tree68 blue streak 1 But since the possibility of plate tetonics might have played a part we would not say that rising sea levels caused those areas to become ocean front property ? And again, an opportunity for panicked climate change advocates to claim that what appears to be rising sea levels is due to something melting somewhere, when it may actually be the land falling...
blue streak 1 But since the possibility of plate tetonics might have played a part we would not say that rising sea levels caused those areas to become ocean front property ?
And again, an opportunity for panicked climate change advocates to claim that what appears to be rising sea levels is due to something melting somewhere, when it may actually be the land falling...
This may be a bit simplistic, but the image is inescapable in my eyes:
If the water level rises above your head, you drown.
If the water level remains the same while the floor of the body of water falls, aren't you just as drowned?
Don't bother to respond.
Tom
wjstix If every scientist who isn't funded by the carbon fuel industry says all the scientific evidence (not opinions) indicates that global climate change is real, and is a real threat to all of us, but a threat that can be controlled by reducing pollution, wouldn't it be prudent to lessen our pollution? If all those scientists are wrong, the worst result would be cleaner air and water for our kids and grandkids.
If every scientist who isn't funded by the carbon fuel industry says all the scientific evidence (not opinions) indicates that global climate change is real, and is a real threat to all of us, but a threat that can be controlled by reducing pollution, wouldn't it be prudent to lessen our pollution? If all those scientists are wrong, the worst result would be cleaner air and water for our kids and grandkids.
I am a research engineer, I have studied the matter to within my discipline expertise in linear and non-linear systems, I have discussed at length here the reasons why the danger may not be that severe.
Where is my carbon fuel industry money? I would really like to get me some of that.
As to "why not listen to the scientists, what harm can come", the harm can be condemning millions, no, billions of people in China, South Asia, and much of Africa to abject poverty.
What was the harm in banning DDT -- it was seeing millions dead from malaria?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
blue streak 1But since the possibility of plate tetonics might have played a part we would not say that rising sea levels caused those areas to become ocean front property ?
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Climate seems to be cyclic. The oceans appear to have grown and shrunk. The example around here is that Montgomery, Al; Columbus, Ga; Macon Ga; Augusta, Ga,; Columbia, SC all appear to have been ocean front property at one time. The sand deposits around those areas all appear to have been sea sand at one time.
But since the possibility of plate tectonics might have played a part we would not say that rising sea levels caused those areas to become ocean front property ?
wjstix but a threat that can be controlled by reducing pollution,
And therein lies the rub - how much of the threat can be controlled by reducing CO output?
Is it 5%? 10%? The ways some climate change advocates sound, it's 100%, and I maintain that nothing could be further from the truth.
Climate change has been going on since the earth had a climate that could change. We've got a few centuries of anecdotal evidence, just a few hundred years of scientific evidence, and everything else is based on tree rings and geologic findings.
I'm all for reducing pollution - my eyes used to water as I was driving through the LA basin - but when people with a buck to be made are making the pronouncements, I become very suspicious...
You're in a car going 60 MPH. A report comes on the radio that due to a huge sinkhole forming, the road you're driving on now ends in a cliff one mile ahead of where you are now. Do you stop or at least slow down now, or wait until you're driving off the cliff?
30 doctors examine you and say you have lung cancer, but you'll be OK if you get treatment now. One doctor says you're fine, don't worry about it. Do you get treatment, or assume the one who says you're OK is the only one who's correct, and do nothing - perhaps until it's too late for treatment? What if the one doctor who says you're fine gets all his funding from the tobacco industry? Might that affect his diagnosis - or how much faith you have in his opinion?
A capitalist attempt at carbon sequestration, especially timely if we embark on a one trillion dollar infrastructure program.
LINK
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
There are 100 nuclear power plants in operation on a daily basis in this country, with no major incidents, and most minor incidents are insignificant, but still have to be reported.
But if you mention nuclear power most anti- folks will focus on Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island.
That's not to say that nuclear power isn't without it's own problems (storage of spent fuel being the largest), but as noted, it's an excellent resource.
One wonders how long it will be before the solar farms springing up all over the place (running to acres) will begin to evidence some unanticipated problem.
I think nuclear, especially with recent technology advances, should be a major component in carbon-free(er) energy production. Unfortunately, the big three 'incidents' scared folks. A campaign should be launched to show it is safe.
Paul Milenkovic I am invoking the Glenn Reynolds test of sincerity of a professed belief -- (Glenn Reynolds) will believe ______ is a crisis when the people who tell me it's a crisis act like its a crisis.
I am invoking the Glenn Reynolds test of sincerity of a professed belief -- (Glenn Reynolds) will believe ______ is a crisis when the people who tell me it's a crisis act like its a crisis.
I invoked this test over twenty-five years ago. Back then I was working in a large engineering consulting firm. In July 1990 the head of the EPA Global Change Division (which IIRC it was called back then) gave a talk about climate change and the dire consequences associated with it. He also presented a plan to reduce/eliminate CO2 emissions.
Going into the talk I expected decisive action with nuclear being the lynchpin, at least in the near- and medium-term.
Primary recommendations were:
1) Increase efficiency
2) Shift from coal to natural gas
3) Develop and implement renewable energy sources (wind, solar, etc.)
Nuclear power bareley got a mention. (I remember this vividly because I commented to my boss right after the talk about how little consideration was given to nuclear.)
The response to this potentially cataclysmic event was to nibble around the edges.
I was blown away.
Paul Milenkovic What I am telling you based on the mass-flow calculations I have performed based on my expertise as an engineer, is that if science has discovered another CO2 source, there has to be a countervailing CO2 sink, otherwise the numbers will no longer "tie up." My speculation is that this sink is vigorous growth of plants in response to elevated CO2 levels, which also has sources of corroboration.
What I am telling you based on the mass-flow calculations I have performed based on my expertise as an engineer, is that if science has discovered another CO2 source, there has to be a countervailing CO2 sink, otherwise the numbers will no longer "tie up." My speculation is that this sink is vigorous growth of plants in response to elevated CO2 levels, which also has sources of corroboration.
A couple of things supporting that explanation. One is that greenhouses typically use elevated CO2 levels to promote growth of plants. Another is that the number of openings in plant leaves decrease when CO2 levels are elevated, which reduces transpiration of water, which then allows for more growth for a given amount of water.
That there is such a strong temperature-induced natural source of CO2, and given that the climate hasn't "run way" turning Earth into hellish Venus in the past, is strong evidence that the effect of CO2 on temperature is weak, and that the 20th century warming had some other explanation, perhaps long-term cycles in ocean currents or high-altitude cloud formation affected by the bombardment of charged particles from solar "activity."
A couple of things sand out when looking at temperature reconstructions of the last million years or so. One is that the positive feedback seems to kick in much more for decreasing temperatures, with tens of thousands of years of steadily declining temperatures when the earth is already in a glacial episode, followed by an abrupt ending. The other is maximum temps being maybe 2-3C higher than present. The latter may be explained by a limiting mechanism, most likely the roughly exponential increase of the vapor pressure of water (roughly doubles with every 20F increase in temps near "room temperature"). Somehwere between 25C and 30C, the boyancy of air at 100% RH becomes dominated by increases in water vapor (molecular weight 18 vs 28 for air) rather than the volume occupied by a mole of gas. This seems to be the alley that Willis Eschebach is going with his hypothesis on tropical thunderhowers limiting sea surface temperatures. I can only imagine that a 60,000' foot high T-storm would be releasing a lot of heat into space.
One fly in this ointment, and after Feynman's lecture "Cargo Cult Science" offering a Nobel Laureate physicist's take on experimental psychology, I disclose the "cons" along with the "pros" of what I am claiming. That fly is that the ice core data suggests that the atmospheric CO2 curve was rock steady and flat prior to the 20th century, and my temperature-induced natural CO2 narrative would suggest more variation in past CO2 than is seen. The ice core CO2 field is also beset with controversy, with "iceists" claiming that once the gas bubbles get frozen and held under pressure underneath heavy top layers, those gas bubbles are stuck and do not diffuse, whereas there are heretics muttering "Eppur si muove."
One fly in this ointment, and after Feynman's lecture "Cargo Cult Science" offering a Nobel Laureate physicist's take on experimental psychology, I disclose the "cons" along with the "pros" of what I am claiming. That fly is that the ice core data suggests that the atmospheric CO2 curve was rock steady and flat prior to the 20th century, and my temperature-induced natural CO2 narrative would suggest more variation in past CO2 than is seen.
The ice core CO2 field is also beset with controversy, with "iceists" claiming that once the gas bubbles get frozen and held under pressure underneath heavy top layers, those gas bubbles are stuck and do not diffuse, whereas there are heretics muttering "Eppur si muove."
IIRC, the ice core data has shown periods in the past million years where the CO2 levels have been lower than they were 300 years ago. When correlated with temperature data, the CO2 levels lag the temperature, indicating temperature usually drives CO2 rather than vice versa. This should not be taken to mean that CO2 does not cause some warming, as it does.
I would be a lot more worried about the rising CO2 levels if the temperatures in the mid troposphere were increasing as predicted by the General Circulation Models (GCM). Radiosonde and satellite data (UAH and RSS) indicate that warming is happening at a much lower rate than the models predict.
My general take is that CO2 will not be the problem as pictured by the Catastrophic Anthrogenic Global Warming (CAGW) adherents think it will be. Probably not a good idea to keep the exponential growth rate in fossil fuel use, and nuclear seems to be the most reliable source of energy for base load.
---
I think coal still has a future, though emphasis should be buring as cleanly and as efficiently as possible. The Powder River basin is a pretty dry area, so power plants will still needed to be sited elsewhere.
Frac'ing appears to be a huge blessing for the US, reducing energy costs, providing a lot of jobs and cutting down on the amount of money sent to some very unstable countries.
Moving away from fossil fuels will require more use of electric energy in transportation. Short hauls look to be doable with batteries, but electric trains are the most sensible for long haul.
ACY Paul, I don't have that info at hand about my personal use of electricity, and it wouldn't illuminate a discussion of National energy policy if I did. In any case, my own modest lifestyle isn't going to make much difference. Freeman Dyson's clever understanding of German night fighter tactics 70+ years ago is interesting in its own right, but completely irrelevant to the discussion. The relevant question is "But what if you are wrong?" Tom
Paul,
I don't have that info at hand about my personal use of electricity, and it wouldn't illuminate a discussion of National energy policy if I did. In any case, my own modest lifestyle isn't going to make much difference. Freeman Dyson's clever understanding of German night fighter tactics 70+ years ago is interesting in its own right, but completely irrelevant to the discussion. The relevant question is "But what if you are wrong?"
And it is getting worse. Link
Euclid ACY The relevant question is "But what if you are wrong?" Tom You ask that question of the deniers, but I would also ask that queston of the boosters. What if they are wrong? The fix to this incredble, world-ending crisis is not cheap. If we spend the money, it will impose enormous burden on the coming generations and hold them back. What if new science proves that was unecessary? You say the deniers are incredibly tedious. Are the boosters "Chicken Little"?
ACY The relevant question is "But what if you are wrong?" Tom
The relevant question is "But what if you are wrong?"
You ask that question of the deniers, but I would also ask that queston of the boosters. What if they are wrong? The fix to this incredble, world-ending crisis is not cheap. If we spend the money, it will impose enormous burden on the coming generations and hold them back. What if new science proves that was unecessary?
You say the deniers are incredibly tedious. Are the boosters "Chicken Little"?
No the sky is not falling. It just seems to be getting warmer and warmer.
The Earth will continue to exist, no matter what is done or not done. Humans, that could be another story.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
You are invoking the strong precautionary principle, that if scientists have an inkling a dire event will happen, it is a political imperative that we take action to guard against that eventuallity.
Invoking a future generation who will curse a person is a pretty serious invokation of a crisis. Household electric use is probably the one source of personal CO2 emission apart from those engaged in a lot of airline travel that a person could actually reduce. You kind of know how much gas you are pumping into the car, but the electric use just happens, the bill comes, and a person simply pays it.
And the personal is the national -- is someone else supposed to fix the problem by coming up with yet undeveloped sources that are low-cost carbon-free and non-intermittent?
And the dismissive remark about Freeman Dyson's understanding of German night fighter tactics 70+ years ago -- there is the 70 years again -- it was so long ago that it doesn't count? And he didn't "understand" the night fighter tactics, he made an inferrence about them based on sitting a desk away from the front with columns of numbers.
And he is currently addressing the very question of the uncertainty in scientific knowledge regarding climate change, and the impacts of acting and not acting on it, and acting on that knowledge also has serious social costs if the climate change projections are not accurate. He knew of the certainty of the German nightfighter armaments from looking at tables of British losses, yet he is claiming that the climate change question remains highly uncertain given present scientific understanding. It is being hyped, and that is what is inviting push-back from the people you say are ignorantly "disregarding the science."
The dominant carbon emittors will become the large-population developing countries that are attempting to lift large segments of their people out of the most desparate poverty. Most of the world doesn't even have a good source of fuel to cook their meals, and people in the US who profess the seriousness of climate change don't even know how much energy they are going through to cook their's in first-world "electric kitchens."
Paul Milenkovic Freeman Dyson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs&t=3m
One other question for the KIA's.
Why aren't other nations pushing hard on China to clean up their air. People in Shanghai have to wear masks to filter out the garbage they are spewing into the air.
One of my nephews worked there for two years and, because of the air quality, couldn't wait to get out.
Norm
ACY ACY These science deniers are incredibly tedious. All I can think of is Wallace Beery, playing Long John Silver in the 1934 version of Treasure Island: "Will you join me in a bit of fresh air, Matey? There's so much stupidity in here that I can't breathe properly". If you're right, which is highly unlikely, then we can just ignore the advice of the folks who have spent a lifetime studying these things. If you're wrong, you threaten the life and health of millions, including your own children and grandchildren. It's hard for me to be cavalier about that. You may disagree. Tom Responses to my comment have conveniently ignored my last paragraph, which is where the real issue lies. You are playing with the futures of others, and that is unconscionable. I'm 70 years old, so the consequences in 20, or 50 years, won't matter to me personally; but there are those who are just being born, who will curse your memory. Of course you'll be dead too, so you won't care then, any more than you do now. Tom
ACY These science deniers are incredibly tedious. All I can think of is Wallace Beery, playing Long John Silver in the 1934 version of Treasure Island: "Will you join me in a bit of fresh air, Matey? There's so much stupidity in here that I can't breathe properly". If you're right, which is highly unlikely, then we can just ignore the advice of the folks who have spent a lifetime studying these things. If you're wrong, you threaten the life and health of millions, including your own children and grandchildren. It's hard for me to be cavalier about that. You may disagree. Tom
These science deniers are incredibly tedious.
All I can think of is Wallace Beery, playing Long John Silver in the 1934 version of Treasure Island: "Will you join me in a bit of fresh air, Matey? There's so much stupidity in here that I can't breathe properly".
If you're right, which is highly unlikely, then we can just ignore the advice of the folks who have spent a lifetime studying these things. If you're wrong, you threaten the life and health of millions, including your own children and grandchildren. It's hard for me to be cavalier about that. You may disagree.
Responses to my comment have conveniently ignored my last paragraph, which is where the real issue lies. You are playing with the futures of others, and that is unconscionable. I'm 70 years old, so the consequences in 20, or 50 years, won't matter to me personally; but there are those who are just being born, who will curse your memory. Of course you'll be dead too, so you won't care then, any more than you do now.
You are offering a blanket condemnation of someone and everyone who doesn't agree with you and the "consensus position." Unless you are going to take the tack of schlimm and claim that "curse your memory" is something I am misreading?
I ignore the advice of the folks who have spent a lifetime studying these thing? Do you ignore their advice? What about Freeman Dyson -- he is in his 90's. He is the guy who came up with the theory "upward firing guns" on the part of the German night fighters to explain why the British bombers were getting shot down in spite of the experience of their defending crews. This was accomplished purely by statistical inferrence. It turns out that the Germans had such a thing -- it didn't shoot straight up but at an upward slanted angle, and it was aimed with a periscope. The Schrage Musik gun -- literally translated it means "slant music", the German work for American jazz with its syncopated rhythms -- was something akin to the "chin music" that an experienced boxer "plays" on your face.
No Dyson didn't spend a lifetime studying climate -- he had many other important things to do, which included addressing the threat of nuclear Armeggedon in addition to his contributions to math and physics. He was, however, at one of the national labs studying the role of CO2 on climate using his physics and math expertise, long before this topic became fashionable.
Dyson is saying many of the same things I am saying -- where do you think I got many of the concepts and ideas?
Let me ask you a personal question. How many kilowatt-hours of electricity do you use? My personal electric consumption can be found on mge.com. It is a good measure of how seriously someone takes the concern about having their memory cursed.
schlimm Paul Milenkovic And the ideas in a paper are tainted because one of its authors later got manipulated into endorsing a cause he didn't support? I suggest you read what I said more carefully, sir. I never said that. What was discredited was the dishonest attempt by those with an agenda, often fueled by big oil grant dollars, to use his name to give weight to their denialist propaganda.
Paul Milenkovic And the ideas in a paper are tainted because one of its authors later got manipulated into endorsing a cause he didn't support?
I suggest you read what I said more carefully, sir. I never said that. What was discredited was the dishonest attempt by those with an agenda, often fueled by big oil grant dollars, to use his name to give weight to their denialist propaganda.
Taking into account Revelle's buffer for CO2 absorption by the ocean, the known partition of CO2 net absorption into ocean and land, and the IPCC assumptions about the uncertain land CO2 sink, in the lingo of steam locomotive designer David Wardale, the numbers "tie up." Half of the human CO2 ends up in the atmosphere, the other half is split between the land and ocean sinks, and the preponderance of the CO2 in the atmosphere is that remainder of human-caused emissions that didn't end up in the sinks.
Furthermore, the general rise in CO2 induced by humans correlates well with the rise in global temperatures in the 20th century, suggesting that human activity is sure-shootin' causing the Earth to warm up.
But . . .
Very recent published work in Nature indicates that the soils emit substantial amounts of CO2 relative to the human-caused amounts. These emissions are variable and highly correlated with year-to-year changes in global temperature. Whereas the published climate-science literature appears to be ignoring the large variability in the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, this variability correlates with the natural temperature-induced CO2 emission from soils.
The authors of the Nature article invoke the fear factor that not only do we have human-induced climate change, there is a strong positive feedback mechanism by which the warmer it gets, the more CO2, and the warmer yet.
The consequence of this newly discovered temperature-induced natural CO2 source is that only about half of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere comes from human activity whereas the other half comes from this other source. Given that twice as much CO2 is being emitted than thought but the amount of CO2 and its rate of increase in the atmosphere is a hard scientific fact, it means that the carbon sinks are absorbing twice as much.
Given that the ocean sink is known from Roger Revelle's work, this means that the land vegation sink, which IPCC admitts to be uncertain apart from imputing its value to get the numbers to agree, is three times as big as previously thought. Which in turn means that the length of time that our emitted CO2 is stuck in the atmosphere is much less than the hundreds of years claimed by the IPCC.
So where do I go to get my big oil grant swag?
BaltACDHave my doubts about the cabinet - can they understand people that work for a living
I suspect that comment may apply to many, if not most cabinets in recent history...
Have my doubts about the cabinet - can they understand people that work for a living
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/savings/trump-cabinet-members-net-worth-1.aspx
I find the anti-deniers tedious; they remind me of the people who did not believe Galileo when told them that the earth circled the sun. At least they do not have the authority to punish anyone one resists them.
Johnny
ACYThese science deniers are incredibly tedious.
As are those who, with their political agenda, resort to name calling of those whose opinion may differ from theirs. schlimm's comment about Trump being the new Mussolini is a perfect example of that. Their favored candidate didn't win so they will do anything, whether ethical or not, to discredit him. It's the liberal's way or no way. Opposing views are never welcome. That's what gets sickening.
And most of the media of this world has bought the theory hook line and sinker. Citizens of the world have done the same thing. If you question the GW/CC theory people look at yo as if you didn't have a brain. Since politics doesn't often get far on this forum before being removed I'm surprised that Trains magazine published the article.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
It seems the Undenialists truly dread what Trump might do.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/418542137899491328?lang=en
http://climatemirror.org/
schlimm wanswheel I see you link to the article by Revelle and Suess (1957) Gee ya think more recent research would be a tad more relevant than a 59 year old article?.............
wanswheel I see you link to the article by Revelle and Suess (1957)
Gee ya think more recent research would be a tad more relevant than a 59 year old article?.............
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
zugmann Euclid And the universe extends in all directions with no end to it. That we know of.
Euclid And the universe extends in all directions with no end to it.
That we know of.
23 17 46 11
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.