What Climate Wars Did To Science

[RandallT]

Sounds like you would enjoy living in Canada where there is a long standing issue of the Conservative government refusing to publish scientific studies that don't align with their "oil sand" policies. At least the USA is pushing to put money into energy alternatives whereas the Canadian government seems pretty happy to push the development of more oil.

India has a lot of thorium (usually it's a byproduct of mining) and I'm personally hoping that they develop some viable thorium reactors.

Anybody who uses the terms "Climate War" and "Climate Alarmists" makes me shake my head.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

Are you similarly offended when people use the pejorative "Climate Change Deniers," or when a certain president calls those who disagree with radical government action the "Flat Earth Society?"

I'd hazard a guess that most so-called "deniers" believe that warming is occurring (it's a graph, after all, duh), that climate is changing (always has, always will), and that there is some non-zero man-made component... but that the proof for catastrophic consequences has not been made . I have no stats of how many people fall in that category, but that is a valid position that I see held by a large number of seemingly intelligent critics of the folks raising the alarm (there, I won't use the term "alarmist").

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

How about we work on solutions instead of doing the status quo?  We can spend all day debating the models, or, just maybe, work on improving.

http://www.sciencealert.com/denmark-just-generated-140-of-its-electricity-demand-from-wind-power

Until someone figures out how to make a battery large enough to store wind power when it's needed, these are a waste of time and cannot compete with fossil fuels without rent seeking from the government.  otherwise, if they were such a fantastic power option, people would be falling all over themselves to do it without subsidies.

"Last week, it made an even greater achievement: a high of 140 percent of its national electricity needs, helped along by some unexpectedly severe weather. "

While the country can’t rely on wild and woolly weather to sustain it all the time (I’d imagine if it was hit with winds travelling at 93 km/h on a regular basis, it’d soon have no energy requirements at all on account of everyone jumping ship), it's been steadily increasing its wind farm output by 18 percent each year to take advantage the what wind it does get on a regular basis."

So do you advocate not bothering to try?  The more we work on alternative energy, the more efficient it will become. Same with batteries.  I don't have an electric car because the electricity is still being generated by coal and oil fired power plants in my area. The net energy required is still less efficient for electric cars because of the lower heating value of coal and oil, the transmission losses in delivery and the fairly inefficient batteries in cars.  The pollution level from my newer car is lower than the net pollution I would generate from an electric car.  But, should we stop trying?

I would like to see more investment in hydrogen fuels cells. It is beginning to work well in countries like Iceland, where they can produce hydrogen inexpensively due to geothermal systems.  But cheap gas is stunting development in this technology.

Solar power is slowly, slowly improving on efficiency, but it is also getting more common for households to have systems. This reduces the load on coal and oil fired plants. More work in the area can only improve the technology.  NASA developed a much more efficient solar cell that was used on the lander Opportunity.  It works on multiple wavelengths of light vs. basically one with standard solar cells. This tech has promise. But again, cheap oil reduces the need to study.

[jsgolfer]

Agree 100%.  Mankind is going to have a simple choice: grow up, wake up and take better care of our world or face the end of civilization as we know it and possible extinction.

Really?  End of Civilization? Possible Extinction?

So do you advocate not bothering to try?  The more we work on alternative energy, the more efficient it will become. Same with batteries.  I don't have an electric car because the electricity is still being generated by coal and oil fired power plants in my area. The net energy required is still less efficient for electric cars because of the lower heating value of coal and oil, the transmission losses in delivery and the fairly inefficient batteries in cars.  The pollution level from my newer car is lower than the net pollution I would generate from an electric car.  But, should we stop trying?

I would like to see more investment in hydrogen fuels cells. It is beginning to work well in countries like Iceland, where they can produce hydrogen inexpensively due to geothermal systems.  But cheap gas is stunting development in this technology.

Solar power is slowly, slowly improving on efficiency, but it is also getting more common for households to have systems. This reduces the load on coal and oil fired plants. More work in the area can only improve the technology.  NASA developed a much more efficient solar cell that was used on the lander Opportunity.  It works on multiple wavelengths of light vs. basically one with standard solar cells. This tech has promise. But again, cheap oil reduces the need to study.

No I don't advocate not trying, just not having whole sale use of inefficient technologies just because it makes everyone feel better.  More research is better, i would rather see them use money for more intense research.  I would love to see hydrogen fuel cells, very promising. Fully electric cars are good if you want to just drive back and forth to the grocery store.  Again, until someone solves the battery problem, they just are not a viable method of transportation of any distance (which is what most people do).

Solar power is the same, too inefficient and again the capital cost of these systems are typically more than the money you would save by not using energy already available.

but if there are people that want to purchase these technologies, more power to you.  What I don't want is the government to mandate I use these things because they are saving the planet.  It's bad enough that they took away perfectly good light bulbs and I have to use those crappy Compact Fluorescent light bulbs, which provide worse light but cost more money. So I'll be skeptical of any government scheme to save the planet.  And having worked for the EPA, the folks who are in charge of saving the planet, would not give you any warm and fuzzies.

Cheap power is the reason we are where we are at present time. I certainly don't want to go back to the dark ages?

[jamo]

Are you similarly offended when people use the pejorative "Climate Change Deniers," or when a certain president calls those who disagree with radical government action the "Flat Earth Society?" I'd hazard a guess that most so-called "deniers" believe that warming is occurring (it's a graph, after all, duh), that climate is changing (always has, always will), and that there is some non-zero man-made component... but that the proof for catastrophic consequences [U]has not been made[/U]. I have no stats of how many people fall in that category, but that is a valid position that I see held by a large number of seemingly intelligent critics of the folks raising the alarm (there, I won't use the term "alarmist").

I'm curious, then, where your personal tipping point is. Because if that underlined portion is the crux of your opinion, there must be one.

[mmoan2]

Are you similarly offended when people use the pejorative "Climate Change Deniers," or when a certain president calls those who disagree with radical government action the "Flat Earth Society?"

I'd hazard a guess that most so-called "deniers" believe that warming is occurring (it's a graph, after all, duh), that climate is changing (always has, always will), and that there is some non-zero man-made component... but that the proof for catastrophic consequences has not been made. I have no stats of how many people fall in that category, but that is a valid position that I see held by a large number of seemingly intelligent critics of the folks raising the alarm (there, I won't use the term "alarmist").

The problem with requiring proof of catastrophic consequences to me is that it might be too late for anything to be done about it that isn't an incredible sea-change in itself. I have this image in the back of my head of a GOP Tea-Party caucus on national TV 25 years from now standing in the middle of South Dakota in November where it looks like Death Valley and saying "Ok, I guess you guys were right. Time to kill your neighbor for food or catch the first shuttle to Alpha Centauri..."

[jsgolfer]

I'm curious, then, where your personal tipping point is. Because if that underlined portion is the crux of your opinion, there must be one.

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I don't have any tipping points I'm concerned about.  There have been 25 years of tipping points and none of them have been true.

From a previous post:

The world might (or might not) have warmed by a fraction of a degree (I say might not as the temperature anomaly's are with the error margins). This might (or might not) be all (or in part) due to the activities of mankind. It might (or might not) be all bad.  A warmer world is much more hospitable than a cold world (see the middle ages and the little ice age).  It all depends on the quality of observations and the validity of various hypotheses, which I'm afraid to say, are lacking.

So maybe the real question is, what would convince me that the recent warming is all man-made?

If someone could tell me how much natural climate change would have occurred without human influence (You can't say none, the climate has always changed, it is not static no matter what any anyone says)? Then we would know the remainder was human-induced (or influenced). Except, there is no way to know the natural component (due to its chaotic nature and unable to accurately model the physical processes of it). If there was, climate models would have reasonably replicated the temperature changes since the 1950s rather than being all over the map.  Even when they get the model to hindcast well, they do terrible when going forward.

Climate models (General Circulation Models) are woefully unable to accurately handle clouds and ground cover (trees/vegetation).

Another issue that people get wrong is that yes rising temperatures are consistent with the CO-2 theory ( and models) that increasing CO2 causes increasing temperatures. But a melting glacier is a consequence of that heating, it is not additional proof of the theory. This is a mistake that most people make.  Likewise, nothing that is a consequence of increased temperatures counts as additional evidence of why the increase is happening. But what happened is that more and more studies came out with something bad will happen once we get to this temperature tipping point, each one taken as additional evidence that the CO2-theory is correct.  But as we go on, each so-called tipping point is missed and the goal points are continuously moved.  So color me unimpressed with the reliability of models to accurately forecast the climate.

And finally, in order to get the runaway heating that CO2 is supposedly capable of, you have to have strong positive feedbacks.  CO2 is a woeful greenhouse gas, and without positive feedbacks you can't get runaway warming.  And this is something that no one knows, because if the strong positive feedbacks were there, we should've had continuous stronger warming than what we have had to date.  So now we are at a point were climate scientists are trying to find where the warming is hiding (oceans for instance).  Rather than seeing if maybe they are wrong and the positive feedback isn't as large as they think.  And the warming will be of little consequence.

[Jeremie Boop]

Even if you eliminate all carbon emissions by manufacturing, there are still billions of people and billions more animals exhaling carbon dioxide. I tend to lean towards overpopulation being a larger problem than fossil fuels in the long run. A major reason is deforestation, in my opinion. There simply isn't going to be enough plant life to effectively scrub the CO2 being produced by humans and animals at the rate of population increase and plant life decrease. I'm definitely no expert so obviously I'm just throwing out my thoughts for discussion.

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamo

I'm curious, then, where your personal tipping point is. Because if that underlined portion is the crux of your opinion, there must be one.

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I don't have any tipping points I'm concerned about.  There have been 25 years of tipping points and none of them have been true.

From a previous post:

The world might (or might not) have warmed by a fraction of a degree (I say might not as the temperature anomaly's are with the error margins). This might (or might not) be all (or in part) due to the activities of mankind. It might (or might not) be all bad.  A warmer world is much more hospitable than a cold world (see the middle ages and the little ice age).  It all depends on the quality of observations and the validity of various hypotheses, which I'm afraid to say, are lacking.

So maybe the real question is, what would convince me that the recent warming is all man-made?

If someone could tell me how much natural climate change would have occurred without human influence (You can't say none, the climate has always changed, it is not static no matter what any anyone says)? Then we would know the remainder was human-induced (or influenced). Except, there is no way to know the natural component (due to its chaotic nature and unable to accurately model the physical processes of it). If there was, climate models would have reasonably replicated the temperature changes since the 1950s rather than being all over the map.  Even when they get the model to hindcast well, they do terrible when going forward.

Climate models (General Circulation Models) are woefully unable to accurately handle clouds and ground cover (trees/vegetation).

Another issue that people get wrong is that yes rising temperatures are consistent with the CO-2 theory ( and models) that increasing CO2 causes increasing temperatures. But a melting glacier is a consequence of that heating, it is not additional proof of the theory. This is a mistake that most people make.  Likewise, nothing that is a consequence of increased temperatures counts as additional evidence of why the increase is happening. But what happened is that more and more studies came out with something bad will happen once we get to this temperature tipping point, each one taken as additional evidence that the CO2-theory is correct.  But as we go on, each so-called tipping point is missed and the goal points are continuously moved.  So color me unimpressed with the reliability of models to accurately forecast the climate.

And finally, in order to get the runaway heating that CO2 is supposedly capable of, you have to have strong positive feedbacks.  CO2 is a woeful greenhouse gas, and without positive feedbacks you can't get runaway warming.  And this is something that no one knows, because if the strong positive feedbacks were there, we should've had continuous stronger warming than what we have had to date.  So now we are at a point were climate scientists are trying to find where the warming is hiding (oceans for instance).  Rather than seeing if maybe they are wrong and the positive feedback isn't as large as they think.  And the warming will be of little consequence.

Jerry, you made some points which made me think more on this topic.   (Correct me if I am wrong) You won't be 100% convinced that the global warming is a man created issue.   As far as you are concerned, there is no scientific proof hitherto.   Looking at similar set of data, there are many among us who are convinced that it is a man created issue.  But you want all 12 juries to have 0 reasonable doubt to find the mankind guilty of global warming.   Did I sum up your position correctly?

I have some lingering doubt that the global warming is all man made.   But I am convinced that man contributed to it greatly and we should clean up our own mess for future generations.   If government is willing to do the same, I will go with it.   If my tax dollar is truly wasted as a few here would make us believe, so be it.   I have wasted my money before on other things so it won't be the first time.    The bigger issue for me is, globally (some developed nations aside), cleaning up our mess (be it leads to global warming or not) is a low priority.    Even if all the powers to be agreed that the global warming is a serious man created issue, what will people do "globally" to turn the tide?   Not much, I am afraid.   That's a problem that our future generation need to deal with.

[saevel25]

Even if you eliminate all carbon emissions by manufacturing, there are still billions of people and billions more animals exhaling carbon dioxide. I tend to lean towards overpopulation being a larger problem than fossil fuels in the long run. A major reason is deforestation, in my opinion. There simply isn't going to be enough plant life to effectively scrub the CO2 being produced by humans and animals at the rate of population increase and plant life decrease. I'm definitely no expert so obviously I'm just throwing out my thoughts for discussion.

Actually a few people think the world population will cap out. There is a lot of tendencies for smaller families. Primarily with birth control, but also with poverty. It is kinda strange, but makes sense the less poverty you have the less amount of children are born per family. It kinda makes sense in terms of welfare. More kids = more welfare checks. Also I think its a genetic wiring for survival. If you are safe and have a comfortable life the need to procreate is diminished.

Also Gapminder is an awesome website to just mess around with different graphs ;)

I do agree that a big part is the lack of forersts, specifically trees that might be causing some of the influx. Still, it isn't nearly as much as fossil fuels.

https://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/math-how-much-co2-is-emitted-by-human-on-earth-annually/

Even at 6.6 billion people in 2007, people only make up 5-8% of the CO2 emissions. Fossil Fuels are nearly 12 times as much.

The human population would need to stop using fossil fulls and the need to grow to about 79 billion people to equal the amount of Fossil Fuels used by cars.

[tmac20]

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/071615-international-report-confirms-2014-was-earths-warmest-year-on-record.html

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop

Even if you eliminate all carbon emissions by manufacturing, there are still billions of people and billions more animals exhaling carbon dioxide. I tend to lean towards overpopulation being a larger problem than fossil fuels in the long run. A major reason is deforestation, in my opinion. There simply isn't going to be enough plant life to effectively scrub the CO2 being produced by humans and animals at the rate of population increase and plant life decrease. I'm definitely no expert so obviously I'm just throwing out my thoughts for discussion.

Actually a few people think the world population will cap out.

It will cap out eventually.   At what cost is the real question, IMO.   Can we voluntarily cap the population to certain level, or we are forced to be capped due to lack of water, food, etc.?    My opinion is the latter.

[saevel25]

It will cap out eventually.   At what cost is the real question, IMO.   Can we voluntarily cap the population to certain level, or we are forced to be capped due to lack of water, food, etc.?    My opinion is the latter.

Depends, no way to really tell.

Lack of water is the big issue. Food, USA wastes so much food we could probably feed the world. Ever drive through the plain states. It's just miles of land with nothing by farms. It's absurd.

[No Mulligans]

Yes... population seems to be the biggest issue.  Have a bunch of kids, then your kids have a bunch of kids etc.   If you want a low carbon footprint all you need to do is break the chain and have no kids.

[rkim291968]

Even at 6.6 billion people in 2007,

7.3 billion now.  A few quotes from various Star Trek episodes comes to my mind as I write this ....

[saevel25]

Yes... population seems to be the biggest issue.  Have a bunch of kids, then your kids have a bunch of kids etc.   If you want a low carbon footprint all you need to do is break the chain and have no kids.

Not a big issue as you think,

As countries become more developed and child mortality rates lower people don't find the need to have big families. As many countries became more developed like the USA, they started getting closer and closer to the USA's lower birth rates per family.

If you want to curb the world growth rate then bring the rest of the world out of massive poverty, to were families believe they can live in safety.

back in the 1800's, no country was under 4.0 children per woman. Now majority of the countries in the world are under 3.5. The developed countries are under 2.5.

[jsgolfer]

Jerry, you made some points which made me think more on this topic.   (Correct me if I am wrong) You won't be 100% convinced that the global warming is a man created issue.   As far as you are concerned, there is no scientific proof hitherto.   Looking at similar set of data, there are many among us who are convinced that it is a man created issue.  But you want all 12 juries to have 0 reasonable doubt to find the mankind guilty of global warming.   Did I sum up your position correctly?

I have some lingering doubt that the global warming is all man made.   But I am convinced that man contributed to it greatly and we should clean up our own mess for future generations.   If government is willing to do the same, I will go with it.   If my tax dollar is truly wasted as a few here would make us believe, so be it.   I have wasted my money before on other things so it won't be the first time.    The bigger issue for me is, globally (some developed nations aside), cleaning up our mess (be it leads to global warming or not) is a low priority.    Even if all the powers to be agreed that the global warming is a serious man created issue, what will people do "globally" to turn the tide?   Not much, I am afraid.   That's a problem that our future generation need to deal with.

Yes and no, I think some of the warming can be attributed to mankind, I'm convinced that it is not 100%.   I wouldn't trust the government to solve this problem.,  They would only make it worse. From what I've seen from the inner workings of the EPA, If clues were shoes, the government would have cold feet.

There are lots of people who disagree with my point of view, I just looked at it from an Engineering perception.  It's all about the accuracy of the data.  Pretty much all of the data sets from the HadCrut4 are by and large adjusted.  And they are almost always adjusted upwards.  I find that interesting, since if the warming is there why do you need to fudge it.  So when data gets recorded, if there are anomalies, they adjust the station data to a nearby data set.  But what's to say that data set isn't wrong as well.  But notwithstanding, what is the starting point and if the accuracy of the starting point is really bad (ice cores and tree rings for an example), then you're comparing apples to oranges.  And if you only move the goal posts to where we first started using thermometers, then you only have a short time period.  Then that may lead you down a path that isn't correct as well.  I just find far too many inconsistencies and then climate scientists try to dissuade any dissent from the orthodoxy, which again means that there is something fishy going on, IMO.

Other countries aren't going to clean up their mess, everyone wants more wealth and cheap power means more wealth.

[rkim291968]

If you want to curb the world growth rate then bring the rest of the world out of massive poverty, to were families believe they can live in safety.

That's the biggest issue before, now, and in the future, one that has proven impossible to solve throughout human history.    It's probably harder to fix than fixing global warming .

[bubble]

easy to say as there is not mass industry behind an artpeice.

on the contrary a science matter may have huge lobbies and budgets behind pushing a favoable interpretation of results.

who pays this guy ? whats the interest ?