I don't recognise the quote, Rockabye. Who said it?
Climate Change - scientific discussion
(1084 posts) (42 voices)-
Posted Thursday 30 Jun 2011 @ 9:30:49 am from IP #
-
harryoz
MemberIn the last 100 years we added 5 billion people. As well as all those 37 degrees hot bodies, they also heat air about 15 degrees every breath, and enrich the co2 content 100 fold from 0.04% to 4%. I can't find anyone who can explain why this is/is not significant, even if only to build an equilibrium pool of heat and co2 to bump concentrations up.
Posted Thursday 7 Jul 2011 @ 5:32:04 pm from IP # -
harryoz
MemberWhere can one get daily co2 ppm figures from any of the worlds recognised monitoring stations eg Pt Grim Australia etc? Where does one buy the cheapest but adequately reliable atmospheric co2 tester, seems Australians will need them to debunk the carbon tax method looming of reducing emissions and supposedly affecting co2 levels.
Posted Thursday 7 Jul 2011 @ 5:38:33 pm from IP # -
Data here, harryoz, but only monthly, not daily, it seems. Cape Grim is included.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htmPosted Friday 8 Jul 2011 @ 4:22:31 am from IP # -
Assume hotter planet, more evaporation, more clouds, so, cooling, more rain dissolves xs co2 out of the air... This seems to be an equilibrium maintaining cycle but I don't find it talked about anywhere as significant or trivial...
Sorry - it doesn't work. CO2 in the surface ocean (where the water ends up) is in equilibrium with CO2 in the air. The only way to get more CO2 into the oceans is to send it into the deep oceans but this is an extremely slow process, and gets slower with global warming as the oceans mix less and less due to increasing thermal stratification (ie it's a feedback making things worse).
Even if you can get more CO2 into the oceans, that cause huge problems with acidification which is already leading to the loss of inshore and deep water corals, and is expected by 2050 to render the oceans too acidic for coral almost everywhere on the planet - BTW a common misconception is that because CO2 has been high before then corals will be OK. Reality is that it's not the CO2 concentration that causes the acidification but rather the rate at which CO2 is being added.
Posted Sunday 10 Jul 2011 @ 12:03:09 am from IP # -
"In the last 100 years we added 5 billion people. As well as all those 37 degrees hot bodies, they also heat air about 15 degrees every breath, and enrich the co2 content 100 fold from 0.04% to 4%. I can't find anyone who can explain why this is/is not significant, even if only to build an equilibrium pool of heat and co2 to bump concentrations up."
A human emits about 100 watts. By comparison the added CO2 since preindustrial gives rise to about 3 watt/m^2. Back of the envelope suggests we would need a global population of 303 people per hectare to match the warming effects of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Currently we have about 2 people per hectare.
BTW shame people can't see the 3 watts at night - we would not have "sceptics" if the night sky was lit up by those 3 watts (equivalent of an LED bulb every metre). Instruments and satellites can seem it, but sadly humans are blind to this energy.
Posted Sunday 10 Jul 2011 @ 12:14:31 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberHi Guys
Had an interesting talk to Will Steffen Executive Director of the ANU Climate Change Institute yesterday at the Climate Commission conference in Bunbury. Sadly he didn't have that much time, but I got to ask him a few questions anyway.One of the most nagging questions in my head about how climate is being modeled has been how the data is extrapolated for unknown areas between data reference points. That is to say if I measure the temperature at point "a" and again at point "b", say 50km or so away, then how can I with any accuracy determine the temperature between "a" and "b" at point "c". A simple average of the two will not give you an accurate representation at point "c", and the range between "a" and "b" obviously affects the data severely.
I posed this question to Prof. Will yesterday and his answer was that they use satellite temperature data, (resolution unknown) to make sure they get data from "everywhere" to paint the thermal picture. I proceeded to discuss with him that the temperature of the ocean, and it's heat capacity, far exceeds the thermal capacity of the atmosphere, in fact he agreed with me that the entire atmosphere only held as much heat as about a 3m depth of ocean water. I then asked him how far satellite measurements penetrated into the ocean, to which he responded "up to 15m in ocean depth". I asked him further of what other measurements they make. He answered that there are a few thousand bouys on the oceans gathering data, and that a few of the deepest measure down to 700m.
I was a bit surprised that there was so few actual data points on which to base the modelling (Ocean 361million m2 / ca4000 sensors = 1 sensor per 100,000km2!! or 1 sensor for the whole area of Austria, or half of one for Switzerland!), so I asked him how they account for upwelling and downwelling ocean currents, as well as sub-pycnocline currents which aren't captured by satellites. He said they don't factor them in as they appear to only move slowly over thousands of years....which I thought didn't help substantiate his claim at all... Sadly at that point he had to move on...
But I still had questions!! Like about the East Australian Current. Apparently it's flow volume will increase by 20% in the next 50 years. Also it on average goes down to 250m depth, where satellites can't measure. And it's big. As big as Australia.
How do you actually measure something that big, that deep, that is moving fast at 2-3knots(5.4kmh), that varies in temperature itself +/-5'C and come to the conclusion, especially from that many equally large global current systems that the ocean mean temperature has gone up 0.6'C in the last 100years (for which we don't have satellite cover for btw)?? How can we compare the old data to the new satellite data at all, to come up with a trend? Isn't the old data nearly worthless in comparison? Climatology is a "dark" art indeed.
Anyways, I also had a talk to Prof. Flannery the Chief Commissioner. That was a longer and more productive discussion. At first I had to make the point to him that they should be renaming the Carbon tax to a fossil tax. Why insist on having such a confusing naming policy, surely it wasn't the intention to create a tax for things already operating sustainablily in the natural carbon cycle? He had to agree that the subject was unnecessarily convoluted, but such was the nature of politics, and they did normally try to make the distinction in their presentations.
I also made the point that I would like to see the development of "real" renewable energy systems, ie ones with a negative carbon impact. Like what we do Biogas. He was not aware of such a technology, and was somewhat taken aback by the possibilities and impact such systems could have. He gave me his business card and has requested more info on the subject. I also hand scribbled my contact details on the back of my already completed questionnaire form and gave it to him...he assured me he would look it up, and said they would like to visit next time they came through. I was surprised he had not heard of Biogas before. But I'm sure he will be more surprised by my scathing review of their presentation on the back of the questionnaire form!! Oopsies!
Regards
JBPosted Wednesday 17 Aug 2011 @ 3:26:59 am from IP # -
Good post Jeff.
I had a short conversation with Greg Combet when he was in town last week and a much longer one with one of his advisors. The thrust of my message was to put a bigger emphasis on the latter part of his portfolio, ie energy efficiency. The good news is we have access to these people if you want to make the effort.
What I also wanted to point out is the precarious position we have put ourselves in by relying on China's boom to keep us afloat while local industry is shut down. The nobel laureate economist on today's national press club made that point and basically said if they slow down, and they will, we will be stranded.
Posted Wednesday 17 Aug 2011 @ 6:11:57 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberThx Rockabye and S2S
Rockabye - I have written some more of my opinion about China on the energy and media thread, maybe you want to discuss the consequences of economic reliance there instead?
S2S - Biogas does this directly and indirectly.
Directly; by adding to the carbon levels of soils by utilizing the biogas waste output as fertilizer. Plants may grow and decompose at that location(essentially this could be considered carbon neutral), but continual Biogas waste fertilization increases the carbon levels of the soil beyond naturally occurring levels, which especially in Australia, is a good thing. This increases ground fertility and creates denser more concentrated plant life, which could naturally not occur. It also adds a lot of nitrogen which is good as well. If you add the reduction because of averted fossil derived fertilizer required per farm, the carbon saving's are considerable. It really effects the whole chain of resources in the ecosystem, and not just the energy component like typical RE, PV etc. BTW even the tractors can run on Biogas, further shortening the fossil impacts etc. All other non-biomass RE sources cannot claim these contributions and therefore effectively have to be carbon "plus" as it were.
Indirectly - Biogas consumes methane that would normally be emitted from landfill and livestock/dairy production. Methane is accepted to be at least 20 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and as a cubic meter of methane converts to a cubic meter of CO2 through combustion, it allows a 20 times reduction to be contributed to Biogas systems, when considered as an alternative to "normal" waste disposal systems. Sure it is not reducing carbon per se, but it is reducing the effects of MMGW, which is the aim of RE right?
Posted Wednesday 17 Aug 2011 @ 9:06:51 am from IP # -
Andy Chee
MemberJeffbloggs said:
One of the most nagging questions in my head about how climate is being modeled has been how the data is extrapolated for unknown areas between data reference points.Simple answer to the data points is Nyquist's sampling theory. This well proven theory still has its critics in the audio world (LP vs CD debate) Yes there seems to be "extrapolated" data, but assuming the underlying assumptions are correct(!) then there is NO NEED to sample at a higher frequency.
The problem with looking for "unknown unknowns" (quote made famous by Donald Rumsfeld), which is what your thesis seems to allude to, is that science and the scientific method is not designed for it.
Posted Wednesday 17 Aug 2011 @ 10:16:10 am from IP # -
JB, you convinced me.
I accept that biogas waste as fertilizer increases the bio activity and thus retains more carbon in this cycle.
I also accept that it helps to save the CO2 output that would have been necessary to create a synthetic fertilizer that can be saved.
I am aware of the impact of methane as a greenhouse gas. Do you mean with indirect in livestock/dairy production the storage of manure that of course when it goes anaerobic creates methane? I suppose we cannot add the caw farts unless they have a 'wind pipe' connected to the bio reactor.I am just wondering how much better the bio reactor is in comparison with direct spreading of manure onto the land. Fertilization should be the same and if well aerated, methane production should be suppressed. Of course the direct use of manure does not allow for energy harvesting via methane production.
Is there any literature about calculating the carbon footprint of biogas?
So how many bioreactors do we need to save the world?
Posted Wednesday 17 Aug 2011 @ 11:37:20 am from IP # -
Maybe we should have a separate biogas thread.
I worked for some time with an anaerobic membrane bioreactor (lab version) similar to this one: http://www.adi.ca/adisystems/anaerobic_membrane_bioreactor.phpPosted Wednesday 17 Aug 2011 @ 11:54:25 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberAndy
Thanks for the theory name. Essentially you could probably refer to that method of "data" crunching, as "whoever screams the loudest, is the only one heard". Tends to work for climatologists in more than one way!!
MPEG is similar by only registering change rather than continuously recording the same. TV only uses 25fps to trick the eye and so on. Neither of them, are however, really accurate representations of nature, rather very restrictive ways to make data more manageable, and give the impression of fidelity. (Yes I am one of those that enjoys records via a valve amp and electostatic speakers!) Do we really want to start compressing data before we even know how it works naturally? But it is true that science is only as good as it's tools, and I believe our tools are no where near satisfactory for the task at hand. Like with many things, our built in sensors, of sight, taste, smell, touch and sound should not be the reference point for measurement.
From what I understand any given volume of air (say a bucket of room air) or water generally consists of a varied field of temperatures, from minus 150'C to plus several 100'C, yet my indoor temperature gauge reliably measures 25'C all day. If I gently compress that amount of air with only a mild acoustic compression wave, I force that air to sort itself from cold to hot. What are all the "things" that are interacting with our climate? Nothing is as simple as it seems. In fact I still regard our current temperature methodology the equivalent of licking ones finger and sticking it out the sunroof of a driving car, to measure the temperature of the road!!
-
S2S
I will have a look to see what I can find, and start a biogas thread to discuss further.Posted Wednesday 17 Aug 2011 @ 1:39:40 pm from IP # -
JB, I think if you look at any measurement system closely you might find possibilities for error but it is the overall 'picture' that is being painted by scientific research that has produced the consensus in the scientific community. The results obtained from widely differing research bodies are all pointing to the same thing, human activity is causing widespread damage to all areas of our habitat.
Whether it be the atmosphere, the oceans or land and rivers, our extraction and consumption of resources is exceeding the capacity of the planet to keep up. The climate is one part of a very big problem we are trying to deal with and any approach that seeks to slow that down needs our support.
Posted Wednesday 17 Aug 2011 @ 10:55:26 pm from IP # -
Rockabye, I agree with your last post completely! We have grossly over-exploited all the resources of the earth, and all peoples and all governments are determined to keep on doing it until TSHTF, as they say.
About climate warming, I am not so concerned, for three reasons.
1. The physical link between carbon dioxide concentration and mean world air temperature is STILL not well established. There has been little progress in research on this for decades:
http://www.climate4you.com/
(Page: Temperature records versus atmospheric CO2)
2. If true, the already-determined devastation of low-lying countries will be ignored by most people in the world as "Not my problem".
3. As fossil fuel resources run out, I expect utter collapse of our economies and governments, which will end our ability to over-exploit the earth and change its climate.Posted Wednesday 17 Aug 2011 @ 11:25:50 pm from IP # -
dbindoff
Member"The climate is one part of a very big problem we are trying to deal with and any approach that seeks to slow that down needs our support"
I agree with Rockabye too, as I read your post Catopsilia you don't quite agree and you think there is no point in mitigation.
I still think we have a window to make significantly better outcomes for my grandchildren - the way to do it is to rigorously identify and relentlessly invest in more sustainable processes. This necessarily means less money for consumption for quite some time - hence the heated refutations from the 'deniers'
As I read it your 1,2,3 argument is utterly callousPosted Thursday 18 Aug 2011 @ 2:49:21 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
Memberdbindoff
I think you are too caught up in the belief that you are saving the world by reducing emissions, whilst Rome has been burning from other causes for a long time now. I think what Cat is saying, and what I have been saying for years, is that emission reduction is NOT our most pressing concern atm. Long before we have a rising sea-level problem we will have economic and social problems that will cost far more lives and livelihoods than emissions ever will. It is already happening. There is no use in saving our grandchildren, if the result is another countries children invading ours, for our resources.
If you want to get on the moral high horse then where is our concern for what is already happening in Somalia? Who truly cares about that? Or how do you propose to save "our" grandchildren, when in the future the economy as we know it will not exist, neither their independent freedom to trade without interference from the Fed. Government, as is our right according to the Australian constitution? Even with the introduction of the GST they left that same Constitution at the door. It is getting worse not better, and I fear it getting much worse before it gets any better.
How much interference in our well being will be attributed to a useless and non-functional carbon tax? (Lets discuss this on the carbon price thread if you want)
I have long ago parted ways with government providing any meaningful solution to these problems, and have adopted full heartedly a personal, direct action approach, and literally live and breath from doing large scale sustainable RE in my community, without any assistance from government whatsoever. Large Government is unsustainable, and therefore I will not support any regardless of their policies or schemes. And I don't do it at all to reduce emissions, that is just a side-effect of doing what I consider is morally correct, by looking after my community, and by extension providing tangible solutions, even to the third world, that actually needs them even more than us.Emissions are far less important than sustainable actions. If you kill fossils overnight do you know what you are going to use then? What renewable energy does not use fossils in some form? If fossil fuels equal economic activity, which economic activity can be supported by renewables alone?
-
Rockabye
As I have described in various threads; I care not for emissions reduction based on the premise that GW is MM. Sustainability on the other hand is completely different and has nothing to do with GW in my view. If you wish to mix the items that's your problem, but once you realize that emissions reductions won't save the world and sustainable actions will, then you will turn your attention from the media scaremongering and hype, and concentrate on what really needs to be done. I care not for any picture science can paint, to force us to reduce emissions (even though I am prepared to discuss it here), simply because there are much more immediate problems that need solutions now, because without those solutions there will NOT be a future with or without the alleged MMGW anyway. So why procrastinate on yesterdays motivations, sustainability is key, not just putting your shorts on in preparation for global warming.
Posted Thursday 18 Aug 2011 @ 4:07:24 am from IP # -
JB, it's not about whether we care or not, it is about the logic of using less for whatever reason. We are already seeing behavioural change by many people as power prices rise, including those who don't think our actions are causing changes to our environment.
Science is responsible for much of our high quality lifestyle but it is equally responsible for much of the downside being experienced as well. But from where we in the 'rich' side of the world sit it is doubtful many would give up a lot of the benefits we have because of science. If people choose to believe media hype there is little we can do but refer them to information from science bodies like the CSIRO.
I agree that bigger problems in a very short time frame need addressing however there seems little desire for voluntary change. So like it or not we will ultimately be 'forced' to change as peak oil and food shortages resulting from ongoing environmental destruction start to impact on us all.
By the way it is not unusual to be 'forced' to change behaviour by government or science. Backyard toilets were replaced by sewerage because the science was clear it would reduce death and illness. Government enforced the change. Water treatment is another forced change and people where I live can tell you how they were forced to remove rainwater tanks. New science and technology sees us all putting them back in.
Posted Thursday 18 Aug 2011 @ 4:28:47 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberRockabye
Sustainablility is using what you need, not using less of what you want. What we "want" is exactly the problem. We no longer know what we "need". It's the culture of "must haves" - "need this" that drives scientific achievement, and unnecessary technological mayhem.Sustainablility is achieving those "wants and needs" with nearly only local resources, in a way that the quality of a product either lasts for generations, or that it so poor that it easily recycles into something else. It's through coming to the realization that everything, without exemption, is a resource (yes even the poo I shovel in the Biogas plant everyday!) and that nothing should ever be discarded, only ever reused.
If it can't be reused it is not sustainable ie fossil fuel. Sustainability is a cyclic mechanism, just like the carbon cycle, the only question is how do we best "plug-in" to that cycle and live sustainably as a part of it, instead of like we do now, living AGAINST it and throw everything that is good and even provided for free, away. Politicians and most people on the street don't know this, or even "want" to know this, because it is not in their culture to be concerned with anyone elses well being, they only look out for themselves. Even though the ultimate result is that they will reap their reward further along the track ie MMGW. The only way out of this mess is a revival in the hearts and minds of men(and women). Until then our inverted perception of the world will have us all fending for ourselves, instead of supporting each other for common prosperity.
Posted Thursday 18 Aug 2011 @ 4:57:13 am from IP # -
dbindoff
Member"I think you are too caught up in the belief that you are saving the world by reducing emissions"
Yes I am.
"is that emission reduction is NOT our most pressing concern atm"
I think it is. If emissions are not reduced , the political and social problems of today will be seen as trivial in the face of the generated effects of unabated emissions.
"If you want to get on the moral high horse then where is our concern for what is already happening in Somalia?"
I and many others sent some money and aid, we are concerned.
"Or how do you propose to save "our" grandchildren, when in the future the economy as we know it will not exist"
This appears to be your personal supposition, I think with goodwill, collaboration and emissions abatement it may well exist for a long time.
", neither their independent freedom to trade without interference from the Fed. Government, as is our citizens right according to the Australian constitution? Even with the introduction of the GST they left that same Constitution at the door. It is getting worse not better, and I fear it getting much worse before it gets any better."
This appears to be a political statement, global warming is as close to a scientific certainty as you will get - the intensity of the outcome can be debated but risk mitigation is as close to a business no-brainer as you will get.
I collect GST and was not happy about it either but the validity of taxation is undeniable in my opinion."to a useless and non-functional carbon tax"
I think the carbon tax will be very useful in shifting out of emissions intensive activities.I am not familiar with your sustainability projects but from your description they are highly laudable and I very much agree that it is better to achieve it without government subsidy.
"If you kill fossils do you know what you are going to use then? What renewable energy does not use fossils in some form?"
The energy returned on energy invested for most renewables is steadily improving and is well worth the investment in most cases based on a very broad range of parameters.
Hence I support relentless investment in rigorously identified more sustainable projects from very large to very small.
The change in mindset required is in its infancy and the fruits will be substantial in time.
The fallacious mindset of an entitlement to consumption without regard to consequences appears to me to be the crux of anti abatement campaigner's motivation.Posted Thursday 18 Aug 2011 @ 5:09:39 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
Memberdbindoff said:
"Yes I am."
(I'm glad you agree)"is that emission reduction is NOT our most pressing concern atm"
dbindoff said:
"I think it is. If emissions are not reduced , the political and social problems of today will be seen as trivial in the face of the generated effects of unabated emissions."Well it would appear that you are unaware of the timimg horzion for the effects of MMGW then, and haven't noticed world developments on the markets, let alone civil unrest's all over the world? Emissions are of no immediate concern. Global Energy security will diminish fossil emissions x-times more than a carbon tax ever will.
"Or how do you propose to save "our" grandchildren, when in the future the economy as we know it will not exist"
dbindoff responded:
"This appears to be your personal supposition, I think with goodwill, collaboration and emissions abatement it may well exist for a long time."Sorry, but I think you do not fully comprehend the basis for current economic activity, and how without fossil fuels the economy will not exist at all in it's current form. Hence my questions to you on what you can imagine to be the economic driver of a "sustainable" future? Carbon tax maybe? So governments can charge for life and what nature provides for free, perhaps?
dbindoff said:
"This appears to be a political statement, global warming is as close to a scientific certainty as you will get - the intensity of the outcome can be debated but risk mitigation is as close to a business no-brainer as you will get.
I collect GST and was not happy about it either but the validity of taxation is undeniable in my opinion."A tax is for the benefit of the people, and not for the government to carelessly impose and waste. A tax that accomplishes nothing apart from increasing unnecessary bureaucratic government spending is a tax against the people, not for the people. Please find my comments regarding the CT on the Carbon price thread.
On business no-brainer, and risk mitigation: All corporations are unsustainable. They are body-less entities that promote public irresponsibility and economic injustice, by establishing platforms in which it is legal to intentionally rob any other natural entity of there ability to trade and therefore to survive. They are a capitalist engines of fortune that are driven only by the disparity caused by energy monopoly, and are the core issue of greed and inequality worldwide. Look at the farmers in Queensland fighting fracking. The system of protection has long ago failed, and we still turn a blind eye towards it.
"to a useless and non-functional carbon tax"
dbindoff said:
I think the carbon tax will be very useful in shifting out of emissions intensive activities.Please find my extensive comments on the subject in the CT thread, there are pages there on how and why it will not effect nothing.
"If you kill fossils do you know what you are going to use then? What renewable energy does not use fossils in some form?"
dbindoff said:
"The energy returned on energy invested for most renewables is steadily improving and is well worth the investment in most cases based on a very broad range of parameters.
Hence I support relentless investment in rigorously identified more sustainable projects from very large to very small."Even though I agree that we should heavily invest in "real" renewables, this is not the extent of my question or concern. There is no such thing in a modern economy as a activity that does not rely on fossil fuel to undertake that activity. Even most renewables have considerable embodied fossil fuel emissions. In fact is is economically impossible to produce PV without fossil derived energy inputs, (about 60% of the cost of PV is the cost of embodied fossil fuel) and wind uses much to much steel to be exempt any time soon either. Hydro is the same with concrete and steel. All of them require materials sourced from fossil driven industries, and most of these supply train industries cannot easily be converted to a RE source at all. Steel chemically still needs coke for production, roads are from bituemen, etc etc.
My point is that there will be no economy like the one we have now, if we get rid of fossil emissions, which means getting rid of fossil fuels, and as a derivative all of our current economic activity. On top of that taxing fossils will only be possible for a very short period to promote RE, because current renewables will increase in cost with the increase in fossil fuel cost, as their embodied energy comes from fossils! The CT becomes mute in any case because it cannot provide any assistance to RE without penalizing fossils, which is the equivalent of penalizing the economy, which reduces overall tax revenue and delivers no revenue to change to RE, let alone other essential services, because no body can afford RE as it is!
You can't kill the cow that you need for your daily milk. You need to let the RE "goat" develop without penalty or henderence, ie taxfree, and then when you have enough "goat milk", ween society over to the new currency. Society currently has no "option" to ween of fossils at all, (what energy form is there to change too right now?) because government is still monopolising business by subsidizing the status quo of fossil based economy and development. Because no politician wants to be at the wheel when the truth gets out that the economy can't work without fossils.
BTW I would recommend reading up about fiat money and watching the video below for more on what I consider to be true: The unnatural economic beast we are feeding is consuming the very nature we need to survive sustainably.
Posted Thursday 18 Aug 2011 @ 6:23:27 am from IP # -
Temperature data from my place in Manilla, NSW, agree with global data.
Monthly temperature anomaly data from the series of GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Columbia University, New York) are smoothed with a 37-month sampling window. Data come from:
http://www.climate4you.com/
I smoothed my own data in the same way.
The match is very good, particularly in the sharp fall from the maximum in April 2006 to the minimum in September 2007. Where my data begins in September 2000, both curves rise steeply from low values, but mine peaks in August 2001, more than a year before a corresponding peak in global temperature (September 2002). After that, there is a plateau, where the graphs rise together to the highest peak (April 2006).
There are two reasons for plotting my data on a separate axis (on the right). First, the reference periods are different: GISS uses 1951-1980, while I use 1999-2008. Second, temperature varies much more at a single station than in the average of many stations around the world. I use a scale six times larger.
I am over the moon at getting agreement between data from my home-made thermometer screen and the best that world climatologists can do. It makes me inclined to believe some of the things they say.Posted Thursday 18 Aug 2011 @ 12:09:35 pm from IP # -
dbindoff
MemberJeff,if I can paraphrase for brevity in reply;
You believe emissions are of no immediate concern. The science tells us unequivocally that they are of immediate concern.
"my questions to you on what you can imagine to be the economic driver of a "sustainable" future?"
Economies are driven by the individual and aggregate desires of people facilitated by energy and material resources mediated by the contemporary technology.
The science tells us that sustainable energy technologies must replace unsustainable ones to a large extent quickly and clearly they must replace them entirely in the long run."On business no-brainer" I was using 'business' in a generalized societal sense as an "advantage maximizing and disadvantage minimizing" entity.
As an entity, our global society is presented with an extremely clear cut business case, based on the scientifically assessed likelihoods, in favor of mitigation of emissions. In this context, extreme discounting of the scientifically assessed likelihoods still yields a clear result in favour of mitigation now."Society currently has no "option" to ween of fossils at all"
I certainly don't have the answers as to how a fossil fuel minimized economy works but here are some candidates;
1.sequestration of CO2 found with gaseous hydrocarbons and associated with coal burning
2.large scale solar thermal (with molten salt storage)
3.small scale solar for low grade heating and cooling (adsorption)
4. electrification of transport
5. electric storage
6. PV and wind
7. geothermal
8. tidal
9. waveAs I said before, relentless investment in rigorously identified more sustainable projects is required. The carbon tax proposal has many elements which are intended to support that process.
I'm afraid I could not see the links you posted
Posted Thursday 18 Aug 2011 @ 12:45:38 pm from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
Memberdbindoff
We seem to be talking past each other.on:
"You believe emissions are of no immediate concern. The science tells us unequivocally that they are of immediate concern."What do you think the time horizon is for these climate effects, and when do you think, or does science say, they will become critical? 1 year? 10 years? 100 years?
Also what is the likely hood of anyone doing something substantial about it in the near future to avert these? China, USA?The GFC is immediate with no time horizon. It's happening as we speak.
Peak oil has already happened long ago.
Energy security wars have raged already for decades. (If not millennia!)
Civil unrest will become the norm everywhere, including Australia.
These are immediate concerns.On economic activity:
Imagine a world without fossils, no plastic, no steel, no concrete, no fuel, no fertilizer, no hormones for ripening fruit, agriculture (70% of cost is just fuel alone) no lubricants, solvents and paints, no worldwide shipping (no steel no fuel), truck transport(no bitumen roads, no fuel), commuting (buses trains), or refrigeration gases etc etc.What then will you power with your windturbine or PV system?? There won't be anything left to use, without fossils. Electricity is only a energy carrier, it produces nothing by itself, and typically consumes three time as much energy as it makes usable. It replaces nothing material, that is fossil derived. Or do you want to drive down roads of light beams in a photon-mobile?
Please consider the extent of "no-fossils" and then give me options for replacing them, and not just how else to make electricity from RE. Nobody can eat electricity. Besides there are no RE sources that are sustainable, except biomass. All modern industry runs on fossil and the economy along with it. None of your items in the list have the capacity to replace the actual material derived from fossils for product manufacture. ie You can't build a single road with your list. (BTW sequestation just uses more fossils for nothing, scrap it off the list)I could even argue that making RE now is artificially increasing the amount of emissions now, instead of later, when we actually need the electricity. If everyone continues to install PV we will in affect bring forward the fossil emissions impact, and not push it back at all. Isn't that a dumb way to go about it?
BTW I believe there are solutions, but none that current industry, society or economy can provide. Let alone government. The task of getting from here to there will be very difficult to say the least, and everyone will become "renewed" in the process, a new culture of people will need to emerge, those that don't change won't survive. There really are more immediate issues other than emissions that need to be resolved.
On you last comment about the CT...an intention is all that it is, it will not work whatsoever...
Posted Thursday 18 Aug 2011 @ 2:30:19 pm from IP # -
Buzzman
MemberJB
You run the real risk of being labelled a 'doomsayer'.While I pretty much agree with the fundamental thrust of your argument, it IS possible that we can transition to a 'differently focused economy'.
For example, with RE providing power for transport, fossil fuel savings can be redirected to agriculture.
Coking coal (for steel production) has multiple hundreds of years supply, as does iron ore.
So we won't 'run out' of those things "immediately" - but I agree wholeheartedly that 'business as usual' will see them run out sooner rather than later.
I agree that the perpetual growth model that underpins the entire capital-based global economy is fundamentally unsound, and the GFC will get a lot worse before it gets any better.
Remember those who predicted the current problems in the PIG's when the US first 'fell' in 2008? This was titled the 'double-dip' and it appears to be happening much as predicted.
No-one has yet prophesied what MIGHT happen should the US economy 'fall over' again, as it appears, with their debt levels, is at least possible.
The future is a closed oyster - let's hope it doesn't putrefy before it gets opened!
Posted Sunday 28 Aug 2011 @ 7:56:53 am from IP # -
fireflies
Memberrockabye and dbindoff as I read your posts I take it you feel action for the reduction of CO2 is warranted, on balance. Jeffbloggs I take it you too do believe in the possibility of man made global warming but wish to shift the argument more toward resource and energy sustainability as the outcome of any mitigation rather than energy penalty.
My opinion on these two seperate but related matters (the question of science and the question of management)is that on balance, the science points toward marked CO2 elevations over the last 100+ years caused by man's activities - (based on ice cores and atmospheric testing). In addition, elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide poses a significant risk for marine and terrstrial ecosystem effects; most immediately by ocean acidification and its impact on calcium shelled invertebrates, and secondly and on a longer time scale; potential green house effects and changed climate patterns.
JB you make many arguments against the Carbon Tax but I'm not sure where that fits in the thread 'Scientific Discussion - Climate Change'. There is a rush in any discussion on MMGW, from arguments about the science around MMGW toward debate about management interventions (read carbon tax/trading) intended to mitigate climate change. This confuses the science including observations of rising sea levels, threatened island communities, marine ecosystem change to the more immediate - how do we stop it? This is unfortunate because it leaves unanswered many questions regarding the MMGW science before rushing to management strategies, eg Carbon Tax. This causes a chaotic noisy debate, confusing "is MMGW real", and "is a Carbon Tax likely to be effective, and at what cost?" All people with a vested interest in the impact of a Carbon Tax may be prompted to reject MMGW possibility based on the concern about a negative impact of a Carbon Tax. Clearly two different debates.
With regards to the possibility of man-made impact on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels I cannot see any reason for debate. With regards to the possibility of marked marine ecosystem impacts by potential ocean acidification, my reading is that there is signficant clear science indicating that acidification IS occuring, and that the potential impact on marine ecosystems is real and a serious threat. As to climate change, the matter is difficult (obviously) to resolve as a universally accepted theory partly because climate science and an understanding of the drivers of climate, is complicated by large and small scale influences and, as JB identifies, a limit on temperature data sets over a long enough time scale. That is not good enough as an argument that climate change is not real, nor on the other hand that the science is settled either way.
However, the approach that JB takes, in arguing for a management approach that seeks as its aim; resource and energy sustainability, is a universally accepted goal (in this forum at least), but what seems to be lacking thus far JB is suggestions for the 'how'. I don't believe, to use (and abuse) your analogy, that to wean the population off the milk of the cow, we just need to stop flogging the goat. Great efforts will be needed to replace and guide consumption from wasteful Westerner habits to a symbiotic (and perhaps mythic) balanced human-nature interaction. My experience in the study of (marine) ecosystems is that resource exhaustion, cataclysmic environmental impacts and predation are the great controllers of natures balance - and I can't see that, for one, that this would be acceptable to civilised societies as an accepted fate for human civilization, nor, however, do I believe that we can put ourselves outside these controllers of our potential fate. (For predation - read resource conflict and war).
So if we are to argue for sustainability in energy and resource utilisation, rather than penalties for greenhouse gas production, what can we as forum members offer as an approach to achieve this. If however we wish to discuss the science of Climate Change and mans contribution to it, then we may have to wait a hundred years to find out if we were on the right side of the debate.
Posted Sunday 28 Aug 2011 @ 1:22:00 pm from IP #
