On the subject of Bob’s post in praise of diversity, a little story …
Ever heard of Immanuel Velikovsky? He was clearly a courageous, crusading, independent scientist. Using highly original research, he posited global disasters in the past, and warned of impending cataclysm in his book “Worlds in Collision”. He bucked orthodoxy and took on the scientific establishment, which had no use for his innovations.
Velikovsky, unfortunately, was one of history’s most celebrated scientific cranks — sorry, just “gloriously wrong”, according to Stephen Jay Gould. His “courage” and “independence” did not somehow make his ideas any more correct. Those traits only made his failures more public.
And so here we are with the issue of global warming. Much to the chagrin of some of our more persistent skeptics here, the world has literally passed them by. Friday’s report by the IPCC was one more nail in the coffin of a totally moribund notion: Global warming skepticism is dead, Vive le scepticisme. But like a brainless zombie, or Bruce Willis, this idea and movement don’t seem to realize they’re dead yet.
How do our skeptics reply to such overwhelming evidence? That those who insist on telling the truth are “intolerant”, “zealots”, whatever. I’m sorry, but there are things that reasonable people can disagree about. That human beings are largely responsible for global warming is no longer in the realm of serious debate, and to complain of mistreatment is just trolling at this point. We do not seriously entertain the notion that the earth is flat or that the moon is made of green cheese; If one were to insist on saying so, one ought not be surprised if one’s audience feels its intelligence has been insulted — or that one is laughed at.
All people are entitled to basic respect; all ideas are not. If you bring global warming skepticism to Blue Mass. Group, you should be prepared to have that idea mocked, mercilessly. In the face of overwhelming evidence, that’s what it richly deserves. Suck it up.
in over sixty years in Mineesota, some parts of Texas experienced two inches of white precipitation, and southeatern USA’s citrus crop and other crops are in danger of frost damage/destruction.
<
p>
Any more warming and I’m going to shut my heat off to celebrate July 4th.
<
p>
BTW, the earth may indeed be warming up. It has on many occasions. You are quite correct. SUCK IT UP! It’s going to get warm enough to plant tomatoes in December in Greenland. Oh well.
Here’s some scientific health advice for you. I hear Michael Crichton is a big believer.
… and it may be get to be too hot to grow jack squat in sub-Saharan Africa. or Mexico for that matter. Shall those folks just have to suck it up as well?
<
p>
BTW here’s a good overview of temperature trends: http://globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Temperature_Gallery
<
p>
Also, I don’t quite agree with Charley’s post on this topic. The possible ranges of climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing are still quite large, etc., and there are plenty of issues open to debate. But I would that most of the contrarian stuff I see posted in various corners of the web is of the “it’s not true, it’s not true, I can’t hear you, la-la-la” type.
<
p>
Folks support their positions with solar forcing, cosmic rays, “the climate has always changed”, “CO2 lagged temperature in the past,” etc. All are based on morsels of truth, but none of them are inconsistent with the consensus understanding of global climate change.
<
p>
Here are some places to start:
<
p>
illconsidered.blogspot.com
rabett.blogspot.com
http://www.desmogblog.com
http://www.realclimate.org
http://www.ipcc.ch
I would be hard presed to believe anyone would think otherwise, or more pointedly, so what else is new. I think why it is changing and the rate are debatable.
<
p>
As to people straving and the lack of potable water. Gee, if the earth’s population had not increased ten fold or a hundred fold in a thousand years we would not be having this conversation. People will perish, why and the rate is open to conjecture.
<
p>
Why all the drama and the sky is falling in? At this point in time I would concern yourself more with nuclear holocaust and nuclear winter.
<
p>
First it was the nukes was going to get us all, remember the movie On the Beach. Then it was polio, then it was overpopulation, then it was ozone and now global warming. All man made. Perhaps if we reduced the earth’s population significantly these problems would go away.
…therefore, there is no global warming. Empirical evidence if there was ever such a thing!
<
p>
Thank you for showing me the light. Now I can get on with the rest of my life and not worry about Global Warming. Thank you.
Apparently somebody does not know that the date upon which Easter falls changes from year to year. Irrespective of that, the issue regarding climate change is not local temperatures. Don’t BS us, MCRD.
<
p>
Let’s get back to reality, instead of the surreality of religion (NB: the Nazi Feigling currently parading around the Vatican really does wear Prada).
<
p>
Going up a bit to EaBoClipper @ Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 22:11:29 PM EDT
<
p>
I graduated with a 3.5 in Chemical Engineering
<
p>
if you want to argue credentials, I at 17 years old placed out of my 1st year in University (engineering physics, with an electrical engineering major), and graduated with not only with a bachelors in engineering physics, but also with a masters degree in physics in less than four years. At 17 years old (a year ahead of most of the people in my high school class), in 1967, I garnered a 5 in AP Math (the top score on a very difficult exam), a 4 in AP Chem, and a 3 in AP English. Don’t even try to BS me, because I’m not going to let you.
What’s going to happen when the magnetic poles shift again? Will electrical generators still function?
<
p>
How about when they crack the fusion dilemma. How about all that water vapor as a by product.
<
p>
Why are Australians suffering a significant increase in melanoma when earth is receiving 15% less available sunlight than 50 years ago.
<
p>
Even more troubling: can the bad guys really build a suitcase nuke in Manhatten?
<
p>
Is there a hell?
<
p>
So much to worry about, so little time
<
p>
Great CV by the way. I’m impressed—-really. I have often pondered how and why some folks are so gifted. Is it nurture or nature? I especially enjoy the MD’s who have PhD’s and MME or MChemE or some such. Had a friend like that who recently died at 52 YOA. He was just a regular guy too.
from “there’s no global warming” to “there’s no consensus” to “there’s no proof.”
<
p>
Next up: “It would cost too much to solve.”
<
p>
This has the distinction of at least being increasingly true the longer we fail to act–a kind of self-fulfilling apocalypse.
Didn’t the tobacco companies use these same arguments against the demonstrated health risks associated with smoking?
You’ll really show all those scientists how wrong they are about science!
They think they’re sooooo smart just because they better grades in science class than you did.
You’ll prove them wrong!
I graduated with a 3.5 in Chemical Engineering, so those scientists may have better grades in Science than I, but they may not.
<
p>
I have never said that mankind does not have a roll in global warming. I have said, and consistently will say that there are a variety of factors at play, and that mankind plays a part like other factors.
<
p>
Those that do not take into account other factors, and label those that bring them up as enviro-luddites are doing themselves no favors.
<
p>
Holding up the IPCC which is a grouping of “climate-scientists” whose funding and salaries are dependent on their being only man made global warming and no other. Is like saying 10 out of 10 Catholic Priests agree, Christ died for your sins. Of course they do.
without question know a hell of a lot more about global warming and its causes than you do. Amazing how you pay no attention to them.
When they touched off Little Boy at Alemagordo, they din’t know if it was going to go boom and other scientists thought that a worldwide fissionable reaction would envelope planet earth. You can’t three scientists to agree about anything. You have mathematicians squabbling over proofs for accepted resolutions from years ago.
<
p>
So you ghave a cabal of “scientists” that predict we will all be drowning in sea water in a hundred years, That’s a shock. The climatologists in USA said that continental USA would be pummelled by hurricanes last summer. Were they even close? I thought not.
OK, so I see that your modus operandi is to just through stuff out and see what sticks.
<
p>
I would respectfully submit that the consensus view for the first A-bomb was that it was going to work, and was not going to engulf the world- if they thought either or those things, they wouldn’t have done the test.
<
p>
And if you don’t think 3 scientists can agree on anything (a characterization that I think is nutty), then the fact that so many do concur on global warming theory is all the more striking, isn’t it?
<
p>
Like weather forecasting, hurricane forecasting is tough:
<
p>
But the thing is, scientists don’t debate the impact of El Niños on hurricanes; they just can’t predict when El Niños happen very well.
<
p>
Global climate is fundamentally different, because it ultimately deals with energy balances on time and space scales that are not limited by chaotic dynamics. As an example: If you add milk to your coffee and wait 5 minutes, I can tell you with a great deal of accuracy what the temperature of your coffee will be, based on knowing its initial temperature, the type of mug you are using, etc. That’s climate. Weather is predicting where the concentration of milk is at any given point as you stir it in. For that, I could tell you a pretty good average, but I (nor anyone else) could ever predict exactly how the milk would roil around- it’s a chaotic (well, turbulent at least) system.
<
p>
Please provide a reference to a climate scientist arguing that humans are the only cause of climate change. Pretty please? The argument they do make is that we are currently the primary cause of forcing.
<
p>
I refer you again to this article. It’s really quite good.
<
p>
Since you took the bait on quals: I had a 3.8/4 undergrad in engineering and a 5.0/5 while getting my MS in environmental engineering.
<
p>
You can deride the IPCC scientists all you want (I hear ExxonMobil pays pretty well for the other team), but can you properly debunk their work?
<
p>
I’ve been following the global warming debate fairly closely for 15 years. I have always tried to keep an open mind, because I understand the dangers of groupthink, and I hate going along with the crowd, only later to ask myself “what the hell was I thinking?”
<
p>
I am convinced that excess CO2 (and other GHGs) are currently the primary climate forcing. I’m not so sure how strong the sensitivity is, and what the best course of action is, accounting for all costs and impacts. I don’t believe in the most dire predictions because I don’t think there’s enough supporting information. Having said that, I tend to be a risk averse guy, and it seems to me that the risk averse thing to do it reel in our emissions, in a way that will avoid the worst of the worst.
<
p>
While there are those who are convinced that doing anything about GHG emissions will destroy our way of life (ignoring that even in the US, our per capita emissions have held constant while our per capita income has nearly doubled, and that many countries with similar per capita incomes have significantly lower per capita emissions- here’s a good link), I am quite convinced that there are a number of “no regrets” (things that will save us money that we should do anyway) and “least regrets” (things that don’t cost much) steps that we should be taking immediately. But this post is long enough for now ; I can get into those at another time.
I must know as much about global warming ‘n’ shit as all those scientists out there!
<
p>
Honestly, EaBo, that is one of the doofiest comments I’ve ever read. Gave me a chuckle, though. Thanks for that.
Do I qualify?
<
p>
What EABO is trying to illucidate is that yes, the climate is changing. That’s a given. Why and the rate of change are open to discussion rather than revert to the chicken little syndrome.
<
p>
Just for the sake of arguement. What if the precipitant is solar? Then what? This impulsive rush to judgement needs to be tempered.
See, actually, they’re not “open to discussion.” The “discussion” is over as to whether it’s happening, and why. Those questions have been asked and answered as conclusively as science is able to answer questions.
<
p>
“What is the precipitant is solar?” It ain’t. No one, including the guy who did all the studies on solar forcing (Dr. Willson) thinks that solar changes are the dominant factor in climate change. See my quotation from him elsewhere.
<
p>
Feel free to rejoin us in the reality-based community whenever it’s convenient for you.
…but Ph.Ds and peer reviewed journal articles trump Chem Es any day.
I think you just proved mine.
What have you got?
<
p>
You need more than one or two articles about solar forcing or cosmic rays.
<
p>
To date, you referenced one article about solar forcing, which another poster rightfully hammered you on, noting that the study’s author did not think that solar forcing was the dominant driver of warming- you know: “Solar forcing would provide only about one-fourth as much warming, if the solar trend persists over the same period,” Wilson said. “Solar forcing could be significant, but not dominant.”
<
p>
You then cited an article that talked about ice ages, which I think didn’t support your position- specifically,
<
p>
<
p>
As I have noted elsewhere, the fact that CO2 was a feedback in the past does not contradict that it is a primary driver now. It’s really hard to argue that the current trend in atmospheric CO2 levels is not human induced. You can try, but if you want to gamble on that I would love to play poker with you anytime.
<
p>
What else you got?
That’s what he’s got!
<
p>
Oops. No, those are ours. Too bad for him.
<
p>
Looks like Chemical Engineering is not Climatology. Who knew?
… and half fluid dynamics. The Clipper’s problem is not scientific literacy. The problem is that he has an opinion (summarized as “it’s not our fault”) and is looking for factoids that support his position.
<
p>
I have no problem with skepticism in general. I have a big problem with skepticism that ignores a large body of well understood science.
The issue that Eabo and people like him (or her) don’t want to admit is that global climate change is real, and one of the major causes of it is CO_2 emissions from previously sequestered carbon (i.e. fossil fuel combustion) by humans.
<
p>
The sad fact is that the issue isn’t one of science it is an issue of politics and economics, and what Americans might want to do about it from a political and economic standpoint. The American naysayers merely want to shoot the messenger, instead of admitting that they largely can’t do anything about it, because it is a worldwide problem, and they can’t control what goes on in other countries.
<
p>
Problem pushed off to the side and, hence problem solved.
Not being a scientist, but being an occasional reader of material relating to scientific pursuit, it seems to me that there are glaring examples of “well understood science” being proven not so well understood.
no credible evidence now of that happening with respect to global climate change. It would be, well, stupid to ignore the overwhelming weight of existing data.
There are very few examples of well understood science being overturned to the point of reversing a position. It is mostly small changes. At least in the past 200 years or so (once we got rid of the non-scientific explanations that were developed in the middle ages). Things like amending Newton’s theory of gravity to Einstein’s (which is equivalent in 99% of the cases people can observe). So changes in climate science might say that people are actually responsible for 55% of global warming, instead of 65% (or whaetver the real numbers are). But it won’t be a change from 90% to 10%, or anything drastic like that.
…the two most fundamental theories of 20th century physics, quantum mechanics and relativity (special and general) are fundamentally incompatible.
<
p>
They really are, and the root of the incompatibility is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
<
p>
Theoretical physicists have spent careers ignoring the issue. What to do about resolving the issue? I seriously don’t know.
<
p>
Both theories explain phenomena. They make predictions (which good scientific theories should) that are confirmed by evidence. But they are fundamentally incompatible, and I have no idea how to resolve their incompabilities.
<
p>
As an important aside, science changes when there is a fundamental disagreement between theory and observation. Einstein’s (special) relativity theory had its genesis in an observation that Maxwell’s theory (equations) regarding electromagnetism did not correspond to, for example, the Michelson-Morley experiment to try to find an ether. No ether was found. Either Maxwell’s equations were wrong (unlikely) or the preeumptive framework in which they worked was wrong (more likely). That latter was Einstein’s insight, and that gave rise to spacetime, three dimensions space, a fourth dimension time, a four-dimensional pseudo-Reumannian space.
There has been or had been conflict re the essence of light. Plank’s theory of packets of whatever as opposed to pure energy without mass.
<
p>
The essence of black holes, what are they etc and do they exist, quarks, pulsars, mesons, pi mesons,expansion and contraction of the universe, subatomic particles and all kinds of things that boggle the mind. I’ve heard scientists raling just recently about black holes. Now we find and have found that we may or do have large celestial bodies that were contested only a few years ago. Water on Mars, goethermal activity on our own solar systems planets and other good stuff.
<
p>
It is my understanding that there are many things hotly contested. I’m no where near as talented as many people here, but I do read.
…hotly contested. What you are observing is issues, evidence for which is largely unknown. Scientists theorize based on the known evidence, and modify or abandon the theories as more evidence is adduced. Such is the way of science, and that is a good thing.
<
p>
Max Plank developed an equation regarding blackbody radiation that mediated between two impossible theories. The two impossible theories described the evidence within certain limitations, but they were physically impossible. Plank, after developing his equation, looked at the root of why the equation worked. Blackbody radiation consisted of photons. Massless particles, but particles that had energy and momentum. Not only was that one of the foundations for Einstein’s theory regarding the photoelectric effect*, it was also one of the bases for quantum mechanics developed in the 1920s.
<
p>
*Einstein published three seminal papers in 1905, one regarding special relativity, the second regarding the photoelectric effect, and the third regarding brownian motion.
<
p>
Regarding your other matters. Black holes are a prediction of general relativity. There is evidence that supports their existence. Obviously, they cannot be observed directly, but (Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle again) there are ways to observe them indirectly. And the indirect observation pretty much suggests that they exist.
<
p>
Quarks–the existence of sub-nucleonic particles (quarks) has been observed indirectly. There is little doubt that they exist. Regarding sub-atomic particles, you wouldn’t be able to type on your computer if electrons didn’t exist.
<
p>
Muons and pions (your mesons) they most certainly exist. Cosmic rays. Indeed, the lifetime of muons after entering earth’s atmosphere is one of the pieces of evidence that special relativity’s time contraction is correct*.
<
p>
*Muons decay at a known rate (time scale). In the cosmic ray muon’s reference frame, they decay at precisely that time scale. In the earth’s time frame, the time scale is much longer.
<
p>
As far as I can tell, the primary issues in physics, other than figuring out how to describe the evolution of the universe before 10^-43 seconds after the big bang and how to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity, is dark energy and dark matter. It (they, remember E=mc^2) appears to exist. There is evidence for it. But, because it apparently doesn’t interact with photons, it cannot be directly observed. But its existence can be, and has been, inferred.
Wonderfully said.
Our very own Senator Kerry will be debating the Newt on April 10th.
<
p>
Link here.
this i gotta see!
why give gingrinch the exposure?
Charley – I live in a superinsulated house, heat and cook with natural gas, use no dishwasher or washing machine, use alternative lightbulbs, unplug vampire devices, drive a LEV car, support the windfarm and do volunteer work for solar energy.
<
p>
I try to walk the walk without the purchase of carbon offsets. Because I think we need to clean up air pollution and reduce dependece on foreign oil. While I think human (and bovine) activity are contributors to global warming, I don’t think they are necessarily the trigger and the end solution. Ice cores, fossil records, etc., all record great temperature swings long before humans even arrived on the planet. Some of you post reminded me of the old Glen Larson cartoon of tyrannasaurases smoking cigarettes, captioned ‘Why Dinosaurs REALLY Became Extinct!’
<
p>
It’s still a theory, Charley. We absolutely should modify our behavior, but we need not close our minds.
that is stellar, PP.
<
p>
but why should you care if kerry gets exposure in this debate? he’s already said he won’t be a candidate for prez, and it won’t affect his senate seat one iota. gingrinch wouldn’t be bothering to debate if he weren’t in the prelims for the running. he’d still be in his cave up above whoville, tying antlers onto doggie’s noggins in an attempt to make us believe the raindeer havn’t all fallen through the melted ice.
I think he’s being Alan Keys – or Dennis Kucinich – a bright guy with a zero chance of getting the nomination, but who wants to direct the discussion. Sort of like Grace Ross in the last election.
an electric dishwasher may or not use more energy, and uses less water than most people who washes dishes. It may use less energy because it uses less hot water to wash dishes than many people, and of course it takes energy to heat that water.
<
p>
BTW — and I don’t mean to pick on you PP because we live very similar lifestyles in this regard — but why not do what you’re doing and buy some carbon offsets? After all, your day-to-day carbon footprint sounds quite small, so it would be cheap!
<
p>
P.S. It’s Gary Larson.
I know where you can buy wind project Verified Emission Reduction offsets from India and China- it’s a race vs. the coal plants in both markets, so why not land a hand?
<
p>
I have my concerns about carbon offsets, but they are most assuredly not pure snake oil. For me, it’s all about additionality.
PP, you are by far the coolest, greenest conservative I’ve ever heard of — heck, greener than 95% of the libs I know.
<
p>
In science, everything is theory. Some theories are supported by abundant evidence. Some are not. I’m perfectly open to responsible debate of real evidence, but I don’t take kindly to ignorance.
<
p>
“Stupidity has a certain charm — ignorance does not.” — Frank Zappa
Two buffoons debating science. Why not two recognized climatologits from opposing camps?
I just wish that Kerry would slink off the senate stage left and allow someone who is moderately intelligent to occupy is position. He’s shown himself to be an idiot, but, as a politician, that’s not surprising.
Charlie, you are sacrificing editorial standards to make a rhetorical point. Why encourage people to mock those with an unpopular viewpoint, when they would have done so anyway? What a negative way to direct your blog’s energy. Furthermore, there is still debate to be had on global warming in all its policy and science aspects. You can not control it, and cordon off one viewpoint but still allow other points to be discussed freely. Censorship, whether enforced by policy or by peer pressure, is a blunt instrument.
<
p>
Policy? You bet. CMTA in no way suggested any stifling of that debate.
<
p>
Science? Not so much. There are a handful of scientists floating around BMG, and it seems that our consensus is: the experts show lots of data showing global warming, and it’s link to greenhouse gases. The details really aren’t that important, and AFAIK there aren’t any expert atmospheric scientists, climatologists, geologists, etc. here.
<
p>
Claiming mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions aren’t contributing to global warming is like claiming the moon is made of green cheese — they’re equally foolish claims that ignore evidence and experts, and both deserve to be treated as such.
Where I have ever said, that man made CO2 doesn’t contribute to greenhouse gasses.
<
p>
Please try to find that.
<
p>
What I have said is that there are other causes, which may or may not be more to blame.
<
p>
What are some of those?
<
p>
Increased solar radiation.
<
p>
Increased natural CO2 releases from respiration and the ocean.
<
p>
What I am amused by is the abject group think that automatically pounces on those with a differing view. And that makes excuses for the blatant enviro-hypocrites such as Al Gore.
<
p>
PPS. “Carbon offsetts” are the new snake-oil. Peddled to you by the same folks that promise to make you a millionaire through no money down real estate and such. They are feel good items sold by hucksters.
that the “other causes” may be “more to blame.” At least, no one who knows anything, including your friend Dr. Willson.
<
p>
Charley, stomv, and raj (three folks with three quite different political perspectives, by the way) are right: the scientific debate on this topic is over. Your side lost. So suck it up, lick your wounds, and try to participate constructively in the ongoing, and very important, policy debate about what to do about it.
<
p>
And yes, Al Gore was right too. I know that really pisses you off. Too bad.
But Mr. Clipper continues:
<
p>
<
p>
Please do your reading Thanks to us, the ocean is on balance a carbon sink at present. It had been more or less at (dynamic) equilibrium with the atmosphere when the latter was at 270ppm or so. Now, it’s absorbing some of the excess CO2. The result is ocean acidification, which is due to the increased CO2 flux into the oceans.
<
p>
You’re a chemist- remember, CO2 + H2O <=> H2CO3 <=> H2CO3- + H+
<
p>
Normally, the ocean is well buffered (limestone, the ocean’s antacid) against this sort of thing, but not on the timescales with which this is all happening.
<
p>
Now, if the oceans get too hot and the biological pump breaks down, we may see a lot of the CO2 come back to the air, but if that happens we’re already hosed. I don’t know if that’s a real worry, but that’s the next time you’ll see the oceans as a carbon source (on net- yes, there are areas that are currently carbon sources, but these days its mostly sinks).
Sorry for the omission — I’ll include you next time.
<
p>
And thanks for the useful discussion of why climate change is neither the sun’s nor the oceans’ fault!
To be precise, I don’t think the sun is the primary driver.
<
p>
And let’s not blame the oceans; they are eating our carbon the best they can.
Respiration from Humans, and the farm animals we eat to survive
as we grow, we accumulate carbon in every cell of our body. then we die and they archive our bodies in wooden (carbon!) boxes within concrete vaults. The most under-apreciated carbon sink is the cemetary! Oh, except it takes lots of fuel to create concrete and transport those vaults and dig the holes, etc. Oh, never mind…
Why don’t you look it up?
<
p>
You’ll see that respiration is a natural part of the carbon cycle. As you know, nature has been recycling CO2 for millions of years. It is the re-introduction of sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere (eg cars, coal, industry, etc) that is concern. The average personal vehicle produces 60 -100 times more than the CO2 emmited from the respiration of its owner. That doesn’t even get into home/work energy use and consumption of goods.
<
p>
Also, if used rational thinking here, the fact that humans breath out CO2 is irrelavant. We can’t stop just stop breathing. We can, however, change our behaviors and technologies to reduce the output of new carbon into the atmosphere.
<
p>
According to the USDA the average human respires 700 g of C02 per day multiplied by 365 days is 0.28 tons of CO2 respired yearly. According to models built by the US Census bureau right before the industrial revolution, in 1750, there were estimated to be 795 million people in the world. At 700 g of CO2 that was 223.9 tons of CO2 respired. In 2010 there is estimated to be 6.848 billion people in the world according to the US Census bureau. That means 1.928 billion tons of CO2. That is 1.705 billion tons of CO2 more than in 1750. That does not even take into account the added respiration and flattulation of the food chain needed to sustain this.
<
p>
I remember going to a talk at the Boston Chapter of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers with Dr. Mario Molina, who won the Nobel prize for his work with the ozone hole. This was in 1994 or 1995, he had not won the Nobel yet. When he was talking about global warming, he put up a picture of a cow. And only half joking he used the very analogy that I did and you reacted to. He talked about increasing population and the food chain. It is not all part of the natural cycle as it was in 1750 and more people do add to the increase in C02 concentrations.
<
p>
————————————————-
[(700g C02/(personday))/(453.6g/lb)][(365 day/year)/(2000 lb/US Ton)] = 0.28 tons CO2/person*year
First, you repeatedly ignore the natural carbon cycle where the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere through respiration and decay is balanced by the CO2 absorbed by plants.
<
p>
Whatever. So we emit 0.28 tons of carbon through respiration. So what? The average American carbon footprint is 19 tons. That means breathing makes up 1.4% of the average American’s carbon footprint.
<
p>
The total carbon output of the planet is 24 Billion tons (not including natural carbon). If we add that to CO2 caused by human respiration, that means human respiration is only 7% of the worlds entire carbon output. (Not counting cows, of course.)
<
p>
7%. Ridiculous. 1.4% in the US. Laughable. Not to mention this whole discussion is moot, due to you refusal to accept the difference between recycled carbon and sequestered carbon.
<
p>
Honestly, buddy.
But if you read my response to Raj you will see that all is not as it seems regarding sequestered and natural. As the food supply is not carbon neutral.
<
p>
Yes, food production is not carbon neutral. But you didn’t give numbers for that, you gave numbers for what is in itself a carbon-neutral cycle (ignoring, for the moment, the means of production). Human respiration in and of itself is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
<
p>
Your next assignment: Figure out the carbon balance for food production. Bonus assignment: figure out the potential yield for biodiesel in the US and globally.
<
p>
You might be interested to know that John Deere ships new machines from the factory with a 2% biodiesel mixture (it’s a start).
…Don’t BS us. You didn’t really graduat ChemE with a 3.5, did you?
<
p>
You are unable to distinguish between CO_2 emissions that are basically recycled and emissions from previously sequestered carbon (coal and oil)?
<
p>
Even my 88 year old father (ChemE, Virginia Tech, 1951), who continuously voted Republican (Ohio) can understand the difference. He brought the subject up to me only a few weeks ago.
and the mass balance above shows what I looked up. While not the same as what is released by fossil fuels. I did also look up the total fossil fuel C02 released into the atmosphere in 2000, which was 6.2×10^12 kg. That is 6.572 tons. In 2000 based on a population of 6.082 billion, mankind respired 1.713 billion tons of C02. That is 26% of the C02 fossil fuel number. Not an insignificant amount. And again this does not take into account the increased amount from the foodstuffs we eat, bovines et al.
…what you suggest yourself to be
<
p>
EaBoClipper @ Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 07:24:13 AM
<
p>
Not an insignificant amount. And again this does not take into account the increased amount from the foodstuffs we eat, bovines et al.
<
p>
It strikes me that any ChemE would understand the difference between recycled carbon (eg. from the foodstuffs we eat) and previously sequestered carbon (eg. fossil fuels). Why do you continually conflate the two? Are you trying to make a mockery of ChemEs?
…what I am wondering is why you insist on conflating recycled carbon with previously sequestered carbon.
<
p>
You have done that continually.
<
p>
I recognize that ChemEs are not climatologists (neither are people like me with a physics background), but, please, don’t BS us. It gives real ChemEs bad reputations. And my elderly father was a ChemE, and he understands the difference. Why don’t you?
doesn’t it. Since the world’s current population could not be sustained by subsistence farming, fossil fuels are used extensively in agriculture, in the manufacture of fertilizers(to run the plants), in farm equipment, processing plants, transportation et al. Draw the system boundaries at a different point, there is a carbon load associated with food. It is inevitable, to our survival.
<
p>
There is even a carbon load to organic food.
24.126 billion tons.
<
p>
The US: 5.87 billion tons.
<
p>
By and large, horseapples.
<
p>
Look, like any other product on the market, there are some better than others, some oversold on promises.
<
p>
But, it’s really quite simple: the supply of electricity now must meet the demand now. There are 3 ways to do it:
<
p>
1. Nuclear. The nuclear load is “base” and doesn’t change — and therefore is never higher than the lowest predicted demand for future usage.
<
p>
2. Burning fuel. The fixed cost is fairly low to build a plant, but they have variable cost. Since fixed cost is sunk, the price of electricity must exceed the price of fuel for the plant to be economically viable.
<
p>
3. Renewable sans-fuel. Solar, wind, hydro, etc. Since there’s no fuel to burn, there’s virtually no variable cost. This means that once a wind turbine is built the cost per kWh of electricity is almost zero — which means that the electricity from a wind turbine will always offset the need for fossil fuel, because wind is free and coal/oil/natgas isn’t.
So, if the carbon offset program contributes to building new renewable energy projects, then there is no question that the carbon offset program is working. Build enough non-fuel renewable power plants, and their $0.00 fuel cost will drive coal plants out of business, thereby reducing the amount of GHG emissions.
<
p>
I recommend you check out Native Energy.
<
p>
The cheapest, fastest, cleanest, and most important option of all.
<
p>
We’ve all been brainwashed to think in terms of scarcity and supply, but there’s more to be done with waste and demand.
<
p>
The scientific study of global warming, and deriving proper policy implications therefrom, does not boil down to the multiple choice “Global warming: Yes/No?”
<
p>
There is a scientific picture that needs to be continually studied, analyzed, and discussed. In other words: “Global warming: Yes. Now what?”
<
p>
Try to answer that question and hopefully you will have the patience to look at that science for something more than a yes/no.
“Unpopular” is one thing. “Baseless” is quite another. The latter deserves, at the very least, merciless mockery, IMHO.
Though I tend toward the “green” side of the climate debate, I am not so doctrinaire that I will entertain only arguments from my ideological soul-mates.
<
p>
This particular thread was worse than useless. It offered no new or interesting information on the matter of global climate change. In fact, it appears to have no purpose other than to bait and marginalize using the shopworn either/or tactic.
<
p>
Other than picking up a couple of interesting blog links (thanks, syphax), reading this thread was a total waste of my time.
it’s not (or it shouldn’t be) about who’s your “ideological soul-mate.” Discussion about this topic has got to start with the science. There’s just no credible support in the science for what the deniers and the pooh-poohers are saying.
<
p>
It’s like remaining “open minded” about “intelligent design.” That’s not science, it’s religion, and everyone should stop pretending otherwise.
Bridges Religion and Science. Even Stephen Hawking believes something started the ball rolling. Believing in creation and evolution are not two mutually exclusive things. I was even taught this at my Catholic high school in the 1980s
Believing in creation and evolution are not two mutually exclusive things. I was even taught this at my Catholic high school in the 1980s
you were taught to believe in creationism in school. some of us learned how to think in school, not what to believe. your phraseology smacks of sucessful indoctrination. i am not blaming you for this – it wasn’t your fault that your parents put you in that school – i’m just pointing something out that you should be aware of. it’s never too late to be an indepedent thinker.
… does not teach Scientific Creationism, which is the real problem. The church, to its credit, has no problem with reading Genesis allegorically.
they don’t read the whole thing allegorically, or even with honest scholarship. i’m thinking leviticus. but that’s for another thread, another time…
Scientists that are christians or jews are what—-deluded scientists or not scientists at all.
…but I will tell you that one of the most fervent supporters of Darwin’s theory of evolution, and opponents of teaching creationism in the public schools, is a devout Catholic. His name is Kenneth Miller, and he is a professor of biology at Brown University. He has spoken out many times against teaching creationism in science class, most recently at the trial regarding the Dover PA school system.
<
p>
He has a web page http://www.millerand… with links to many articles that he has written on the subject. The most interesting one, to me is http://www.millerand… Did you know that the human eye is “designed” precisely backwards? But the eyes of mollusks are designed correctly. That’s one obvious point from Miller’s paper.
<
p>
Scientists can be Christian. But, pretty clearly, not all Christians are scientists.
…The scientist who came up with the “Big Bang” theory of the development of the universe was not Einstein. He was LeMaitre, a Catholic priest.
ID is not science and only bridges science to certain religions. If a belief can only be accepted by certain religions, it is certainly not science.
…the Roman Catholic Church, Inc., and I’ll have more comments later, but I really do want to point something out.
<
p>
Stephen Hawking does not believe in ID
<
p>
I hate to be a nitpicker, but believe in is a religious concept. Believe that a particulr theory, prevailing or not, fits the observed data is the scientic concept.
<
p>
There is a very fine, but very real, difference between the two. Understand the difference, and you just might understand the difference between science and theology.
My emendation:
<
p>
Stephen Hawking finds no evidence to support intelligent design.
…the ID proponents have offered none. No evidence, that is.
It’s pretty obvious that this thread was not intended as a thoughtful debate on the science of climate change.
<
p>
Other than the IPCC link, it was a petty, uneven lambaste of the blasphemous unconvinced.
And predictably, it devolved into an idiotic, credentialist free-for-all.
<
p>
Ragtime.
<
p>
Charlie might consider leaving future climate discussions to folks who do it with a degree of class.
But my guess is he won’t, and I certainly hope he doesn’t. One of BMG’s many charms is the different styles we all have.
<
p>
And again, it’s not about “blasphemy.” It’s about stubbornly refusing to accept the overwhelming weight of scientific authority — of which the IPCC report is only the most recent and most comprehensive example — because that authority creates problems for a particular ideological agenda.
<
p>
Let’s face facts here. One side — BushCo — has been playing serious politics with the science on this issue for a long time. The science has finally gotten to the point where it cannot be spun away. That presents a real problem for the deniers and the pooh-poohers, and they’re panicking. Understandable, but not excusable.
I have no problem with skeptics. I do have a problem with skeptics who roll out the same talking points that have been debunked over and over and over again.
<
p>
Instead, there’s a lot of, “scientists don’t agree and/or are corrupt,” “I think solar is more important,” etc. It’s worth noting that the author of the one reference used to support the solar forcing argument in this forum is on the record saying that solar forcing is not the dominant mechanism for the current warming trend.
<
p>
Indeed, where is the science? Where’s the credible theory that explains that human-driven GHG impacts are not a significant driver of climate change? A theory that explains how the climate is not very sensitive to CO2 concentrations?
<
p>
I’d be happy to discuss in a civil manner any such theory that has, as a minimum, two independent papers that support the theory. That’s not too much to ask for, is it?
I may as well further compost an otherwise useless thread with my thoughts on the world:
<
p>
-I reckon that there’s a strong probability, IMHO, that global warming is real but there’s no consensus about its extent and reach.
<
p>
-People on each side of the argument oughta slow down the ridicule until they’re the science is rock solid.
<
p>
-It’s all about the discount rates. If some clairvoyent said today that there’s 100% certainty that NY City will be under 10 feet of water in 150 Years, then how much would we spend today to fix it. It’s rhetorical, but no one call tell, with any certainty a) what the cost will be of eventual warming b) how to fix it.
<
p>
-The “how to fix” it is certainly beyond consensus.
<
p>
-If a President/Congress…said let’s tax the fuzz out of carbon to reduce the useage, would you support it? I wouldn’t: a) immediate pain to me and mine b) the government gets the money and spends it on everything but climate research (for an example, look where the cigarette settlement money went–not to stop smoking), and c) there’s no consensus that said tax would do anything at all.
<
p>
-The warming over the last 150 years, albeit troubling, is well within known geological variation.
<
p>
-India and China are soon to be the world’s biggest emitters, and haven’t yet shown any interest changing.
<
p>
Some most certainly did. North Carolina uses the money to fund agricultural research relevant to NC, in an effort to help farmers make a transition from tobacco to other crops (note that reducing the supply of tobacco increases prices, and therefore helps reduce cigarette smoking through the market). Colorado, Maine, and Delaware all funded tobacco cecession programs directly. 14 additional states (AK, HI, NM, AZ, CA, WA, MT, WY, MN, AR, OH, NY, VT, MD) all funded substantial programs as well. Etc.
<
p>
<
p>
Funny, the European Union has said the same thing about tUSA, but they’re moving onward anyway. Are there efforts sufficient? I don’t know. Perfectly efficient? Nope. More impressive than tUSA? You betcha.
If you want to see where the $246 billion settlement went, read this.
Global warming caused by humans? That’s like thinking humans are not laying waste to the Amazon Rain Forest. Or CFCs cause ozone thinning and an ozone hole. Or that people are responsible for massive top soil losses around the planet. Or that the water table in the western U.S. is dropping because of massive water withdrawals for agriculture and golf course maintenance. Or that fish stocks around the planet are diminishing because of overfishing. Or that the PCBs and mercurials in the waterways are responsible for birth defects and brain damage. Or that lead in paint and automotive fuels somehow harms developing brains. Or that excessive irrigation can lead to salt build-up and sterility of soils. Or that rapid species extinction in the absence of giant meteors, massive solar fluctuation, or supervolcano explosions is unusual.
<
p>
Humans, obviously, have litle impact on planet Earth. So a little CO2 and methane, what harm could that cause??
Joseph Stalin et al were essentially enviromentalists.
Mankind creates problems. Eliminate mankind. Solve the problems.
<
p>
It’s actually quite simple. Cause and effect. Who woulda thunk it?
Richard S. Lindzen, a PhD meteorologist at MIT has said he sees no need to worry about Global Warming. Welcome to the deniers club Dr. Lindzen.
<
p>
<
p>
Oh and before you go spouting that Dr. Lindzen is another oil industry scientist.
<
p>
Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
…I’ve read some of his commentaries, but I’ll merely point out the obvious. Meteorology is not climatology. I have no idea what his credentials are, other than what you have provided, but apparently he isn’t a climatologist.
<
p>
Little story about a meteorologist I used to know. He was posed a question as to why air didn’t flow directly from a high pressure center to a low pressure center. He didn’t know the answer. I did know the answer, and I have merely a physics background.
<
p>
Just to let you know, the reason is that the highs and lows are created by Coriolis pseudo-forces in an accelerating reference frame–the rotating earth, and the rotating reference frame inhibits direct air flow from a high to a low. Problem solved. No, I am not impressed by meteorologists.
Maybe when your anecdotal meteorologist was asked the question, (s)he thought to himself:
<
p>
<
p>
Then he realized that that made little sense to him and none to anyone else, so he took a pass.
Sorry, my story was incomplete. The meteorolgist who I was referring to was in a conclave of people who had a science background when the question was posed to him. EEs, physics, and so forth. We would have understood his explanation. But he had none. He was flummoxed by the question.
<
p>
Sad, but true.
<
p>
I knew the answer, despite the fact that I had a mere physics background, but he did not know the answer.
<
p>
Cut to the chase of the subject matter of the post. Meteorologists are not climatologists.
I fear the enviroNazis even more that the current GWOT Nazis. I will not say global warming is not happening but I am saying how Lemming like the general populace is for jumping on a bandwagon after seeing a movie.
These things are only used as a means to control people and make profit for those who need it not. It is just that simple.
…rather than driving? or from me turning down the thermostat or beefing up my ceiling insulation?
feel the compulsion to jump on these bandwagons and nod with understanding to the double speak out of Orwellian mouths.
<
p>
There is very likely significant climate change going on and it will undoubtedly take more than a few years to find out why and how fast.
<
p>
I see the rabid “Global Warming” protagonists as the wild eyed throngs listening to the German chancellor rant before a cast of thousands in 1937. I don’t believe what anyone says until it is thoroughly thrashed out, especially when you you have spokesman such as Al Gore and company as the chief spokesperson. The man with the houses cars, planes, boats, and tobacco fields. Carbon offsets. One would have to be a complete fool to swallow that hogwash.
in re-reading this thread. In that two part episode Cartman travels in time to get a Wii because he can;t buy one. In the future there are no more religions just competing views of science. They end up being just as bad as warring religions. This debate gets us close to that.