higher altitudes are closer to the sun. This indicates that other factors can affect climate, despite the fact that the sun is the driving force behind climate changes.
“Recent astronomical data has determined the rate of cycle the sun follows and its corollation [sic] between intense periods of solar flares and the ice ages.”
Note that the researcher in the article you linked to didn’t think greenhouse gas-caused global warming was debunked by his study. So the rise in greenhouse gases could cause rapid change over and above any gradual changes correlated with solar activity.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 8, 2007 at 7:09 AM Another example of how the sun, despite being a driving force in climate, can be a weaker effect:
I’m sure some of you have seen the documentary on global dimming, which is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth’s surface, observed since the beginning of systematic measurements in 1950s, and thought to be due to the increased presence of aerosol particles in the atmosphere caused by human action.
Now despite this reduction, the temperature of the earth has increased in this time. How can this be if the sun completely determines climate, swamping all other effects?
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 8, 2007 at 7:20 AM Another article claiming problems with the Channel 4 program:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 8, 2007 at 7:39 AM Here’s a response to the “CO2 lags global warming, not the other way round” argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#Warming_som metimes_leads_CO2_increases
Excerpt:
“Close analysis of the relationship between the two curves shows that, within the uncertainties of matching their timescales, the temperature led by a few centuries. This is expected, since it was changes in the Earthâs orbital parameters (including the shape of its orbit around the Sun, and the tilt of Earthâs axis) that caused the small initial temperature rise. This then raised atmospheric CO2 levels, in part by outgassing from the oceans, causing the temperature to rise further. By amplifying each otherâs response, this âpositive feedbackâ can turn a small initial perturbation into a large climate change. There is therefore no surprise that the temperature and CO2 rose in parallel, with the temperature initially in advance. In the current case, the situation is different, because human actions are raising the CO2 level, and we are starting to observe the temperature response. [24]”
“The ice core data says relatively little about the pattern of modern warming (that is, warming since about 1960). Recent CO2 levels greatly exceed the range witnessed in the ice core data. Isotope analysis of atmospheric CO2 changes implicates human activity as the driver, unlike during prior interglacial periods.[5] As noted above, models that give a significant amount of weight to increased CO2 levels when attempting to explain recent temperature rises match the observed data far better than those that do not. It is from this (and other observations) that the IPCC concluded that humans (because of CO2 emissions) were 90% likely to be the cause of the recently observed warming. [25]”
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 8, 2007 at 7:52 AM According to the link above:
“Carl Wunsch, one of the scientists featured in the programme, has said that he was “completely misrepresented” in the film and had been “totally misled” when he agreed to be interviewed.[15][4] He called the film “grossly distorted” and “as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two.”[16] Wunsch was reported to have threatened legal action[16] and to have lodged a complaint with Ofcom, the UK broadcast regulator.[17] ”
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 8, 2007 at 7:58 AM It seems to me the most important questions are whether or not man made factors are the primary cause of any warming and whether man should tinker with it.
If people had screwed around with temperatures a while back, we’d be shoveling huge piles of dinosaur crap off the lawn each morning.
Every time some massive government-designed solution is enacted to deal with a problem mankind only succeeds in creating several more problems. (Read Jacques Barzun, Science the Grand Entertainment.)
Cant you just hear what it would be like for 2000 respected scientists who get a call to solve this problem
Gentlemen, I have been bailing water out of my house every day, but it keeps rising. My neighbor has the same problem. We recently discovered many other people in the area also treading water. Hans says it is the same story with his cousin in Holland. We have a global emergency! What can we do?
Signed,
Pete Moss
New Orleans, LA
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 8, 2007 at 4:40 PM “This factoid would be relevant only if the commonness of an element on earth directly determines how it affects global warming. What is actually important is not how common an element is but what its chemical properties are with respect to trapping heat.”
There is not enough carbon available in the earths crust to reach 33 percent of the atmosphere as methane or CO2. To form a real greenhouse layer CO2 must reach this critical stage. At this stage all life on this planet would have died from oxygen deprivation so “warming” would not be a factor. Venus has a REAL greenhouse layer. At 96 percent CO2 it is hot and uninhabitable much like Phoenix. Earth has a minor fluctuation in CO2 levels that when compared to the atmosphere as a whole amounts to 385 marbles on the floor of a football stadium. This ‘factoid” blows this entire farce out of the water. It is junk science and another hairbrained UN wealth transfer scheme and deserves derision as such.
If the hippies need something to fear, a top ten list.
1 Earth crossing asteroids
2. Airborne Ebola
3. Drug resistant bacteria
4. Nuclear anihiliation
5. Supervolcanoes
6. Haji gets the bomb
7. Alien invasion
8. Return of the Black Death
9. Evolutionary stagnation
10. Excess population
Posted by texasindependent on Apr 9, 2007 at 2:46 PM What the Heck…What the heck are you talking about?
“If people had screwed around with temperatures a while back, wed be shoveling huge piles of dinosaur crap off the lawn each morning.”
Are you implying that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time? Or that prior to the industrial age humanity had the capacity to even do much about temperatures. And finally by your thoughts that appears to accept the premise that we can screw around with temperatures now then why are you willing to deny that we haven’t screwed around with the temperatures before and currently? That we haven’t affected the atmosphere? If you feel there is man-made screwing around to be had, then you believe in man-made global warming.
“Every time some massive government-designed solution is enacted to deal with a problem mankind only succeeds in creating several more problems. (Read Jacques Barzun, Science the Grand Entertainment.)”
Come on, one sentence philosophy is almost always lacking intelligence, history, and context. Just in the atmospheric science we’ve succeeded at closing the ozone hole (at least hopefully for good) by banning aerosols due to government intervention. And if you think a little bit, you know there are plenty of government-designed solutions that haven’t created more problems. By banning aerosols what are the “more problems?”
“Cant you just hear what it would be like for 2000 respected scientists who get a call to solve this problem ”
Scientists won’t solve global warming, they only do the research and suggest answers. It’s going to have to be a political solution and public willingness to be a part of the solution. In America I sense that public willingness, but not a political willingness. Some things to do to help are so simple, like making one’s home more energy efficient, yet from Washington little if anything is done to make this known and certainly not incentivized which would prompt Americans to feel they can be a part of the answer.
We get a mixed message, science tells us one thing, our government doesn’t take it serious at least publicly, thus making many feel it isn’t. I mean where’s the presidential bully pulpit to call for some easy changes? Bush could be promoting these easy changes weekly, but instead he promotes things that aren’t really the answer, like hybrid cars which we find get poorer mileage than first promoted or flex fuel that we’d practically have to turn our entire farm land into corn in order to grow the fuel if we were to completely switch over. The other day Bush nearly blew himself up by almost plugging a power cord into the hydrogen tank of a hydrogen-electric vehicle.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070407/AUTO01/704070338/1 1148
And why this new vehicle when a electric car would be just as good without dangerous hydrogen? My point, Bush likes the photo-ops with dead-end space age technology rather than just tell us to conserve some energy, such as turn out the lights if you’re not using them. Energy conservation is one of the most effective solutions, but it’s not sexy to talk about.
Posted by Jon B on Apr 9, 2007 at 3:10 PM “There is not enough carbon available in the earths crust to reach 33 percent of the atmosphere as methane or CO2. To form a real greenhouse layer CO2 must reach this critical stage.”
Where do you get this magic number of 33 percent of the atmosphere? Is there any sort of physical science law that you can point to for justification of this number?
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 9, 2007 at 3:28 PM Jon B,
Come on, I know there were no human beings around with the dinosaurs, except for Fred and Wilma. (It was a bit of sarcasm)
Im just tired of all the BS from Gore fans talking about Scientific Consensus as if it were (a.) a fact (b.) important.
Consensus is a political feature (even then seldom intelligent). The law of gravity was not decided by a show of hands. No matter how many experts line up on either side of this topic the truth is not going to be affected, but political policies will. Think of how long consensus said the sun revolved around the earth or the earth was flat.
There are several Inconvenient Truths which are ignored unless they help to back someones argument. I threw in the New Orleans stuff as just one. You can bet a bunch of the people who are so panicky about warming and the possibility of oceans rising are also bitching about slow post-Katrina rebuilding in The Big Easy. A lot of them have built on a hillside in CA and want aid every time a house discovers gravity during a heavy rain.
With gov. intervention and scientific advances, we are overruling evolution and survival of the fittest. Abortion due to inconvenience rather than medical risk and super-care for babies with defects are increasing world population with people that natural selection would have eliminated. Gov. aid to the least well educated and lowest incomes help expand the welfare rolls.
There are times when gov. should stay away from problems and let people learn to deal with life.
———————————& ——————————— 8212;——Whoever has the best lobby (and the best lawyers)is going to win the big bucks on global warming and probably on both sides of the issue.
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 9, 2007 at 4:18 PM People who complain about government intervention to prevent or ameliorate global warming never seem to complain when the government provides massive subsidies to fossil fuels by creating and maintaining the highway system, or about the billions spent to ensure continuing access to Middle East oil (see Cheney’s Energy Task Force). Since it is government policies that created the problem, it should be government policies (or abandoning of government policies) that solve them, for example, by making sure that people are paying the true cost of fossil fuels (which accounts for their global warming effects, their pollution costs, and so on), charging for access to freeways, usage-related taxes (pollution measured through tailpipe meters) to support our middle east adventures, and so on. This would provide incentives for individuals to invest in cleaner and more efficient technologies. Currently government action is shielding them from this necessity. Of course, we want to ensure that the increased usage fees don’t go directly to the government (which would waste it), but are invested by an independent body that ameliorates or offsets the pollution.
Evolution as “survival of the fittest”? I thought such thinking had gone out with the eugenicists and social darwinists. Evolution has to do with adaptation to the environment, which is itself constantly changing. There is no such thing as “the fittest.” And civilization and settled life itself (not just government intervention) modifies evolution. Originally, as hunter gatherers, the physically fit were selected for. Then, in densely populated cities, it is epidemic-resistant genes that are selected for.
And in a true meritocracy, what’s wrong with aid to the less-educated, if such aid makes them better educated? This makes sure that we’re searching throughout the gene pool for those skills that we can use, not just among the offspring of the rich. The randomization of genes in sexual reproduction means that the genes of the offspring aren’t identical to the genes of the parents.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 9, 2007 at 4:48 PM Carbon dioxide absorbs radiation to extinction in about 10 meters of distance. At a concentration of 33 percent of the total atmosphere CO2 absorbs radiation at 3 meters which reduces the amount of radiation reflected back into space by 66 percent thus creating “warming”.
Not to worry! If the atmosphere was to reach 7 percent CO2 saturation this would deplete the atmosphere of oxygen as CO2 contains two oxygen molecules for every carbon molecule thus suffocating all life and rendering this political discussion moot. However the lack of water vapor would remove 70 percent of the ability of this planet to retain heat and Earth would freeze at around -1 degree Celsius. So Earth is not capable of sustaining a “greenhouse” neccessary for any significant change.
For references sceneshistoriques I would suggest Chemistry 101.
Posted by texasindependent on Apr 9, 2007 at 5:42 PM The basic science behind anthropogenic global warming is no more complicated than the fact that throwing an extra blanket on the bed will keep one warmer. The compexities arise in understanding the dynamics of climactic variability. Without a proper scientific education, it is easy to be influenced by denialists pointing at uncertainties in these complex factors into believing the underlying facts are in question.
The fact is that the earth is warming and increasing CO2 concentrations are the largest causal factor for that warming.
The scientific consensus depends on a fair analysis of the data and not on political opinion.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 9, 2007 at 6:08 PM TI,
Your science is so absurd as to be undecipherable. Apples, oranges and bananas. Where are you getting your information?
Qualitative chem cannot be used for determining the IR absorption of CO2. It isn’t any part of the curriculum.
It is a subject of physics.
\ You betray your ignorance.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 9, 2007 at 6:26 PM WTH, thanks again, the only sane voice in this Babel of Lunatics here. Science is no more immune from politics than any other field, just more pretentious in its pompous denials. The complete epistemological collapse since Hume/Kant has affected the hard sciences now too, just as they long infected the soft social sciences. That some religious lunatic like the unluminous antibeauty postures as a science expert proves this point. They have a regular science show on the leftwing Pacifica station here in Berzerkeley by an NYU Ph.D named Michio Kaku, but what the good doctor does is 90% leftwing political ca ca and very little real science.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 9, 2007 at 6:58 PM “Carbon dioxide absorbs radiation to extinction in about 10 meters of distance. At a concentration of 33 percent of the total atmosphere CO2 absorbs radiation at 3 meters which reduces the amount of radiation reflected back into space by 66 percent thus creating âwarmingâ.”
I’m sure you’ll have no problem providing references for this, and its applicability to global warming, since it’s “Chemistry 101,” as you put it. Specifically, show references that in its current concentrations in the atmosphere, CO2 cannot possibly be trapping heat.
Just saying that CO2 is present in minute concentrations is not enough. Minute concentrations of dioxin can have big effects. Basically the effects, chemical or otherwise, depend on the properties of the particular substance. Some substances may need greater concentrations to achieve certain effects, others less. For example, Methane achieves greater heat trapping effects than CO2, all other things being equal.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 9, 2007 at 7:28 PM Science is no more immune from politics than any other field…
I agree in that the scientific consensus is being challenged by those with a political agenda to preserve the status quo. This results in a confusion over what is fact. AGW is a fact.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 9, 2007 at 7:29 PM From http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_a.html
“The absorption of light by fluids (here, greenhouse gases [GHGs]) can be measured by the following simple relation:
A = log 10 (1/T) = epsilon c d.
Equation of absorption of light by fluids
where A is the absorbance or optical density of the solute (here, a GHG), epsilon (liters per mole per centimeter) is the molar extinction coefficient of the GHG at the wavelength of measurement, c (moles per liters) is the concentration of the GHG, d is the optical pathlength in centimeters, and T is the transmittance [60]. When a molecule absorbs light, it normally goes from the ground state to an excited or hot state. The hot molecule can release its excess energy primarily in three ways: chemical reaction, quenching, and emission. Because greenhouse gases are fairly stable, chemical reaction is not a common pathway for releasing the excess energy. Excited or hot greenhouse molecules release excess energy mostly through emission and quenching. Quenching is the process of transferring excess energy to other molecules in a ground state, thereby increasing the temperature of the other molecules. The other hot molecules can also emit excess energy in the form of radiation.”
So it’s not really chemistry.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 9, 2007 at 7:36 PM More from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_a.html
“Assuming steady incident radiation, the radiating power of a GHG molecule depends largely on the absorption coefficients for that GHG, which determine how much of the available radiation it absorbs in each of the wavelength ranges where it absorbs radiation. Other important factors are the concentration of the gas and its residence time, or decay time, in the atmosphere. The residence time of GHGs depends mostly on two factors, namely reactivity of GHGs and the GHG sinks in the biosphere. Plants and trees, for example, store carbon and thus serve as sinks for carbon dioxide.”
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 9, 2007 at 7:49 PM LB, Scenes,
Although he provides no reference, Texas is getting his information from the pseudoscience that is circulating on the world wide global climate change deniers’ web. The article from which he cut and pasted his most recent reply can be found, unattributed, on several sites, including this one: http://phalle.com/ and this one: http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html It appears to be mostly gibberish designed to give the conspiracy ranters something that sounds like science. The love to say CO2 “absorbs radiation to extinction,” a phrase that means nothing - and even less in the discussion of global climate change.
These folks have a simple explanation for global climate change, and that’s “global ocean warming.” Yeah, that’s right, they say carbon dioxide has nothing to do with warming the earth.To give you an idea of how out of touch these folks are, the tell us: “About 95% of the heat trapped in the atmosphere gets there through conduction and convection from the earths surface, not radiation picked up by so-called greenhouse gasses. The only reason you dont know this is because you are being propagandized by frauds. The science is too clear to call it anything but fraud.”
The statement is proof that they have no clue as to the function of greenhouse gases in climate change - they’re taking the term a little to literally, and ignoring the science. We actually know that the earth is heated by radiation. We have a name for its source: the Sun. We’ve known about for quite some time.
Texas, what is it that you think traps all that that heat in the atmosphere? (Hint: one of its components begins with ‘C’)Back to the “hot oceans” theory of global climate change. If it sounds crazy, that’s because it is. They offer absolutely no evidence pointing to a possible source, but they do point to one: “The oceans are heating up, and the atmosphere is not. The result is polar ice caps melting and increased rainfall. This points to a hot spot in the earths core heating the oceans, not human activity.”
Uh-huh. A hot spot in the earths core. Not that there’s any data to suggest the earth’s core has a hot spot that’s playing “bunsen burner” with oceans all over the globe.
If this, as Texas suggests, is what is being taught in Texas science classes we should be very concerned.
-Vter
Posted by Vermonter on Apr 9, 2007 at 7:52 PM Here is an example of the complexity of the “greenhouse” effect:
“In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. The increased water vapor in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature; the increase in temperature leads to still further increase in atmospheric water vapor; and the feedback cycle continues until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2.[9]”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 9, 2007 at 8:32 PM No, it’s not a fact and if you go to the website of the George Marshall Institute, named after the Commie general, you will papers challenging it. GW is simply another left-liberal fad. That’s all. See Reisman’s Capitalism for a full refutation of all environmentalist premises. Do not make the mistake of confusing Beaner fundie trash like TexASS as the serious opponents here.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 9, 2007 at 8:33 PM Just as an aside, there are left/marxist deniers of global warming (e.g. Alexander Cockburn). They find it inconvenient to their politics in the sense that if resources are limited, then there’s less to be shared among the workers.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 9, 2007 at 8:44 PM sceneshistoriques,
Well, you totally missed my point
First of all let me say Im totally against government subsidies. You actually gave a good example of what I was trying to point out to Jon B government programs as subsidies to these fossil fuel companies are a cause of more trouble than they are worth. Whether subsidies of cash payments to big oil or subsidies of illegal immigrants to big growers, the problems continue to multiply.
In our city we have federally subsidized buses which must be at least a given size to qualify the result is gas sucking vehicles with a very few people on them.
...whats wrong with aid to the less-educated, if such aid makes them better educated?
I was not speaking against education, rather pointing out that the government has promoted increasing the size of families (or in the case of unwed mothers, individuals) which are least equipped to care for the kids economically.
Evolution has to do with adaptation to the environment, which is itself constantly changing.
Here again the point is that by killing kids for the inconvenience they would bring and saving those who would not survive naturally, we (our government) are reversing the natural process of evolution.
It is not a case of like it or dislike it it just is so.
———————————& ————Luminous,
I agree in that the scientific consensus is being challenged by those with a political agenda to preserve the status quo.
There is just too much politicking on both sides of this issue and too little time with adequate records to establish a serious case for the amount of concern and urgency. Who has a bigger political agenda than Al? Gore is Exhibit A and his movie is NOT genuine science, genuine inquiry or anything close.
Id like to see some real investigation and scientific method absent grant seeking professors or money grubbing corporations heading it up. Sure it has been determined a slight rise in tempt has occurred, but there are those on each side of the issue with questionable motives.
Whenever this many election dependent people get involved everything goes to hell.
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 9, 2007 at 8:45 PM I don’t know enough about the science to proclaim the prevailing global climate change scenario to be a “fact.” I don’t have any more than a regular academic background in science. But the debate we seem to be having reminds me of a quote from Vonnegut’s Breakfast of Champions:
“Kilgore Trout once wrote a short story which was a dialogue between two pieces of yeast. They were discussing the possible purposes of life as they ate sugar and suffocated in their own excrement. Because of their limited intelligence, they never came close to guessing that they were making champagne.”The way I look at it is, since none of us can determine the absolute “truth” about global climate change without gazing into the future, we are forced to gamble with being right or wrong.
If we gamble that the climate scienteists are right, and we start reducing our CO2 emmissions immediately, we may save the planet. If they’re wrong, we may end up spending more, but we may also have a cleaner planet.If we decide to ignore the science, or liberal-left fad as you call it, we may save a lot of money. We may still be able to use our precious carbon-based fuels. But if we’re wrong, we suffocate in our own excrement because of our limited intelligence.
Some peple are in the “better safe than sorry” category, others are in the “I’ll take my chances with the excrement” category.
-VTer
Posted by Vermonter on Apr 9, 2007 at 8:53 PM “First of all let me say IââŹâ˘m totally against government subsidies. You actually gave a good example of what I was trying to point out to Jon B ââŹâ government programs as subsidies to these fossil fuel companies are a cause of more trouble than they are worth.”
We’re already in a subsidy environment. In this case government action would be stopping the subsidies and making people pay for the true cost of using fossil fuels.
“In our city we have federally subsidized buses which must be at least a given size to qualify ââŹâ the result is gas sucking vehicles with a very few people on them.”
And the reason few people are on them is because of an even bigger subsidy for people using cars, for people living far away from where they work, etc. (Government creates infrastructure for suburbs, allowing people to move into them; Government makes freeways wider, allowing more cars, and hence more people to move further away from work).
“Here again the point is that by killing kids for the inconvenience they would bring and saving those who would not survive naturally, we (our government) are reversing the natural process of evolution.”
My point is that by not living as hunter gatherers we are already not following the natural process of evolution. Most people nowadays would not survive in a natural environment, since our genes are more optimized to be epidemic-resistant (due to living in close proximity with each other), rather than physically fit for hunting/gathering. We have gone way past evolution as a species. The definition of the “fittest” has changed to be whoever survives in the changed artificial environment we have created.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 9, 2007 at 9:10 PM “Some peple are in the better safe than sorry category, others are in the Ill take my chances with the excrement category.”
A very illuminating way of putting it.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 9, 2007 at 9:20 PM WTH…
I guess I’m not understanding you. I think you are letting some sort of natural skepticism rule where you put your foot down, and in the process are playing it down the middle. And I certainly understand skepticism, I’m always looking for a conspiracy behind a theory. As well, I’ve seen you use much better arguments in other forums.
“Consensus is a political feature (even then seldom intelligent). The law of gravity was not decided by a show of hands. No matter how many experts line up on either side of this topic the truth is not going to be affected, but political policies will. Think of how long consensus said the sun revolved around the earth or the earth was flat.”
Now come on. This is so incomparable to today’s scientific topics it’s pitiful. First, science (as we would understand it today) was in its’ infancy back in the alchemist days, not to mention that sun around the Earth was based on repressive religious dogma in concert with lack of instrumentation to prove anything. The first rudimentary telescope wasn’t invented until 1608. They didn’t have polling back then at any rate, which is how we measure scientific consensus today. They send out lots of questionnaires.
I should amend an earlier post here. I mentioned that there are mid-100s of climate scientists, I was thinking of one particular study. This latest IPCC study had about 1,500 involved. But these type of numbers can be deceptive, it matters how much involved each person is.
Back to your post, you slyly confuse an average Joe in New Orleans or a home owner in Cal. with scientists that study what they are going through. But an average Joe can discern changes. A long time hunter or birdwatcher for example can see change over time in the location they return to decade after decade. Here in Michigan wildlife has been moving north over the last two decades and biologists have been tracking all sorts of changes. This in itself doesn’t prove global warming, but it is added into all the other types of science for an overall picture.
sceneshistoriques addressed other of my thoughts. I’d like to add as well, that government subsidies for the fossil fuel industries is not something that was voted on by Americans, some sort of public concensus. This is why I’m always skeptical of politicians as they high jack policy from any thoughts the public might have. I was aghast at the last energy bill, handing billions out to the oil industry for instance. And then a few months later we watched Exxon CEO Lee Raymond retire with a $400 million retirement parachute. We essentially paid his retirement with our tax dollars.
Posted by Jon B on Apr 9, 2007 at 9:44 PM Vermonter,
Thanks for the links. Apparently, the ‘absorption extinction’ BS comes from a paper by Dr. Heinz Hug, a signatory of the Leipzig Declaration, that cherrypicks a single absorption line of IR by CO2 and extrapolates it beyond reason to arrive at the conclusion he makes. This paper, as far as I can tell, is only published on the denialist site of John Daly. It obviously cannot pass the peer review process.
WTH,
Have you actually seen “An Inconvenient Truth”? It contains a lot of science. It is a popularization of the science. Almost all the criticisms are false and/or exaggerations, much like the lie that Gore claims to have ‘invented’ the internet.
What do you know about the science, anyway? You might check out RealClimate.org where real scientists engage in real debate about the scientific issues.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 9, 2007 at 9:50 PM This is what I know… As a child growing up here in St. Louis 30 - 40 years ago, we had a winter. We walked to school through the snow, we played hockey on frozen ponds till it was dark. There was snow on the ground for months on end, The ponds and creeks were frozen for months, I’m talking good solid ice. Now, more and more, Christmas and new years day I can go outside with a jacket on, we have maybe 3 weeks of frigid temps,(in feb) this year we had snow on the ground for maybe 8 days,(not 8 straight days) we have freezing rain now instead of snow, never, do you see a pond freeze over (I’ve yet to see one for almost 20yrs that you could skate on) Its almost as tho an imaginary line has creeped north from Memphis to St.Louis (we have their winter.) Label it what you want, but somethings wrong….I can see it, cant you?
This comment brought to you with no help from Science or a Lobbyist
Posted by Shortbus on Apr 9, 2007 at 10:51 PM Just as the holocaust revisionists are right about that conventional wisdom being a pack of lies, I’m sure the GW “deniers” will be proven right over time. Shortbus, winters have been as cold as ever in most places most of the time. Here in the SF Bay Area it was damn cold and I was using the fireplace all winter.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 9, 2007 at 10:55 PM “Label it what you want, but somethings wrong….I can see it, cant you? “
To be fair to the deniers, they aren’t denying the fact that the climate is changing. That is undeniable. They’re denying that it’s due to human activity.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 9, 2007 at 11:05 PM Jon B,
I stand by my analogy regarding consensus no matter what people claim to be the consensus it does not make it the truth. In addition no one will be able to enforce any restriction coming from such a consensus. Wars are even messier.
If you want me to stick closer to the original topic, OK the assault on science regarding global warming is a two front war. People on both sides are claiming the high ground without really preparing a battle plan. They are just hollering, Follow me!
I dont believe it is as simple as VTer when he says, If we gamble that the climate scientists are right, and we start reducing our CO2 emissions immediately, we may save the planet. If theyre wrong, we may end up spending more, but we may also have a cleaner planet.
There is far more involve here than simply, reducing our CO2 emissions. The cost could be enormous, diverting funds from other more imminent negatives such as feeding people, putting large numbers out of work, while countries such as China will (as usual) do as they damn well please. Who is going to make them abide by any consensus?
The U.S. and to some degree Europe have made a half hearted show of environmental concern and what has it gained us? Our corporations have skirted the restrictions by moving operations to Asia or Africa where they are not hampered by such considerations. One of my former clients is making a casting in South Africa at 10 percent of the cost here.Weve lost the jobs, the executives have pocketed the savings, the earth is a little dirtier and now we want to increase the process to what end?
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 10, 2007 at 12:00 AM “Scenes” to be fair you are an obnoxious lowlife punk. I’m going to let the scientists fight this out and stop wasting time reading your leftwing ca ca.
WTH, you make many valid points but you are dealing with a religious cult here. These are the most hardcore socialist nature lovers since national socialist Germany in the 30s. They are immune to reason.
Environmentalism is the new communism, govt control over every facet of our lives. Syllogisms are great but these people will ultimately have to be answered with a gun. They are total 100% statist fanatics.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 10, 2007 at 12:09 AM Apparently after we’ve emitted all the CO2 and caused this humongous problem to develop our economies, the Chinese/Indians have no right to do the same. The answer is for us to give the Chinese the technology they need to develop efficiently. Because the Chinese have little existing energy infrastructure, it’s easier to provide them with new efficient and cleaner power plants than it would be to upgrade power plants in already developed countries. You get a lot more bang for the buck in terms of CO2 reduction by providing developing countries with cleaner and more efficient technologies.
“The costs might be enormous, like putting people out of work.”
One, the costs could be even more enormous, like killing millions of people on the coastlines of the poorest countries. Already, salt water is creeping into the rivers and alluvial flood plains of Bangladesh. Who’s going to feed the Bangladeshis? People driving SUVs? Two, it may be possible to generate jobs in the cleaner, more efficient industries to replace the jobs we lose in the dirty inefficient industries. If it becomes mandatory all over the world to take into account greenhouse gases and pollution, whose industries would win? The industries of those countries that manage to create cleaner and efficient new technologies. It certainly won’t be the Chinese or the Indians.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 10, 2007 at 5:45 AM I’m wondering if there is anything that could convince deniers that human-induced climate change is happening. Are their theories even falsifiable? Remember that even if sea levels rise and millions are killed, the deniers can still claim it has nothing to do with human activity. Assuming for the sake of argument that climate change is being caused by the activity of the sun, shouldn’t there be an associated increase in whatever solar activity (frequency of sunspots? solar magnetic activity?) that the deniers claim is causing climate change? Even if CO2 increases lag solar-activity-induced climate changes, shouldn’t there then be increased solar activity in the past (the present minus the lag) that is causing the current increase in greenhouse gases?
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 10, 2007 at 6:00 AM A buddy of mine (a chemistry teacher) recently brought up another question related to this that I had never heard of. It has to do with methane in deep ocean trenches which, he said, could be liberated into the atmosphere if oceanic temperatures were to elevate beyond some small amount. I have not yet taken the time to look up much about his concern, but one thing I’ll also have to check out is his assertion that methane holds much more heat per volume than carbon dioxide.
Any chemists out there who can shed some light?
Posted by Kuya on Apr 10, 2007 at 10:53 AM Correct scences..
WTH, My newspaper just yesterday reported this, in 2006 venture capitalists spent $2.4 billion to fund in the alternate energy sector, compared to $917 million in 2005. Much of this going to the Midwest and fortunately including my state, Michigan. If you are so worried about jobs understand that this money is for future new jobs. There is a good possibility that America will become the worlds’ leader in an alternative energy industry unless we continue to drag our feet. It seems the venture capitalists are starting to understand the potential, you should consider that cleaning up our act isn’t going to be the end times of economic activity. As I pointed out before, America has adapted to change and will again.
Kuya,,, yes the methane is trapped below the ocean bottom, called methane hydrates. The concern is that these large pockets will be released at a tipping warmth point, what is termed a “methane burp” and if that happens, all bets are off. Methane burps have been attributed to being a major part of the Permian extinction where 90% of life ceased to exist, that was absolutely the largest extinction event in Earth’s history. Bear in mind that methane burps are not well understood by scientists yet and being a part of the Permian extinction event isn’t considered scientific concensus at this point. But as I pointed out earlier, methane is being released in Siberia as frozen peat bogs are being thawed from global warming.
And a sort of mea culpa. Apparently Bush did not almost blow himself up as the link I sent reported. The CEO of Ford, Alan Mulally must have some sort of superman complex, crediting himself for saving Bush. Keith Olberman covered this last night and had video that showed that Mulally was fantasizing or something. There I go, getting burned for believing what a CEO said.
Posted by Jon B on Apr 10, 2007 at 1:07 PM An article by George Monbiot on so-called climate change censorship:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2053519,00.html
Excerpt:
“If you want to know what real censorship looks like, let me show you what has been happening on the other side of the fence. Scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have been repeatedly threatened and silenced and their findings edited or suppressed.
The Union of Concerned Scientists found that 58% of the 279 climate scientists working at federal agencies in the US who responded to its survey reported that they had experienced one of the following constraints: 1. Pressure to eliminate the words “climate change”, “global warming”, or other similar terms from their communications; 2. Editing of scientific reports by their superiors that “changed the meaning of scientific findings”; 3. Statements by officials at their agencies that misrepresented their findings; 4. The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate; 5. New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work; 6. Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings. They reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years.
In 2003, the White House gutted the climate-change section of a report by the Environmental Protection Agency. It deleted references to studies showing that global warming is caused by manmade emissions. It added a reference to a study, partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, that suggested that temperatures are not rising. Eventually the agency decided to drop the section altogether.
After Thomas Knutson at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published a paper in 2004 linking rising emissions with more intense tropical cyclones, he was blocked by his superiors from speaking to the media. He agreed to one request to appear on MSNBC, but a public affairs officer at NOAA rang the station and said that Knutson was “too tired” to conduct the interview. The official explained to him that the “White House said no”. All media inquiries were to be routed instead to a scientist who believed there was no connection between global warming and hurricanes.
Last year Nasa’s top climate scientist, James Hansen, reported that his bosses were trying to censor his lectures, papers and web postings. He was told by Nasa’s PR officials that there would be “dire consequences” if he continued to call for rapid reductions in greenhouse gases.
Last month, the Alaskan branch of the US fish and wildlife service told its scientists that anyone travelling to the Arctic must understand “the administration’s position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues”.
At hearings in the US Congress three weeks ago, Philip Cooney, a former White House aide who had previously worked at the American Petroleum Institute, admitted he had made hundreds of changes to government reports about climate change on behalf of the Bush administration. Though not a scientist, he had struck out evidence that glaciers were retreating and inserted phrases suggesting that there was serious scientific doubt about global warming.”
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 10, 2007 at 4:04 PM Monbiot is an extreme leftist hack not endowed with credibility. Most of you extremely verbose windbags are counting on the fact that the working stiffs have neither the time nor the research bucks to check out your extravagrant assertions. The predictable left party liners like LB we can ignore, she’s just recycling today’s KPFA crapola. The bulk of this monologue here by the doomsday crowd with the usual villain, capitalism and the usual solution, more state control over all facets of our lives, is entirely political, not scientific. You are using a thin veneer of science with your typical selective sources chosen in advance because they agree with your crappy political agenda. But who’s supposed to be fooled here ?
Posted by blondemike on Apr 10, 2007 at 4:18 PM The letter from the scientist Carl Wunsch to the makers of “The Great Global Warming Swindle”:
——-8<————————<
Mr. Steven Green
Head of Production
Wag TV
2D Leroy House
436 Essex Road
London N1 3QP10 March 2007
Dear Mr. Green:
I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about your Channel 4 film “The Global Warming Swindle.” Fundamentally, I am the one who was swindled—-please read the email below that was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change—-in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be so tendentious, so unbalanced?
I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable climate-change stories in the British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf Stream could disappear, among others. When a journalist approaches me suggesting a “critical approach” to a technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious, and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, “critical” does not mean a hatchet job—-it means a thorough-going examination of the science. The scientific subjects described in the email, and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated, worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words “polemic”, or “swindle” appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have instantly declined to be involved.
I spent hours in the interview describing many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change, and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially truly catastrophic issues, such as the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.
What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it’s hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn’t really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.
(continued)
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 10, 2007 at 4:37 PM (Letter from Carl Wunsch, continued)
An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs—thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.
I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the “Global Warming Swindle” is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped—-an uncomfortable position in which to be.
At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.
Sincerely,
Carl Wunsch
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of
Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 10, 2007 at 4:37 PM I just noticed that in Carl Wunsch’s letter he writes something very relevant to what was posted earlier on this forum by texasindependent:
“There are so many examples, its hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldnt really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.”
So it’s not Chemistry 101. It’s Meteorology 101.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 10, 2007 at 4:42 PM Earlier in this discussion someone posted this to indicate that scientists have been wrong before:
“There was the forthcoming Ice Age of 1975 lore.”
Here’s a response to that myth:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 10, 2007 at 4:59 PM My information is from Exploring Chemical Elements and their Compounds by David Heiserman. My son’s 8th grade chemistry book. I double checked my professional references to be sure of the absorption rate of radiation of CO2. It absorbs radiation at 10 meters of distance.
Meteorology casts chicken bones to divine the weather at less than 50 percent accuracy. Chemistry uses the scientific method and a few hundred years of research and data to determine the effects of compounds and elements. And the relative mass of CO2 is critical to radiative balance. Isn’t that the entire philosophy of this hippie nonsense? Isn’t CO2 the reason you people are screaming the sky is falling? It is a scam and you people are too caught up in the politcal side without a thought in your empty heads about the science this hoax is based on.
I do not care what idiotic political theories you people propose. But when you propose to destroy the economy I rely on to feed my children based on junk science that has no basis in reality we have a serious problem. Civil war level of problems.
Posted by texasindependent on Apr 10, 2007 at 5:17 PM Could you provide the quote from your son’s chemistry book that you think is relevant to our argument.
“Meteorology casts chicken bones to divine the weather at less than 50 percent accuracy.”
That would be relevant if we were discussing predicting the weather. But we’re talking about climate change, not predicting the weather. It’s quite possible to not be able to predict the weather two days from now in New York City, but still be able to make very reliable statements about the climate in the Northwest.
“Chemistry uses the scientific method and a few hundred years of research and data to determine the effects of compounds and elements.”
And it can be a wonderful science when it is applied to its proper domain. In this case, Chemistry is inapplicable because GHGs are chemically stable, so they don’t release the energy they absorb primarily through chemical reactions.
“Isnât CO2 the reason you people are screaming the sky is falling?”
Yes. But this does not mean that the relative mass of CO2 to other atmospheric gases is relevant to its effects on radiative balance. To repeat my analogy from before, just because dioxin is present in minute quantities doesn’t mean it’s not toxic.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 10, 2007 at 5:33 PM “I double checked my professional references to be sure of the absorption rate of radiation of CO2. It absorbs radiation at 10 meters of distance.”
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “It absorbs radiation at 10 meters of distance.” Perhaps you can explain a little more about this. Then explain how this means it cannot possibly be a greenhouse gas.
As far as I understand, greenhouse gases absorb radiation reflected by the earth’s surface, and they then emit this radiation again. The longer they remain in the atmosphere, the greater their influence on the “greenhouse effect.”
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 10, 2007 at 6:01 PM A couple of you clowns are taking up gobs of space to repeat yourselves, give only sources which verify your prejudices and try to overwhelm us with a mass of trivia. Anyone with half a brain knows they can read Capitalism by George Reisman, a massive refutation of all the premises of the communistic environmental movement. Then go the George Marshall Institute website for rebuttal views on “global warming.” Having a couple of these aging lefty hacks 69ing each other here is not the purpose of these threads. I find mostly lefty types to be verbose because they are bad writers and worse thinkers. You JO artists are not convincing anyone who is not already with you.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 10, 2007 at 6:16 PM “I double checked my professional references to be sure of the absorption rate of radiation of CO2. It absorbs radiation at 10 meters of distance.”
Ahhhh, I see now. It appears the statement refers to incoming solar radiation - light.
You should do a double check on greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect has nothing to do with gases absorbing incoming solar radiation. In fact, the greenhouse effect relies on incoming solar radiation, which heats the earth. Greenhouse gases absorb the reflected radiation. If you switch to your son’s 8th grade earth science book, you’ll notice that about 25% of the solar radiation is reflected as light, and about 75% of the sun’s radiation is reflected as heat (infrared spectrum). Greenhouse gases prevent the escape of infrared radiation - heat. (The gamut of radiation includes both heat and light, as well as radio, radar, and etc.)
CO2 or other greenhouse gases, at levels in the ludicrous atmospheric proportion you propose would actually have the reverse effect - absorbing incoming solar radiation and preventing it from reaching the earth’s surface, reducing the amount of solar heat on the earth - which might or might not result in “global cooling.”
You have taken a specific piece of information and tried to apply it universally. Without a full understanding of the rest of the equation, you’ve come up with a false conclusion. While it may be fair to debate if, or how much, man’s activity may contribute to the earth’s stock of greenhouse gases and global climate change, it doesn’t seem prudent to debate something that does not pertain to the concept at hand.
You argue, in effect, that there is no perceptible consequence of the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. But the greenhouse effect, and carbon dioxide’s role as a greenhouse gas has been observed and understood for well over 100 years. It isn’t a fad, and it isn’t a theory. The levels of infrared radiation absorption from water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are quantifiable. The “greenhouse effect” is a fact, and without it, the earth’s surface temperature would average about 20 to 25 degrees lower than “normal.”
If you increase the percentage of infrared-absorbing compounds in the atmosphere, what do you think will happen? Temperatures will rise.Instead of all this poopaganda and misinformation you’re throwing around, maybe you ought to get informed first. I’d start by asking your son to bring home his earth science book. Read the chapter on climate. Then, come back and have an informed debate.
-VTer
Posted by Vermonter on Apr 10, 2007 at 7:13 PM DOOM ! DOOM ! DOOM ! DOOM ! TURN OVER ALL YOUR FREEDOM AND ALL YOUR MONEY TO THE GOVERNMENT, OTHERWISE WE ARE DOOMED ! ONLY OUR AGIT-PROP IS TRUE ! INFORMED DEBATE MEANS ARGUING FROM OUR PREMISES. YOU MUST POST LONG, VERBOSE, WINDY TIRADES WITH STATS FROM APPROVED SOURCES, NO GOOD CONCISE WRITERS WANTED ! DIARRHEA OF THE PEN REQUIRED.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 10, 2007 at 8:08 PM NONSENSE! DEBATE MEANS CALLING PEOPLE NAMES AND REFERRING THEM TO OTHER PEOPLE’S IDEAS!
Posted by Vermonter on Apr 10, 2007 at 8:16 PM Here’s a document on the absorption characteristics of greenhouse gases, especially CO2:
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/text_revised.doc
I think texasindependent might be talking about the supposed “band saturation” of CO2. This document deals with that. (See the section titled ‘band saturation”)
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 10, 2007 at 8:35 PM Bowel Movement,
If you are the “libertarian objectivist” that you claim to be than the very first line of defense is science. Logical positivism and the scientific method is sacrosanct to these people. It is held to be the only way to truth since it only deals in scientifically testable propositions. It eschews all subjective “bias” and holds itself to be value free.You object to the implications of over 950 peer reviewed studies including those of the US military and a recent UN study using over 2000 of the world’s most respected scientific authorities just because it could mean a government sponsered program to reverse human made environmental damage. In addition, you call the environmental movement “communist” just like everything else you’re afraid of and don’t understand. This is stupid. It is also harmful to society and its freedom.
BM, you are no libertarian objectivist but a good ole’ fashioned fascist. You also have low congnitive ability.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Apr 10, 2007 at 8:53 PM Yes, I think he is talking about instanteous band absorption of IR in an experimental setting. I.e., that in a column of CO2 gas, ~100% of the IR, presumably at some average ground heat, that can be absorbed (absorbed to extinction) by CO2 is absorbed within 10 m in a single moment of measurement.
What happens in the natural environment that makes this less than meaningful is that IR is re-emitted and re-absorbed over time in all directions, so that by iteration the amount of IR absorbed increases and spreads through the troposphere. Also, the fact that CO2 molecules are relatively widely spaced in the atmosphere and interact energetically with other atmospheric molecules makes this particular measurement rather of little consequence.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 10, 2007 at 10:04 PM And as concentration increases the distance of radiation absorption decreases thus increasing reflectivity exponentially. In simple terms the greater the concentration of CO2 the more radiation absorbed and released as heat energy. Thank you LB
The comparison of CO2 and dioxin is perhaps the most ridiculous statement I have ever read. Vermonter
Violating the base of all physical science for political reasons is junk science. As I have stated before the total mass of carbon present on this planet is insufficient to create “warming”. Our planet relies on water vapor to insulate against heat loss. With the loss of this layer Earth would freeze. CO2 plays a very minor role in this process on Earth. On other planets without water vapor CO2 fills this role but it requires a high concentration of over 30 percent.
Posted by texasindependent on Apr 10, 2007 at 11:08 PM Wrong, again, see the review of Brand Blanshard’s Reason and Analysis by Nathaniel Branden in the February 1963 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter. The Blanshard volume thoroughly debunks
pragmatism, linguistic analysis, logical positivism and a host of other then prevalent orthodoxies in philosophy. Blanshard was not an Objectivist but he agreed with them on logical positvism. Additionally if you wish to consult Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Dr. Leonard Peikoff, her intellectual and legal heir, you will find out that Objectivism totally condemns logical positivism. If you wish further to get Peikoff’s extensive taped audio series on the history of western philosophy you can listen at length to his critique of logical positivism there too. Maybe you are thinking of Carnap. Not Objectivism. As for libertarianism that is strictly a POLITICAL philosophy rather than a philosophy qua philosophy so it has no postion on logical positivism. Rothbard, the leading libertarian theorist, was an Aristotelian-Thomist with Objectivist leanings, distinctly unsympathetic to logical positivism. Hayek, the great Austrian libertarian philosopher and economist, wrote a book The Counter-Revolution in Science criticizing the use of the physics lab methodology in the social sciences. I may be slightly off on the title but you can get it from amazon. I’m not impressed by “950 peer reviewed” studies, the peers could be wrong, see Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It’s very possible that all the scientists could be operating from the wrong paradigm or many could or most. again, truth is not determined by majority vote and there ARE scientists who disagree here, I gave the Marshall Institute ref. Reisman makes the case in his opus Capitalism that the environmental movement is the new communism since they advocate government control of the environment, which MEANS everything. Now even you should be able to figure that one out. Fascism is a form of socialism that has the government regulate and control business rather than nationalize it. Ergo for National Socialism. You are more properly labeled a fascist. Now PLEASE change your colostomy bag ! And by the way, imbecile, learn to spell COGNITIVE.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 10, 2007 at 11:19 PM “The comparison of CO2 and dioxin is perhaps the most ridiculous statement I have ever read.”
The comparison wasn’t made to suggest that CO2 is poisonous, but that an element can contribute to some effect (whether greenhouse or toxicity) even if it is present in small amounts.
“CO2 plays a very minor role in this process on Earth.”
From http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-f forcing/
“Whenever three or more contrarians are gathered together, one will inevitably claim that water vapour is being unjustly neglected by ‘IPCC’ scientists. “Why isn’t water vapour acknowledged as a greenhouse gas?”, “Why does anyone even care about the other greenhouse gases since water vapour is 98% of the effect?”, “Why isn’t water vapour included in climate models?”, “Why isn’t included on the forcings bar charts?” etc. Any mainstream scientist present will trot out the standard response that water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas, it is included in all climate models, but it is a feedback and not a forcing. From personal experience, I am aware that these distinctions are not clear to many, and so here is a more in-depth response (see also this other attempt).”
Read the rest at the link.
“As I have stated before the total mass of carbon present on this planet is insufficient to create warming. “
You have repeatedly asserted this, yes. If you’d like to convince others of your assertions and disregard the findings of the majority of scientific specialists in the field, you’re going to have to offer more evidence than “go take Chemistry 101” or “read my son’s chemistry textbook from page to page to find the point I’m trying to make.”
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 10, 2007 at 11:25 PM Vermonter, you are full of shit. You never referred anyone to any ideas other than the hysterical crap that you are promoting. You are a self-inflating, pompous windbag and I was capsulizing what you stand for. You and your turgid crappy little narcissistic brain brothers here. LB, the gas that you are emitting right now here in this forum is a crime against our environment.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 10, 2007 at 11:27 PM “Itâs very possible that all the scientists could be operating from the wrong paradigm or many could or most. again, truth is not determined by majority vote and there ARE scientists who disagree here.”
True, but you have to deal with each scientific argument one-at-a-time, rather than refer all discussions about science to a book by some philosopher who is skeptical about commies/socialists/pinkos, or the “Marshall Inst ref.” To convince anyone you need to deal with the *specific argument*, rather than refer your readers to a whole book, where they’re supposed to find out which part of the book applies to the current discussion. You need to provide a specific reference in the “Marshall Inst” or whatever that applies to the topic currently being discussed (e.g., the supposed inability of CO2 to act as a greenhouse gas at atmospheric concentrations, or the lag of CO2 increase behind temperature rises in past history).
Also, if we’re talking about the truth of what is happening in the climate, then the political implications are irrelevant. Once we have decided on the truth, then we discuss what should be done about it, if anything. For example, we could determine that human-induced global warming is occurring but that government-based solutions are inappropriate and counter-productive.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 10, 2007 at 11:30 PM “And as concentration increases the distance of radiation absorption decreases thus increasing reflectivity exponentially. In simple terms the greater the concentration of CO2 the more radiation absorbed and released as heat energy. Thank you LB”
You left out the part where he said that your experimental result does not apply to natural atmospheric CO2. Therefore it is not of relevance to the current discussion.
“[The radiation] is re-emitted and re-absorbed over time in all directions, so that by iteration the amount of IR absorbed increases and spreads through the troposphere. Also, the fact that CO2 molecules are relatively widely spaced in the atmosphere and interact energetically with other atmospheric molecules makes this particular measurement rather of little consequence.”
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 10, 2007 at 11:52 PM Look, I gave refs that take issue with what you are stating here, I don’t have the time or space to replicate their arguments here so I refer to refs. That is valid. There ARE people who do have the time and the research bucks to check on your sources as well as come up with their own. I never said they are discredited BECAUSE of their politics, though I DO think their politics are discredited but I imply very much that they are advocating ideas that some people hotly contest and that political prejudices may well be at the root of their “scientific” conclusions. There is not in modern world the strict wall between the two that you imply. I have to also add that it is proper to generalize once you see a pattern and for 40 years I have witnessed one hysterical environmentalist crusade after another, GW is hardly the first instance. And while being wrong many times before does not in formal logic preclude your being right it does behoove the rest of us to be skeptical and to question YOUR agenda and axe grinding too.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 10, 2007 at 11:54 PM “Look, I gave refs that take issue with what you are stating here, I dont have the time or space to replicate their arguments here so I refer to refs.”
It’s fine to give references. Everyone does that. But if you point to a large reference on a broad topic, it is unclear to the reader of this discussion where exactly to find the material that is relevant to the specific discussion we’re having. So, for example, if someone here makes the claim that CO2 increases have always followed temperature increases in the past, and I post a reference explaining why that is the case, then whoever hopes to rebut that should point to something specific and relevant to what I have posted, perhaps suggesting that my reference doesn’t actually deal with the problem, or whatever. But merely just pointing to a large skeptic website doesn’t suffice. And it’s not just insufficient logically. It’s insufficient given the current status of the debate, where the majority of scientists support the idea of human-induced climate change. Now this doesn’t make them right, but the burden of proof shifts to those who challenge this consensus. Again, I don’t mean this logically shifts the burden of proof. I just mean that when your position is less accepted, you have to do more work to convince the unconvinced.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 11, 2007 at 12:14 AM “There is not in modern world the strict wall between the two that you imply.”
Are you saying that one’s politics determines the actual truth “out there?” I myself believe that human-induced global warming is either happening or it isn’t; but whether or not it is happening is not dependent on our political beliefs.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 11, 2007 at 12:19 AM It can determine the hypothesis or paradigm if you will. Of course, it never determines truth but can influence what people believe to be truth, often not the same thing. In the 50s everyone KNEW psychiatry was true but then Thomas Szasz started debunking that in The Myth of Mental Illness in 1961 followed by thirty other books. Every one KNEW nuclear power was safe, even the Sierra Club, but that has been challenged. Every one KNEW that only Birchers opposed mandatory fluoridation of public water supplies but then Sweden, Germany and other countries banned it as unsafe. There are fashions and trends in science too. The above beliefs were and with some still are held as ‘scientific.’ So, yes, science can be influenced like anything else. I think ultimately the truth will come out but that can take a while and it’s not a given.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 11, 2007 at 12:37 AM BM’
I don’t disagree with your last post. But as well the opposite should be acknowledged, that when scientific consensus is considered overwhelming, far too many people still won’t believe it. We still have a Flat Earth society, creation science, that the moon landing was a charade performed in a studio on Earth, the list is endless. So of the two choices, to trust in scientific consensus or to disbelieve it, I choose the former with a caveat, keep an eye on the opposition’s argument to see if it becomes salient, because if it does the consensus will indeed shift the other way.
As to your fear of economic ruin, there have been very little in studies on this that could be described as accurate. How could one be if there is uncertainty in what actions would be taken?. I did see one that over a few decades it really is nothing but a wash, but again how would we really know? Certainly if we build a bunch of wind and solar farms, that’s creation in an economy, someone has to build them, maintain them, run them. If tomorrow it was decided to make electric cars the required vehicle (not saying I’m advocating it) for most Americans (exceptions could be made, trucking for instance) then someone has to build them, someone has to run the companies, someone has to recycle the gas vehicles being phased out, etc. etc.
Our economy has made large change-overs and we are in one now as we move away from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. We went from agrarian to industrial, we went from horse and buggy to cars, we went from kerosene lamps to electric lights. Somehow our society survived economically, why would you fear the same thing now? Why would you take the stance of the buggy makers of years ago? As I pointed out earlier venture capitalists are increasingly investing in alternative energy start-ups, we are changing almost without us knowing it.
Alternative energies are actually a way to individual freedom. We’ve reached a point in time technologically where a person’s home can go off the grid and not even depend on the government or corporations for their energy. I would have thought that you as a Libertarian were already off the grid or at least currently trying to make it so.
You could have an electric car, a solar panel to charge it and never have to visit a service station unless you wanted a bag of chips. Why do you think there is little love for electric cars from corporations and that we are being given “solutions” such as E85 or some day in the future hydrogen? You know the answer, because we will still have to continuously fuel and add oil, still have to waste our time at the filling station. That’s dependence not independence.
Posted by Jon B on Apr 11, 2007 at 1:35 PM Thanks, Jon. Out here in the Bay area we are paying on average 60 cents more per gallon for regular unleaded than anywhere else in the country so I’m all too aware of the rip-off here. Years ago I was told you had to recharge the battery every 100 miles which would be a pain but I’ll check into the current state of the art of those cars now. The examples you give above are valid but strawmen because almost nobody holds to them. It’s not a matter of consensus but they are rather obviously wrong, the only caveat would be there are tons of creationists because of all the religious nuts here. So I thank you for your food for thought.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 11, 2007 at 4:09 PM Mikey,
Check out the Tesla . It’s kind of pricey at 92 grand, but it’s made right across the bay.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 11, 2007 at 4:41 PM Way too pricey, LB. we owe 77K on our house, not about to spend 92K on a car.
Posted by blondemike on Apr 11, 2007 at 6:10 PM I’m no expert, but plug-in hybrids seem to be a good compromise between fully electric cars (with their range limitations) and gasoline cars. You can plug it in overnight, and if your day’s driving is not long range, you’d have used only electricity. On those days when your driving has to be long-range, the gasoline engine kicks in after the battery is exhausted.
Unfortunately (as far as I’m aware) plug-in hybrids are not available from manufacturers right now, but after-market modifications are available.
Of course, this is not a long-term solution to fossil fuel emissions, because the electricity you’re using in your car most likely has come from fossil fuel sources. However, it’s easier to control emissions (or sequester carbon, for example) at a single source than from every tailpipe.
Again, I’m no expert, but I understand that the other advantage you buy is that electric motors are more energy-efficient than internal combustion engines, so even if the electricity is generated using fossil-fuels, it is more efficient to use it than use the fossil fuel directly in an internal combustion engine.
I guess the other advantage of electric cars would be that you’re decoupling the ultimate energy source (coal, oil, natural gas, solar, wind) from the car. The car thus does not need to be redesigned, and the associated infrastructure (e.g. fueling stations) recreated every time we need to change the fuel. You just change the way you generate electricity.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 11, 2007 at 6:19 PM GM’s EV was popular out in Cal. from what I understand but GM recalled them all. The movie “Who Killed the Electric Car” outlines that story. The main problem with an EV is the expense of replacing the battery when it eventually runs down. The owners including some celebrities like Tom Hanks loved them. They were virtually silent and had great pick-up. There was less to service repair as the entire fuel system didn’t exist. Battery technology is improving, an EV could be the best answer. A solar panel on the roof for charging eliminates the home’s usual use of carbon sourcing, coal plant for example.
I think that a major auto company could do a great package of EV, solar panel and replacement battery credit all in the initial purchase price. The problem would of course be like any new “gadget” the price would be high initially until popularity kicked in for more mass production. Most people do not drive as many miles as they think. There is that distance fear about an EV.
I’ve always believed that there will be a mass desire for much better fuel efficiency once gas prices hit a certain point, I’m just not sure what that price is, $3.50, $4.00 ?(in my area of the country). And I’m a believer in peak oil, that at some point in the next few years or so (a decade?) prices will jerk upwards more or less continuously. We may already have hit peak oil, the early phase.
Myself, I’ve not had the money to initiate some of the things I’d like to change. It’s those up-front costs. I know for instance if I replaced all the windows of my house into energy efficient type, not only do I cut back on the use of a coal plant, but in the long run I would save money on the electric bill. Simple things where up-front costs keep me from taking action. I’m not rich or even semi-rich in comparison to most Americans. This bothers me. Let’s say that EVs or hybrids become the best way to help change things on the road. How long would it take before the used car market fills with these vehicles? The low and moderate income will be the last to become part of the wave even if some were avid environmentalists, they’d still economically have to wait.
But I do try to do my part. I purposely drive less. I even walk to the store when it’s warmer. I nag the family about wasting electricity, I’ve become my parents! I’ve always owned vehicles that are were not gas guzzlers. There are so many little things I do to ease electrical use, simply out of saving money, yet it is these same little things that are my part in cutting carbon emissions. I can’t help the society I’m a part of, I wish I could afford to do more. I wish I could afford to solar panel the house and sink a thermal heating system. I’d love to be off the grid. Send money!
Posted by Jon B on Apr 12, 2007 at 4:59 PM Would a solar panel on the roof really be able to power a car? Wouldn’t it have to be pretty gigantic to do that? I know that very sleek cars that are one-seaters (e.g. GM’s Sunraycer) can be powered purely using solar energy, but I doubt that a practical car could.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 12, 2007 at 6:08 PM Kuya wrote:
A buddy of mine (a chemistry teacher) recently brought up another question related to this that I had never heard of. It has to do with methane in deep ocean trenches which, he said, could be liberated into the atmosphere if oceanic temperatures were to elevate beyond some small amount. I have not yet taken the time to look up much about his concern, but one thing Ill also have to check out is his assertion that methane holds much more heat per volume than carbon dioxide.
Any chemists out there who can shed some light?
———————————& ——————————— 8212;——————————̵ 12;——————————— ;——-Yes, that is correct. Additionally, the solubility of CO2 in water decreases as the temperature rises. So, not only the methane will be released but also a portion of the CO2 that is currently dissolved in the ocean. Considering the sheer volume of the ocean…...
Sorry if somebody answered this already, i have not red all the posts.
Posted by evtim on Apr 13, 2007 at 2:17 PM Just my 2p on the issue of GW:
Considering car emissions, take Amsterdam (I live there) - one of the most bicycle friendly cities in the world. There is no reason for driving car here. You will arrive later than me on my bicycle (traffic is severe, the city is relatively old and does not have the convenient orthogonal shape of most American cities), you will pay a fortune for a parking place and you cannot have a beer. Where is the fun in that?
I work 50 miles from A’dam and travel every day by train. The public transport network in the Netherlands is excellent. My boss travels (with a car) from much closer city (15 miles) and it takes him almost the same amount of time.
Also, I was astounded by the enormous amount of energy losses due to people simply leaving their PC and other electrical apparatuses on over night. If we stop doing this we can have 10 more years of development until we consume the same amount of energy we do today. But have you ever seen an advertisement or a campaign on this issue? No, because the energy companies want you to consume MORE, not less energy. It is that simple - just shut the f***ing PC of! Do not spill just because you can afford it!
And I think it is about time that Americans pay the European prizes for gasoline. That will knock some sense in the rednecks heads, don’t you think? But I guess then all car manufacturers in US will have to shut down. Those old ineffective engines sucking fuel like dragons will be useless. Not that anybody outside America buys them….I will bankrupt if I have to sustain an American car in Europe.
Recently I heard some serious American economists proposing the introduction of fuel tax. But no politician will dare to mess with the fuel. So I guess at the end we will have to endure the catastrophe and hope that the survivors (if any) will learn from history.About the issue of how the media and the politicians spin scientific results…..uffff better not say anything or I will be banned for cursing….... most scientist stay away from such discussions, because it is utterly futile to fight the brainwashed. We (scientists) are overwhelmed, drown in mass hysteria and arrogant propaganda. No one stands a chance against the corporate media.
I do not like the GW hysteria either although I know the issue is real. It seems to me that there is no other way to push any new idea in the heads of the westerners. For good or ill it has to be the old mass hysteria trick. Sad, but true. Get used to it, it will get worse.
Have a nice weekend!
Posted by evtim on Apr 13, 2007 at 3:02 PM Re your comments about Amsterdam, I am reading a book now called “Field Notes from a Catastrophe,” which is an excellent and very readable book about global warming, and it mentions the measures that the Netherlands is taking to adjust to flooding in the future, including amphibious houses. This book was part of the reason that skeptic Michael Shermer was converted to a believer in global warming.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 13, 2007 at 4:30 PM evtim,
Here in Central California, where we have mostly orthogonal streets, a few years ago I was living about 9 mi [15k] from the plant where I work. Every day a co-worker would pass me on my bicycle driving into town. He was amazed that I still beat him to the plant gate every day, since I didn’t have to wait in lines of backed up traffic at stoplights or look for parking and then walk all the way through the parking lot to the gate.
Sprawl and congestion are approaching catastrophic levels here in the land where the private auto is almost a necessity. I was commuting to the South Bay Area in the 90’s and the rush hour traffic on the Interstate Freeway usually averaged a little above walking speed. Although I carpooled with other commuters, it was incredible to me that probably 90% of the cars only had one occupant. A few years after I gave that job up in frustration over spending almost 6hrs/day on the road, Amtrac finally provided a single daily commuter link to BART. Besides the inconvenience of the local depot being 5mi from the center of town, it costs altogether more than $30/day.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 13, 2007 at 5:09 PM Luminous Beauty,
Sure, urban sprawl. I live in the Detroit area, the masters at urban sprawl. People keep moving farther from their jobs in order to get that “country living” and inevitably in about a decade or so, that country town has become exactly what they moved away from in the first place. They left a cookie cutter inner suburb to help create a new cookie cutter outer suburb. Worse, the new suburb that rises has almost exclusively corporate businesses, the small town businesses disappear quickly. The influx of the fast foods can happen with lightning speed and the down home diners vanish. The local grocery is crushed by Walmart. The small town hardware store closes down due to the Lowe’s or Home Depot. The country ambiance destroyed.
Now the family that moved to escape the old suburbs looks around one day and begins complaining of the exact same things they complained of in their old city, traffic, stressed water supply, higher crime, too many people, too much cement and they begin planning the next move, the next small town to escape to, eventually recreating another distant suburb with an even further drive to work. Although they do finally change jobs to a newer one in the subs, the main reason, the long commute. Meanwhile the oldest suburbs and Detroit begin to rot, lose their tax base and become a place only the poor can’t escape. The Detroit area is probably on about it’s fifth sprawling.
Detroit’s population has dipped below one million, but the greater metro area is about 5.5 million and this in the most economically depressed state in the country. The sprawl is so ever widening and comes with a lack of public transportation to service it, designed this way. The people who move farther out don’t really want the public getting off the bus in their new home town. It’s all about cars here.
Because of the economics, the state and the Detroit metro area is losing population, people escaping to places like Las Vegas, Phoenix, Charlotte and a Michigan favorite Florida. But I figure that will reverse as global warming really kicks in. One thing that Michigan can boast of is water, we’ve got a ton of it. Detroit has one of the finest water systems in the world. These new destinations are even today beginning to experience water shortages or quality degradation. Business and industry will some day be attracted to Michigan because of water, it will be cheaper here, it will provide the better quality of life for the work force.
We are seeing a global warming side effect, invasive species. Over the last two decades, species large and small are now finding Michigan warm enough to survive through the winter. The species that were here are being driven north for reasons of warmer weather and because of competition from the new species. Biologically, Michigan is in the fast lane of change.
The question is what does this all add up to? The answer is unknown. My state is losing population, but to me that isn’t such a bad thing. What’s wrong with less people, less stress on the infrastructure and nature? Michigan has gone through an out migration before and managed to survive, in the late 1980s people were flocking to Texas and the oil fields, our population dipped. Now the auto jobs are disappearing, but if a person isn’t obsessed with being rich or running that get ahead treadmill there are still reasons to be here. The nature is one of the main ones, and that is where the biological changes are somewhat worrying.
I’ve been observing the different changes (both human and nature) and wondering how it will all shake out.
Posted by Jon B on Apr 14, 2007 at 10:22 PM Water is definitely important. I’ve seen some articles come out where they take climate change for granted and as irreversible. So basically they’re suggesting we should just adapt to it. Here’s one:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200704/global-warming
An excerpt from an interview with the author:
“If your goal is reduce greenhouse gases, itâs far more logical to spend your money and invest your capital in China and India than it is in the United States, because the bang for your buck in terms of greenhouse gas reduction there is many orders of magnitude higher there than it is here. A lot of the people who talk about greenhouse gas reduction focusing on the United States just seem to want some sort of punitive measure that harms American industry so they can feel good and go back to their Chablis and brie. If your real goal is to reduce greenhouse gas accumulation, or to at least slow the rateâslowing the rate of accumulation is the best possible scenario at the momentâyou want to spend your money in China and India.
American coal-fired power plants, for example, average around 37 to 40 percent efficiency (thatâs the percentage of the coal that they take in thatâs converted into useful power). Chinese power plants right now are at 18 to 19 percent, so theyâre burning twice as much coal and thus releasing twice the volume of greenhouse gases to produce the same unit of energy we produce here. If American capital and expertise did nothing in the next 20 years except raise the efficiency of Chinese coal-fired power plantsâif thatâs the only thing we didâit would be probably the single greatest contribution to slowing the rate of greenhouse gas accumulation that anybody could make in the world. It would certainly exceed any possible reform here in the United States. And so a really forward-looking program whose goal was to reduce the environmental harm, rather than engaging in some sort of therapeutic blame-shifting exercise about industry, would focus on China and India. And other developing nations, too, but thereâs so much work to be done in China and India that you could spend a generation just helping them.”
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 15, 2007 at 1:55 AM Same interview, where the author gets asked the question “Why shouldnât the government, with all its resources, take a much more active role in finding a solutionâlike, say, funding a research scheme along the lines of the Manhattan project, as many commentators have suggested?”
This is his answer:
“Oh, God, the last thing you want is for the government to try to figure out a solution! What the government needs to do is price the problem. In economics, greenhouse gases are a free good, thereâs no cost involved in emitting them, so no one has any profit incentive to reduce the emissions. Government needs to create a framework in which a price is attached to the emission of greenhouse gases. The creation of a price will in turn allow people to make a profit by finding the solution. And once people have a profit incentive youâre going to find a huge outpouring of creativity on the part of engineers coming up with technical ideas and business people coming up with entrepreneurial ideas. But the last thing you want is for government to try to pick winners and losers in an industry. The governmentâs track record in energy research is pitiful. If you look at the billions of dollars that have been spent since the first Arab oil crunch of 1974, in the â70s and â80s we were spending eight or nine billion dollars a year (stated in todayâs dollars) on federal subsidized energy research, and if anything useful came out of that research Iâm sure not aware of it. All the breakthroughs in pollution reduction and energy efficiencyâthe things that actually work in the marketplaceâhave come at the behest of private entrepreneurs and engineers who are seeking profit. And so what we need to do now is create a profit motive for greenhouse gas reduction and apart from that, government should stay out of it. In the current federal budget thereâs almost five billion dollars for energy conservation researchâI wish there was zero in the current federal budget. Progress would be faster.”
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 15, 2007 at 2:06 AM It really just seems to make obvious sense to reduce consumption of petrofuels, even if you think GW is nonsense.
For example, I become quite disturbed when people say things like “we have enough oil for another—- years”, usually citing an arbitrary 3-digit number, 200 or 300 or the like.
Is that supposed to be the duration of human history, as though there will be no need for huge amounts of energy in that era? Or are we so fixated on our own indulgences that we can’t give a damn about future generations? Even if global warming were somehow to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be 100% unlinked to human use of petrofuel, does our continued profligate waste of it make any sense, outside of the insistence that we be able to continue our current bad (but very comfortable) habits?
Like, what is it with these elephantine vehicles? You’d think people had to go off-road to get to work. There’s gotta be some kind of mental compensation going on, a symbolic penis extension or something. (or, considering the market for hard-on pills, maybe the vehicles are penis substitutes).
(...nothing against y’all who benefit from the pills… when the day arrives, I’ll get some too… I’m talking about these f’n thyroidal steel monstrosities on the roads)
Of course, we could glibly say that future generations “will figure out a suitable alternative.” I get teased because I talk as if God exists, but I tell ya, that line ranks right up there with the blindest statements of faith I’ve ever heard.
Seems to me that we could benefit from a little frugality in our use of something that is limited, expensive and dangerous to obtain, dirty to use, politically distorting, and needed by people for a long time to come. It’s not as if it’s hard to cut back, and it doesn’t require one to live off the grid or walk everywhere to do so.
(...although some Americanos could also benefit from a little walkies, long as they walk on past McGrease or Blubber King).
You don’t have to believe in impending global catastrophe to understand the benefit and logic of changing wasteful practices. How about just believing in saving money?
I’ve been just shaking my head in dismay to see China going the route of private vehicles within their development process. It’s a damn shame. They’re making the same dumb mistake we made. Should be investing in passenger rail networks, trolleys, etc. Maybe they’ll do so in 200 or 300 years, once the oil that will supposedly last that long runs out.
Posted by Kuya on Apr 19, 2007 at 8:11 AM Hey Kuya, you wrote,....“For example, I become quite disturbed when people say things like we have enough oil for another—- years, usually citing an arbitrary 3-digit number, 200 or 300 or the like.”
I’m not sure who you’ve heard saying this, but they aren’t considering the economics. Are you aware of world peak oil? I case you haven’t, this is how it goes, shorthanded as best I can. It is probably more important than global warming.
An US oil geologist named Hubbert back in the 1950s calculated a bell curve. Production rise toward the peak as discoveries come on line and then production falls on the other side of the peak as the big oil fields run dry and new discoveries can’t keep pace with needed production. He applied this to the US and predicted about two decades in advance the peak and was very close. Others have subsequently done the same for world oil supply and the peak has been predicted for anywhere from NOW to a decade or two from now.
The economics of the peak is that prices rise on the down turn from the peak. It happened in the US in the late 1970s as US production could no longer keep pace with US needs, the biggest oil fields were beginning to run down and new fields (which are usually not big fields as the biggest ones are the easiest to find) couldn’t compensate for the less production.
A sign that a peak has been reached are fluctuating oil prices that on a trend line continue to rise (as the production wanes). But, fluctuating oil prices can be attributed to other factors (for instance, political upheaval in Nigeria affecting their production or a war in Iraq that fails to allow for increased oil production there), yet it is also argued that despite political disruptions of oil production that that is still a sign because other producers should be able to increase production in order to compensate for disruptions.
The peak in the US wasn’t proved until after the peak had already been reached and production numbers over those years showed the decline. A peak must become a decline to verify the peak. This is where we are probably at right now, the peak turning to decline but not proven yet. At least as I see it from what I’ve read.
As a decline continues, there becomes a time where the amount of the oil still not produced becomes too small to bother with as the price to produce it is higher than the price the oil would fetch on the market, this despite the price rise on the oil market. That’s an oil crisis, where we are headed.
So, sure we might have oil in the ground for say 100 years, that doesn’t mean it’s worth extracting. At some point oil prices will be so high that some other fuel will be more attractively priced, thus making the oil industry a dinosaur. The last of the oil will remain in the ground.
A problem in the world is that most countries refuse to have their wells inspected as to oil left in the field. This is because no country wants the price of oil to sharply increase due to panic if it were to become known a big field is drying up. Oil producing countries don’t mind a slow increase in price, but everyone is interested in a stable price. Mexico’s biggest oil field has had a production fall off. Iran’s fields are old, but the big guy on the block is Saudi Arabia and their cash cow big fields are also well rumored to be waning.
By the way, this is a story the main stream media never talks about. Once it is certain we are heading down the world oil bell curve, there is going to be big changes in store, particularly here in the US as we are addicted to it, our society at this point would go through all sorts of problems. We certainly aren’t preparing for it.
There are a number of books out there about it, I found them very interesting and haven’t found a reason not to believe them. Try this one;
http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/index.html
Posted by Jon B on Apr 19, 2007 at 12:47 PM “A problem in the world is that most countries refuse to have their wells
inspected as to oil left in the field. This is because no country wants the
price of oil to sharply increase due to panic if it were to become known a
big field is drying up. Oil producing countries don’t mind a slow increase
in price, but everyone is interested in a stable price.”I’ve read that the reason has more to do with the fact that the OPEC production quotas are based on estimated reserves. If an oil producing country is found to have reduced reserves, that means it is allowed to produce less, and therefore it earns less money. This is the reason that several OPEC countries increased their estimated reserves.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 19, 2007 at 5:11 PM ”... peak oil ... haven’t found a reason not to believe ...”
Healthy skepticism. I am not saying “peak oil” is a scam. But it could be. And, real or not, it could be used to manipulate us ... to war, to conservation or to development of alternative energy sources. If I were a betting man my money would be on the (red) horse of war. Sadly.
Keep in mind that scarcity, even a manipulated artificial scarcity , means higher prices and higher profits. The consequences of “peak oil”, such as resource wars, may be in our future but it may be just as contrived as the “war on terror” is.
As well, with oil prices being what they are for the last few years, it is now increasingly profitable to extract oil sands/bitumen and manufacture synthetic crude oil. Up here in Canada in the Athabasca Oil Sands , down in Venezuela (Orinco Sands) and in the USA midwest there are HUGE deposits of oil sands that are recoverable at prices quite a bit lower than current oil prices.
Having said all that ... I am not rushing out to buy a Hummer (but I am considering a motorcycle). I do believe in conservation simply for the sake of conserving, regardless of if our runaway consumption of oil is what is causing global warming or not. Much like what Kuya was alluding to when he asked “are we so fixated on our own indulgences that we can’t give a damn about future generations?” and mentioned “the benefit and logic of changing wasteful practices”. And what an incredibly wasteful and gluttonous society we live in!
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 19, 2007 at 10:12 PM As well, with oil prices being what they are for the last few years, it is now increasingly profitable to extract oil sands/bitumen and manufacture synthetic crude oil. Up here in Canada in the Athabasca Oil Sands , down in Venezuela (Orinco Sands) and in the USA midwest there are HUGE deposits of oil sands that are recoverable at prices quite a bit lower than current oil prices.
This is quite unlikely. If this were true, it’s most likely that these deposits would be extracted (unless you think the oil companies are in a conspiracy to keep these deposits from being exploited). The reason that they aren’t is that it’s much cheaper in the short term to extract and use petroleum, which has concentrated energy content, is versatile, and very easy to distribute. The Germans manufactured synthetic oil during WWII. They found that they used a lot more energy to manufacture it than they got out of it, and I suspect that other methods of manufacturing synthetic oil similarly don’t make sense in terms of energy gain. The reason the Germans did it is because they couldn’t run their Panzers on coal.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 19, 2007 at 10:40 PM Exactly what is “quite unlikely” ?
The oil sands up here are a booming business. They extract more now than they used to and are making plans to extract more in the future.
bitumen reserve largely untapped (pdf file)
—“Bitumen production in Alberta has increased by 59 per cent (143 million barrels) annually since 2000.”trillion barrel tar pit
—“Alberta sits atop the biggest petroleum deposit outside the Arabian peninsula - as many as 300 billion recoverable barrels and another trillion-plus barrels that could one day be within reach using new retrieval methods.””(unless you think the oil companies are in a conspiracy to keep these deposits from being exploited).”
I don’t understand the point you are trying to make here. The oil companies ARE exploiting these deposits. Are you suggesting that because I question “peak oil” I must wear a tinfoil hat?
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 19, 2007 at 11:10 PM David, if you question ANY establishment lie that means you wear a tin foil act. Ok ? Now the Petroleum Institute has just denied all price-gouging in today’s Oakland Tribune, are you telling you dare to doubt their authority ?
Posted by blondemike on Apr 19, 2007 at 11:45 PM The Canadians are already producing >1Mbbl/day from oil sands. The Orinoco basin ~.5M. There isn’t so much sand to separate out in the Venezuela deposits, they’re mostly tar, and it’s easier to process given the tropical heat. In the US there are some moderately sized sand and tar deposits in Utah and the Los Angeles Basin. The really huge deposits in Colorado are locked up in shale, which I understand require more energy to crush the rock than can be extracted. Not that petroleum execs and economists haven’t proposed working around that by pulverizing the rock using underground nukes. A pretty scary idea IMO.
Estimated reserves for such are, like underground liquid petroleum, probably highly over-estimated, proven reserves generally panning out to less than half of discovery estimates but since they are minable from the surface they are likely to be 90%+ recoverable compared to ~35% for deep wells.
An interesting anecdote; a semi-retired petro-engineering consultant I know in No-Cal was hired to go to Saudi Arabia right after the beginning of the current unpleasantness in that part of the world to oversee their jacking up production to make up for the losses from Iraq. He came back disgusted in less than two weeks, saying the Saudis were intent on pushing pre-mature secondary and tertiary extraction methods, which in his opinion would lead to a geological collapse of the fields. It’s the kind of thing that makes me take the recent announcement of a potential doubling of Iraqi reserves with a grain of salt. Considering, even with their slant drilling under Iraqi territory, the Kuwaitis have recently been forced to admit their production is in decline.
Though the Saudis do hold their cards even closer to their chests than most producers, it isn’t unreasonable to think that the recent cutbacks in production they’ve announced may be more due to geo-physics than agreeing to OPEC strategies to sustain high prices. Especially considering their recent promises to King George to raise production and lower prices in order to put economic pressure on Iran and, I imagine, Venezuela as well.
Even if we are on the Hibbert plateau, it does little to ameliorate AGW. The increased CO2 already in the atmosphere won’t reach its maximum effect for another 50 years or so due to the heat sink properties of the world’s oceans. Besides, there is a lot of coal. A lot.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 20, 2007 at 12:06 AM Sceneshistoriques, I think I see the problem you have with that portion of my statement.
My apologies for the misunderstanding.I wrote “... deposits of oil sands that are recoverable at prices quite a bit lower than current oil prices.” Oops - that could sound like I am saying it costs less to recover and my correction is ... deposits of oil sands that are recoverable and profitable at prices quite a bit lower than current oil prices.
Still clumsy so let me explain what I mean.
When oil was selling for under $ 30 per barrel it wasn’t economically feasible to extract and process the oil sands. Now that oil is selling for $ 60.00 per barrel it IS economically feasible to extract and process the oil sands. Granted not as profitable as drilling to conventional oilfields or drilling in oceans but oil sands are currently profitable. And very likely to remain so. What with the perpetual war on terror and all.
And having said that ... I am happy to see higher oil prices. Hopefully it will encourage some conservation and turn us away from our gluttony. And hopefully higher oil prices will spur diversification and proliferation of cleaner energy sources like wind, solar and biomass sources (it’s happening, but not quickly enough).
But the main point I wanted to make was to be aware of the (mis)uses of something like “peak oil” regardless of it’s validity, and made what I think is an apt analogy to the “war on terror”. Oil prices have more than doubled since the “war on terror” began. The ramifications are staggering.
Maybe I will get a tinfoil hat.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 20, 2007 at 3:19 AM Jon B, I had heard of the “peak oil” concept before, though your explanation was clear and easy to understand, gracias. It makes sense as far as it goes, but others have also pointed out that there’s a lack of information available to determine whether the “peak” has been reached in particular localities.
But actually, even if globally speaking the peak has yet to be reached (realizing the simplistic nature of that characterization, as though all oil-nations work in concert and all oil fields’ capacities are known), the value of decreasing waste seems quite obvious to me, i.e. to extend the availability of use of a very valuable resource. It’s mystifying to me when the advice is given, essentially, to just keep on burning and burning as though the effects are negligible or not there at all. Seems very short-sighted to use up a finite, valuable resource (that also fouls the air!)quicker rather than at a more moderate pace.
Posted by Kuya on Apr 20, 2007 at 4:05 AM Exactly what is "quite unlikely" ?
That “oil sands that are recoverable at prices quite a bit lower than current oil prices.” If they really are 300 billion barrels of oil recoverable at prices quite a bit lower than current oil prices, they would be recovered very quickly. What’s preventing the Canadians from becoming the world’s preeminent producer of oil? Remember in the whole industrial age, we’ve used up a trillion barrels of oil. 300 billion is one-third of all the oil we’ve used so far.
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 20, 2007 at 5:42 AM Seems very short-sighted to use up a finite, valuable resource (that also fouls the air!)quicker rather than at a more moderate pace.
It also seems silly to use up our finite sources of oil and natural gas, which took millions of years to accumulate, as sources of energy when they are our main source of petrochemicals (plastics), fertilizer and pesticides (on which our green revolution in agriculture, which enables us to feed billions, depends).
Posted by sceneshistoriques on Apr 20, 2007 at 5:50 AM Natural gas is another problem for the US as to its own reserves, we are running out of that too. I believe we are now importing much of it from Canada and Mexico, via gas lines. Beyond that importation from off continent as liquefied requires a terminal to turn it back into a gas. It costs more to ship it because of the different type of ships needed than oil. The US has a problem competing for exported LNG as other markets are closer to the sources that liquefy it and can pay less for it. And many places in the US don’t want a terminal, NIMBY.
sceneshistoriques…Yes, considerations toward OPEC obligations is another reason for oil field secrecy. I suppose that simple self-interest would be the all-inclusive answer. Actually, I had that in there, but when I went to send I had too many characters, so I went back and cut a few things. You caught me!!!
David in Canuckistan…..I had seen something recently in the news about the Athabasca Oil Sands, but couldn’t remember what it was, so I searched. Apparently there is a controversy about dumping arsenic into the local water system. I also understand they get plenty of Canadian federal tax breaks thus calling into question the profitability aspect.
This goes for all oil and energy companies as they all receive government subsidies, sometimes from multiple countries. It’s a whole lot easier to make profits when tax payers are both handing their taxes over to the energy companies and then having to pay for the product again with taxes applied once more for other uses. In actuality we pay more than it seems for our energy. At the pump for instance, some unknown amount of money should be added to the price (in your mind’s balance sheet) as you fill your tank because you paid that too in order to be able to pump.
Posted by Jon B on Apr 20, 2007 at 2:35 PM Scenehistoriques, I clarified my statement at Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 19, 2007 at 9:19 PM . It was not my intention to say that the costs of recovering oil from sands is less than drilling to conventional oilfields. Again my apologies for the confusion.
Canada is in the top 10 of oil producing countries and including the oil sands has the second largest reserves. The development of the oil sands production has only begun fairly recently and is gaining momentum.
Jon B, lots of industries in Canada get tax breaks for a variety of reasons and the Athabasca Oil Sands is no different in that regard. I would be happy to see a reduction of those tax breaks and subsidies considering the profits being made by the companies involved in the development there.
There are many controversies about the environmental impacts of the oil sands extraction and production. It would be nice to see some stricter regulations and effort applied to dealing with the negative aspects of the extraction process. And the destruction of the forest and wetlands is an important consideration as well. Sadly, at this point the government only requires that the land be returned to a usable state rather than to it’s original state.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 20, 2007 at 5:00 PM Thanks Jon B, I had heard of peak oil already but your explanation was clear and understandable. I don’t know how such a thing can be confirmed; the debate is so charged with political side-taking, any evidence presented gets lost in the shouting. I have to admit, I don’t know who to listen to and who to ignore.
There certainly do seem to be more and more people claiming to have credentials who are sounding the alarm, however. Are all of them just misled, mystified by a “green hippie fad”? That seems far-fetched.
Maybe I’ll invest a little coin in some Canadian land. While the argument drags on as to whether the warm-up is man-caused or not, I’ll prosper from the northward shift of the prime agricultural climate belt.
Canadian Dave, you wouldn’t mind a calm, neighborly Yank moving in, would you?
I’ll be rich, I’ll be socially secure…
OK, just joshin’. I actually think what’s being added to the climate system is unpredictability, via increased heat energy lending itself to greater atmospheric turbulence, increased evaporation. Bigger storms, pushing deeper inland. Disrupted rhythms in the weather. Whether it’s man-caused or not, there’s my prediction. Can I prove or test it here and now? Nope. But I’ll be shown to be right or wrong soon enough, I can wait.
Rather be wrong on this one, just as soon wait indefinitely.
Maybe I’ll teach the grandkids how to snare instead of farming. Not an unreliable food supply, if you don’t mind eating varmints. Dressing their own meat would be a useful philosophical exercise.
My hillbilly ancestors (a couple of whom just recently died; this isn’t ancient history) made do with squirrel and rabbit back in the day, when bigger game wasn’t available and there was no money for store-bought meat. There ought to be a lot of edible small game around, even if the agricultural system falters due to less predictable rain/shine patterns, should that occur.
City dwellers, I guess you can eat pigeon; squab isn’t bad, but it’s a small mouthful. There are also unlimited rats, but I can’t vouch for their taste or hygienic quality. Sorry if you get stuck with that extremity. Then we’ll really get a lesson in “survival of the most adaptable”.
This time I’m not joshing, much.
Posted by Kuya on Apr 24, 2007 at 10:44 AM Kuya, lots of room up here in Canuckistan. There is an vacant igloo just beyond the big snowdrift that you could move into. It would be great to have you as a neighbour and we could use your help when we start clearing the snow and planting the orange tree groves.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 24, 2007 at 8:52 PM I’ve been remiss in thanking Mikey for reminding me to listen to Michio Kaku on KPFA.
Thanks, Mikey.
About Dr. Kaku
Dr. Michio Kaku is an internationally recognized authority in theoretical physics and also the environment. He holds the Henry Semat Professorship in Theoretical Physics at the City College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. His goal is to help complete Einstein’s dream of a “theory of everything,” a single equation, perhaps no more than one inch long, which will unify all the fundamental forces in the universe. He has lectured around the world and his Ph.D. level textbooks are required reading at many of the top physics laboratories. He has written 9 books; his last two books, Hyperspace and Visions, became international bestsellers, and have been widely translated into different languages. He hosts a weekly hour long radio program on science on several stations around the country, and his commentaries on science can be heard on 60 radio stations nationwide.Today’s show was two very good pre-recorded interviews. One with an eminent climatologist on the consequences of AGW if we do nothing, and the other by a Harvard Business School professor on what we can do about it. If you don’t get HU satellite broadcast, or aren’t in range of a Pacifica radio station you can livestream or listen to archived programming.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 24, 2007 at 11:36 PM Cool Dave, see you “up nawth”.
I’ll help plant the orange trees if you help tend the snares.
By God, it’ll be downright neighborly.
Posted by Kuya on Apr 26, 2007 at 3:25 AM You bet!
My grandpa told stories of how when he was young he was the best gopher catcher in his village back in the Ukraine. His family would eat the meat and save the skins to make winter coats. Seriously.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Apr 26, 2007 at 4:52 AM All this talk about running out of oil reminds me of an old Talking Heads song…”(Nothing But) Flowers”
Here we stand
Like an Adam and an Eve
Waterfalls
The Garden of Eden
Two fools in love
So beautiful and strong
The birds in the trees
Are smiling upon them
From the age of the dinosaurs
Cars have run on gasoline
Where, where have they gone?
Now, it’s nothing but flowersThere was a factory
Now there are mountains and rivers
you got it, you got itWe caught a rattlesnake
Now we got something for dinner
we got it, we got itThere was a shopping mall
Now it’s all covered with flowers
you’ve got it, you’ve got itIf this is paradise
I wish I had a lawnmower
you’ve got it, you’ve got itYears ago
I was an angry young man
I’d pretend
That I was a billboard
Standing tall
By the side of the road
I fell in love
With a beautiful highway
This used to be real estate
Now it’s only fields and trees
Where, where is the town
Now, it’s nothing but flowers
The highways and cars
Were sacrificed for agriculture
I thought that we’d start over
But I guess I was wrongOnce there were parking lots
Now it’s a peaceful oasis
you got it, you got itThis was a Pizza Hut
Now it’s all covered with daisies
you got it, you got itI miss the honky tonks,
Dairy Queens, and 7-Elevens
you got it, you got itAnd as things fell apart
Nobody paid much attention
you got it, you got itI dream of cherry pies,
Candy bars, and chocolate chip cookies
you got it, you got itWe used to microwave
Now we just eat nuts and berries
you got it, you got itThis was a discount store,
Now it’s turned into a cornfield
you got it, you got itDon’t leave me stranded here
I can’t get used to this lifestyle
Posted by Jon B on Apr 29, 2007 at 12:25 PM Hi, ya’ll!
Show me a republican with a moral issue, and I’ll show you a man bring manipulated by a corporation.
Who provides the science that the right uses to discredit global warming? Follow the trail long enough, and it leads right back to big oil. Why? Because it’s in their best interest to, if they can’t win, at least keep the argument going.
They remind me of the student who, faced with a Friday test for which he is unprepared, tries to arguing point to start a discussion that will eat up enough time that the test can’t be given then and has to be postponed.
Big oil has its scientists and they have their data,which prove that one can deny gravity and provide evidence that it doesn’t really exist, after all, it’s only a theory, if some executiove backs a dump truck full of money up to your lab and says"this is what we want, prove it so”.
We now have right-wing and left-wing science thnks to big oil, and we wonder why the rest of the world laughs at us. I suppose next we’ll start to question whether or not the Earth goes around the Sun or vice versa if big oil is threatened by practical and affordable solar heat for homes.
Ta-Ta!
Posted by Aunty Rightwing on Apr 30, 2007 at 1:30 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Jacob Wheeler
- El Salvador’s Left Turn?
Mixed results for 'el frente' in the country's congressional elections. - GI Skinhead
An FBI report details white supremacists' recruitment of military personnel. - An Inauguration Too Big for Words
The significance of Obama's coronation Tuesday was overwhelming; waving goodbye to Bush, on the other hand, was an emotion much easier to measure. - El Salvador’s New Left
Once a guerrilla movement, the FMLN has swapped revolutionary rhetoric for pragmatic politics. - More U.S. Meddling in El Salvador?
- Was Hillary’s speech a turning point?
Many Clinton supporters in Denver swallow doubts, support Obama
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2007 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
