backtop


Print 106 comment(s) - last by phxfreddy.. on Mar 31 at 9:07 PM


A representation of airborne black carbon pollution hanging over east Asia in 2004 to 2005, compiled from various measurements.  (Source: Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego)
A new study indicates that while CO2 still is the worst anthropogenic forcing agent, black carbon is not far behind

While skeptics rush to dismiss anthropogenic global warming and point to new studies that offer alternative theories about climate change, a new study led by Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego atmospheric scientist V. Ramanathan and University of Iowa chemical engineer Greg Carmichael reveals that a certain type of carbon air pollution from anthropogenic sources may be even more effective in inducing global warming than previously expected.

The new study, to be published in the Sunday, March 23 online version of the journal Natural Geoscience, looks specifically at so-called "black carbon," anthropogenic particulate airborne carbon created from burning biomass, diesel, solid fuel, or other sources.  The new research states that this sooty compound has a warming effect on the atmosphere that is three to four times the previous estimates. 

The researchers state that while CO2 still leads the way in having the greatest effect on warming, black carbon could have as much as 60% of the effect of CO2, despite being present in much smaller quantities.  This would put black carbon ahead of all other carbon emissions, including methane, other than CO2.  The good news, researchers say, is that this means that mitigation of black carbon will be especially effective in reducing potential anthropogenic warming effects.

The new study used mostly data from observation, as opposed to some other NASA and ESA studies, which rely heavily on computer models, which in the past has been a source of criticism.  However Ramanathan suggested their observation based research is very close to agreeing with the current models.  He states, "Observationally based studies such as ours are converging on the same large magnitude of black carbon heating as modeling studies from Stanford, Caltech and NASA.  We now have to examine if black carbon is also having a large role in the retreat of arctic sea ice and Himalayan glaciers as suggested by recent studies."

The study integrates data from aircraft, satellites, and surface instruments, analyzing the forcing effect of black carbon.  The new experimental data shows the forcing from the black carbon to be 0.9 W/m2, as opposed to the previous U.N International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimate, which placed it between 0.4 W/m2 and 0.2 W/m2.

While computer models are often accused of being flawed and alarmist, in this case Ramanathan and Carmichael concluded that the prevalent models are actually overly conservative, failing to account for the amplification effect of the combination of black carbon with other aerosols such as sulfates.  Also the models fail to account for the atmospheric altitude at which the effect occurs, which impacts how much warming occurs.  The study shows that significant black carbon effects occur at 2 kilometers (6,500 feet).  This means that black carbon not only absorbs sunlight, as previously expected, but also absorbs light energy reflected from cloud cover in the lower atmosphere, an unexpected effect.  The black carbon also continues to impact warming upon landfall in snow, covering it in a sooty layer that helps to intensify sunlight absorption through an increase in albedo.

Interestingly, 25 and 35 percent of black carbon comes from China and India; heavy users of coal, cow dung and wood for heat sources.  Europe also is a significant contributor, due to its major use of diesel.  Ramanathan warns not to blame southern and eastern Asia too much, stating, "Per capita emissions of black carbon from the United States and some European countries are still comparable to those from south Asia and east Asia."

In other words, Asia has a far higher contribution to the pollution, but it also holds a far higher percentage of the world's population than North America.  In parts of Asia, such as China the air is so polluted that a thick brown haze known as the “atmospheric brown cloud" blankets the area.  This smog has some dire effects. 

The researchers suggest black carbon may be accelerating the melting of the Himalayan glaciers.  These glaciers provide billions of people in Asia with drinking water.  Secondly, the indoor inhalation of smoke is suspected to cause the deaths of as many as 400,000 women and children in southern and eastern Asia.  Also, this particular type of warming is much more localized than other types of warming.  While contributing slightly to overall global temperatures, the greatest effect is on the local area, leading to the creation of hot spots.  These hot spots over India and China carry with them serious implications for agriculture, housing and weather patterns.

The researchers point out that black carbon, a hazard both from a local health standpoint and from a global warming perspective could be easily and quickly eliminated.  While CO2 stays in the atmosphere for as long as a century, black carbon particles only stay airborne for a week.  Further, mitigation technologies already are widely available commercially, according to the researchers.  As black carbon is the result of incomplete combustion, this also means that it could be eliminated without switching fuel sources.

The researchers are championing Project Surya.  The project, which is seeking corporate sponsors, looks to replace 20,000 homes in India's wood burning stoves with smoke free stoves.  The stoves would come with sensors to help track the effect that squelching the wood burning has on the local air quality.  Carmichael says that he hopes that the paper will help raise awareness and promote efforts such as this project.  He states, "It offers a chance to get better traction for implementing strategies for reducing black carbon."

The review was funded by National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Are people still pushing this crap?
By arazok on 3/25/2008 2:58:18 PM , Rating: 5
Here in Canada, we had the most snowfall on record since 1939 (Making this the second snowiest winter EVER). It was much colder then average, and environment Canada just predicted average temperatures would be 2-4C below average for at least the next month.

My coldest winter since 1939 trumps your hottest summer since 1998. Now go away, you're making my taxes rise.




RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/25/2008 3:44:47 PM , Rating: 2
Masher just ran this less than 60 days ago.
http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+Diminishes...


By BruceLeet on 3/27/2008 4:01:45 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah that was an interesting read, but far out Imo

I live in Ontario and snowfall around here has been brutal. If for any reason someone needs a very good shoveller I will be glad to offer my skills (I dont use the wimpy snowblower =p) the snowbanks in my driveway stand in at 6feet high just as tall as me. I'd say there is about 5 feet of snow in my yard, in the open too Im not behind the house or anything (where snowdrifts occur) and about 7-8 feet where the snowdrifts DO occur.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By clovell on 3/25/2008 4:03:08 PM , Rating: 2
It's been brutal here in Chicago, as well. Again, Jason, I take issue with the rhetoric. 'Skeptics', as you call them, are in anything but a rush to react to the theory of AGW. I'd dare say that it's the 'mainstream believers' that are in a rush to nerf economies, redistribute wealth, and levy international taxes on substances created by breathing.

No, the 'skeptics', as you call them, are merely looking for an intelligent, non-biased discourse on the matter before we incorporate it into potentially crippling domestic policies.

The article was pretty informative after the first paragraph, though. I'd be interested in the details of how they figured out that black carbon was 3x worse than previous UN IPCC estimates.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By MadMaster on 3/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By mmatis on 3/25/2008 9:42:01 PM , Rating: 5
It's the AGW religious fanatics that don't bother listening. There are PLENTY of scientists screaming that AGW is a crock. In fact, even the AGW pope, cardinals, and bishops are having to admit there hasn't been any REAL GW for the past decade. Now THEY are insisting that's only a TEMPORARY phenomenon and that their beloved AGW will have temps soaring again in no time. What a friggin' crock!


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By MadMaster on 3/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/26/2008 11:09:10 AM , Rating: 3
What would you say to the hundreds of scientists who spent decades understanding the global climate -- and concluded there's no problem at all? Many of the who are IPCC expert reviewers themselves?


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By dluther on 3/27/2008 8:51:27 AM , Rating: 2
Gosh -- what do you say to the hundreds of scientists who spent decades understanding the global climate -- and concluded that there's a major problem? Many of the who are IPCC expert reviewers themselves?


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/27/2008 10:03:33 AM , Rating: 3
Considering the large number of those who previously believed in CAGW only to have recently converted to skepticism -- I'd say that science is improving, and attitudes are changing.

Even the IPCC itself is getting into the act...its Fourth Assessment Report is considerably less alarmist than previous versions, with estimates of sea level rise and maximum temperature change scaled back dramatically from AR2/3.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By dluther on 3/28/2008 1:39:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even the IPCC itself is getting into the act

Yeah:

On the issue of global warming and its causes, the The Working Group I Summary for Policymakers states that:
* "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
* "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
* Eleven of the twelve years in the period (1995-2006) rank among the top 12 warmest years in the instrumental record (since 1850, towards the end of the Little Ice Age).
* Warming in the last 100 years has caused about a 0.74 °C increase in global average temperature. This is up from the 0.6 °C increase in the 100 years prior to the Third Assessment Report.
* Observations since 1961 show that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system, and that ocean temperatures have increased to depths of at least 3000 m (9800 ft).

Footnotes on page 4 of the summary indicate very likely and likely mean "the assessed likelihood, using expert judgment", are over 90% and 66% respectively.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/28/2008 9:52:36 AM , Rating: 4
Don't cherry pick. The Third Assessment Report predicted a maximum temperature rise of 5.8C by 2100. The Fourth Report reduced it to 3.8C...a value of nearly half:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/figspm-2....
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/figspm-2....

The Third Assessment Report predicted sea-level rise could rise as much as 90 cm. The Fourth Report dropped that to the range 18-59 cm:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/04.03....

Those are significant reductions, and they continue the pattern of scaling back the early sky-is-falling nonsense (some estimates in the early 1990s were a ridiculous 12C or more). And later research since the 2006 cutoff date for the Fourth Report suggests climate sensitivity to CO2 is much lower still -- about 1.1C...of which we've already experienced more than half of.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By nstott on 3/26/2008 10:07:48 PM , Rating: 5
And we need to hurry, 'cause now we're even causing AGW on Neptune! (No doubt from solar wind currents or some other convoluted explanation...)

Hammel, H. B., and G. W. Lockwood, 2007, "Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth’s temperature," Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L08203, doi:10.1029/2006GL028764.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/0...

AGW is junk science. I have a hard drive folder full of peer-reviewed journal articles showing that GW trends with the solar cycle. Yes, you can go to RealClimate.org and see how the hacks explain it away, but there is enough data out there to refute their smoke and mirrors explanations.

As already posted recently on Daily Tech, new research shows that the climate models used are overly simplified by assuming an infinitely thick atmosphere (BTW, we'd have bigger problems than GW if our atmosphere were really infinitely thick...) in addition to other simplifications such as assuming a static atmosphere that doesn't convect (which would dissipate heat). When using the proper boundary conditions, not the simplified infinitely thick atmosphere assumption from the early 1900s, to solve the differential equations, this more recent model trends better with empirical measurements of atmospheric temperatures and also reveals an upper average temperature threshold that the earth's atmosphere cannot surpass (at least with the sun in its current state).

Many hack climatologists, like Stephen Schneider at Stanford, were predicting global cooling back in the 1970s - I guess we overcompensated. Now he backtracks with that he didn't know enough and it was a relatively new science back then. I notice that whenever bad scientists are wrong about something that they always use an "old science/new science" excuse.

How about the Canadian scientists, McIntyre and McKitrick, who struck a blow to the man-made global warming farce (or "Mann-made" global warming farce) when they ran a Monte Carlo simulation that shows the famous "hockey stick" chart in the paper by Mann, et al. came from a bogus data analysis program that tends to exaggerate hockey sticks within any data set? They tried to publish in Nature and were rejected based on their analysis being "too technical." (That's what they get for trying to publish in a science porn magazine...) Here are some commentaries on that subject from a Berkeley professor who still believes in AGW as the primary source of warming but has the "strange" notion that all scientific evidence needs to be evaluated, and not hidden from, to better understand the phenomenon:

http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2004nov20_c....
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/32-Global_Warming_B...

There's an investigation into the debate, the Wegman Panel Report,

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanRe...

that was headed by Professor Edward Wegman, the Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Theoretical and Applied Statistics (Is he too fringe for you?). The hack "real" climatologists cry that the simulation used neglected important data. However, this report verifies the soundness of the statistical methods used, leading one to conclude that the "important data" required to make the Mann plot "work right" are fudge factors.

This is a web page from the Canadian scientists:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

If you want, keep believing the latest garbage from the government-funded college media whores and their half-baked, "religiously" fanatical, geocentric, static, infinite-boundary conditioned, over-simplified, hockey stick-manufacturing models along with "The Day After Tomorrow" and Al Gore's junk science agitprop films.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By MadMaster on 3/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By nstott on 3/27/2008 2:49:26 AM , Rating: 3
So, you're saying that a mathematician is not qualified to run a Monte Carlo simulation on a data analysis program to check its validity and that Wegman, Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Theoretical and Applied Statistics, is not qualified enough to state the veracity of the statistical methods?!

If you think I'm angry, then you misunderstand. My "spew" is mostly to amuse myself. I don't take AGW and its advocates serious enough to be angry. Perhaps slightly perturbed by the scientific voodoo would be more accurate... ;)


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By dluther on 3/27/08, Rating: 0
By blaster5k on 3/27/2008 10:35:55 AM , Rating: 5
I think the following the heard crowd would be those who think AGW is real. Technically, they do outnumber those who don't.

I'm more or less neutral on the matter myself. I keep an open mind.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By nstott on 3/27/2008 7:18:26 PM , Rating: 2
AGW advocates find their own "goose-stepping follow-the-herd-at-all-costs [AGW] crowd amusing?" I assume that's what you meant since my side is more of a minority, albeit growing, viewpoint among the crowds, or hoards, of AGW sheeple.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By Andy35W on 3/27/2008 7:39:38 PM , Rating: 1
>AGW advocates find their own "goose-stepping follow-the-herd-at-all-costs [AGW] crowd amusing?" I assume that's what you meant since my side is more of a minority, albeit growing, viewpoint among the crowds, or hoards, of AGW sheeple.

Meanwhile, back in the real world of people not sticking their heads in the sand because the world is flat

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7313264.stm


By nstott on 3/27/2008 8:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
You mean in the geocentric world that you live in? Read the posts further down by masher2. The Antarctic has been cooling over the past 50 years. BBC (Pravda-UK, or PUKe) likes to, as you are probably fond of saying, cherry pick data by looking only at one small part of Antarctica that is heated by volcanic activity beneath it. They should also include a few pictures of Japanese Macaque snow monkeys bathing in the snowy mountain hot springs near Nagano for added effect. Oh, wait. Here they are:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4560000/n...

Yes, look at all the melting snow and steaming water. More media "proof" of AGW.

Perhaps the air would be better if you weren't sticking your heads up in... well, you get the idea.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/27/2008 10:07:38 AM , Rating: 5
> "Turns out those two scientists are not climatologists. Infact, they have no formal education into climatology or any weather system...We have a economist and a mathematician."

I got a nice chuckle out of this. I suppose you don't realize the head of the IPCC, Raj Pachauri, is an economist. And Gavin Schmidt, founder of Real Climate and one of the shrillest "scientists" in support of AGW, is a mathematician with zero formal training in the physical sciences.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By ElFenix on 3/27/2008 5:57:08 PM , Rating: 2
mathematicians and economists are some of the best trained people to deal with regressions with large numbers of variables, so they would naturally be the kind of guys to formulate and test the statistical models. unlike the glorified weathermen who can't predict whether it'll rain tomorrow or not.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/27/2008 7:37:51 PM , Rating: 2
I think you missed the point of my post.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By dluther on 3/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/26/2008 12:56:35 PM , Rating: 2
> "the people who are mostly opposed to AGW are themselves red-state, right-wing, NASCAR-lovin', religious fanatics!"

Odd, I recently attended a conference attended by 200 scientists all opposed to global warming. None of them expressed any interest in NASCAR or religion. They did, however, advance a huge amount of scientific data in support of their skepticism.

> "since Antarctica is supposed to be "less" affected by such nonsense as global warming"

According to a paper* two months ago in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Antarctica has been cooling over the last 50 years. This stands in contrast to the predictions of GW, which state polar regions should warm as much as 3X faster than the rest of the planet. Why the discrepancy? No one knows.

(*Monaghan, et al, (2008) in Recent variability and trends of Antarctic near-surface temperature)


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By MadMaster on 3/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/26/2008 6:16:44 PM , Rating: 2
> "So there, the answer to your discrepancy. "

All of Antarctica is cooling, except for the relatively small Antarctic peninsula, which recent research has suggested is warming due to subsurface tectonic activity.

The fact that Antarctica is "surrounded by ice" doesn't explain why the continent is cooling. Global Warming predicts polar amplification -- the entire continent should be warming much faster than the rest of the world. Instead, it is cooling. Why? We don't know...but its a serious problem for the basic theory of AGW.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By MadMaster on 3/26/2008 6:34:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
All of Antarctica is cooling, except for the relatively small Antarctic peninsula, which recent research has suggested is warming due to subsurface tectonic activity.


Which recent research? And volcanoes don't have a major effect on atmospheric temperatures.

To quote this...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008...

quote:
Despite the recent announcement that the discharge from some Antarctic glaciers is accelerating, we often hear people remarking that parts of Antarctica are getting colder, and indeed the ice pack in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica has actually been getting bigger. Doesn’t this contradict the calculations that greenhouse gases are warming the globe? Not at all, because a cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict… and have predicted for the past quarter century.

It’s not just that Antarctica is covered with a gazillion tons of ice, although that certainly helps keep it cold. The ocean also plays a role, which is doubly important because of the way it has delayed the world’s recognition of global warming.


quote:
The pioneer climate modelers Kirk Bryan and Syukuro Manabe took up the question with a more detailed model that revealed an additional effect. In the Southern Ocean around Antarctica the mixing of water went deeper than in Northern waters, so more volumes of water were brought into play earlier. In their model, around Antarctica “there is no warming at the sea surface, and even a slight cooling over the 50-year duration of the experiment.” (4) In the twenty years since, computer models have improved by orders of magnitude, but they continue to show that Antarctica cannot be expected to warm up very significantly until long after the rest of the world’s climate is radically changed.


I don't see any discrepancy here...

quote:
Bottom line: A cold Antarctica and Southern Ocean do not contradict our models of global warming. For a long time the models have predicted just that.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/26/2008 6:54:17 PM , Rating: 2
> "Which recent research?"

Research showing Antarctic to be cooling:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JD009094...

Active Volcano found underneath Antartic Peninsula (the only part of the continent currently warming):

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=1003...

> "And volcanoes don't have a major effect on atmospheric temperatures."

Volcanoes have a very major impact on land surface and SST temperatures, which is what is being measured in Antarctica.

> "I don't see any discrepancy here..."

Stuff and nonsense. The Realclimate bozos began pushing that party line after the real-world data contradicted their models. Let's go back and look at the REAL historical record, shall we? Back before the alarmists began trying to patch up their computer models to align them with reality.

From a new report in 2002: Every climate model predicts that if global warming is indeed underway, the greatest warming will occur at the poles . For this reason, many scientists are closely watching these two regions for signs of ecological change. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/01...

As for your RC revisionists nonsense, researcher Roger Pielke points out the problems with it. The justification is that somehow "cooler waters" are keeping Antarctica from warming. But that conflicts with observational data:
quote:
Today CSIRO in Australia reports that southern oceans have in fact been warming...

I have no doubt that these observations of warming will also be found, somehow, to be consistent with predictions of climate models. And that is the problem; climate scientists, especially those involved in political advocacy for action on climate change, steadfastly refuse to describe what observations [would] would be inconsistent with model predictions . So all observations are consistent with predictions of climate models.

The reason for this situation of total ambiguity is a perceived need to maintain the public credibility of climate model predictions... So what do we get? Nonsensical and useless pronouncements such as a cooling southern ocean and a warming southern ocean are both consistent with climate model predictions , thus we can trust the models.


By nstott on 3/27/2008 3:34:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And volcanoes don't have a major effect on atmospheric temperatures.


http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/cli...

http://www.ees1.lanl.gov/Wohletz/Krakatau.htm


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By Andy35W on 3/27/2008 7:41:20 PM , Rating: 1
By nstott on 3/27/2008 9:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
Read carfully before posting:

quote:
The caption of the picture from the link to Pravda-UK that you posted reads: "The Antarctic Peninsula is one of the fastest warming places on Earth"


This is exactly what masher2 said: it's the Antarctic Peninsula that is warming due to volcanic activity below its surface. The entire news story talks about this small area. Look at the map they show of the entire continent, and see the little box that indicates this peninsula. The rest of the continent has been cooling for the past 50 years based on data (empirical measurements).

Where's your "utter rubbish" now?

Here's a news article for you:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCul...


By nstott on 3/26/2008 10:11:08 PM , Rating: 1
...from Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anybody can edit...


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By dluther on 3/26/2008 8:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I recently attended a conference attended by 200 scientists all opposed to global warming.

What conference was that? I'm only asking because a conference predisposed against global warming from the outset sounds suspiciously like one with a prepared agenda. To me, that sounds less like a conference and more like a circle-jerk, if you'll pardon the expression.

quote:
Antarctica has been cooling over the last 50 years. This stands in contrast to the predictions of GW, which state polar regions should warm as much as 3X faster than the rest of the planet.


And yet other prominent scientists have said since 1993 that Antarctica has increased in temperature over the past 50 years, and have predicted the collapse of the Antarctic ice shelves.

So we have two sets of data that seem to contradict each other, and only the effects of said data to gauge the veracity of truthfulness of each. One seems to have events supporting their position while the other has...


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By rsmech on 3/26/2008 10:20:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What conference was that? I'm only asking because a conference predisposed against global warming from the outset sounds suspiciously like one with a prepared agenda.


Oh, wait I think your mistaken. You must be talking about that concert around the world or whatever it was. The one based in England.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By dluther on 3/26/2008 11:25:19 PM , Rating: 3
"Earth Day" or whatever they called it was decidedly *not* a scientific conference, jackass.


By rsmech on 3/27/2008 8:04:17 PM , Rating: 2
I take it you didn't get the humor in that flop of an event.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By nstott on 3/27/2008 12:46:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What conference was that? I'm only asking because a conference predisposed against global warming from the outset sounds suspiciously like one with a prepared agenda. To me, that sounds less like a conference and more like a circle-jerk, if you'll pardon the expression.


Then do the conferences predisposed towards AGW from the outset seem suspiciously like ones with prepared agendas? Maybe the 200 "global warming deniers" wouldn't need a separate conference if they were allowed to present opposing evidence and data at the mainstream conferences. Declaring the debate to be over before the other side concedes isn't exactly welcoming a real scientific discussion or trying to genuinely understand the phenomenon. Rather than being driven by the scientific persuit of knowledge, it is driven by the media, politics, and funding. I won't argue that both sides don't engage this, but I will say that it isn't the scientific method.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By MadMaster on 3/27/2008 1:29:09 AM , Rating: 2
Read this...you might find the rhetoric toward Mr. Marburger kind of interesting...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007...


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By nstott on 3/27/2008 3:40:19 AM , Rating: 2
Yep. It's all Bu$Halliburton's fault.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By MadMaster on 3/27/2008 7:41:05 PM , Rating: 2
So what's your reason for us being in Iraq? Freedom?

This is what the world thinks of us... (written by a Chinese journalist)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB28Ak01....

It's really interesting how much power and influence companies really have. It's funny that the only people really gaining from the war are the American oil companies (well the defense contractors too)... think it's a coincidence?


By nstott on 3/27/2008 9:31:24 PM , Rating: 1
Which is why gas is so cheap right now. It's from all of that oil we're stealing.

We went to Iraq because we are in a war on terror and Saddam was (past tense) heading a state sponsor of terror:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic...

A Chinese journalist named Pepe Escobar?! OK...

Anyway, the Chinese didn't like the invasion because it hurt their weapons sales, but Pepe probably didn't like it because he's a socialist.

Oh, and while you're at it, go to Google News and search "Tibet." (I really don't care what the Chinese, or Pepe, think about us.)


By nstott on 3/27/2008 9:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
Read this. You might find it interesting...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne...


By nstott on 3/26/2008 10:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
Forget AGW! The real impending disaster is the imminent supernova! :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-9WsKlKXJI


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By HrilL on 3/25/2008 9:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
Oil yes but Coal I highly doubt it. There is so damn much coal I doubt it will cost much more then it does now other then inflation or if they add more taxes on to using it.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By MadMaster on 3/26/2008 1:38:51 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, that is very true. We have about 100+ years of supply of coal in the USA alone (but we continually burn dirtier coal, high quality stuff goes first).

But there are two issues, we burn a HECK of a lot of coal. Approximately 1 pound per kilowatt hour. Transportation of coal is not trivial (not to mention, most coal mines are in remote areas, requiring fuel to get there, the equipment requires lots of fuel, etc.), and dependent on oil prices. There's a good chance that if the price of oil goes up, the price of coal will also go up (not drastically).

Last, renewable energy is getting better/cheaper. There is also a huge amount of research money going into just about every field of renewable energy. It is my opinion that within 10-20 years, renewable energy will be considerably cheaper than coal (right now, depending on the technology, it is competitive).


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/26/2008 10:30:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
(but we continually burn dirtier coal, high quality stuff goes first).

At least now we're starting to burn it in zero-emission configurations


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/26/2008 10:46:22 AM , Rating: 3
> "Last, renewable energy is getting better/cheaper"

Let's be honest. Wind and solar power isn't going to replace coal in our lifetimes. Even if one assumes technology enhancements to make it cost-competitive with coal, there is still the energy storage issue. The sun doesn't shine 12 or more hours a day, and the wind doesn't always blow. Right now, methods like salt storage are still experimental, and turn the cost from 3-4X more than coal to more like 30-40X as expensive.

The only practical alternative we have for coal either today or in the next few decades is nuclear power. It's clean, safe, emits no greenhouse gases, and is plentiful enough to last us tens of thousands of years -- yet environmentalists fight it even more than they do coal.

Why? One needs only look to the words of famed environmentalist Paul Ehrlich to see why:

quote:
Giving society cheap, abundant energy...would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun."

Cheap abundant energy translates into prosperity and economic growth...and that is anathema to the hardcore environmentalist movement.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By MadMaster on 3/26/2008 6:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The sun doesn't shine 12 or more hours a day, and the wind doesn't always blow.


In my home state of New Mexico, sun gives 14 hours of usable sun...

quote:
Right now, methods like salt storage are still experimental, and turn the cost from 3-4X more than coal to more like 30-40X as expensive.


Not exactly, a GW coal power plant costs about a Billion dollars to build and requires 150 million dollars of fuel each year. Assuming it runs at 2/3 capacity on average (night idling), it will make 550 million dollars each year. Ignoring operating expenses, it will pay for itself in 2-3 years.

Now lets look at this...

http://www.dailytech.com/Massive+280+MW+Solar+Plan...

Assuming it costs a billion dollars to build. Also, assuming it runs at 1/2 it's capacity on average, that means that over a year it will generate 120 million dollars each year. It will pay for itself in 8-9 years. After that, all the revenue is profit. This uses salt storage... not experimental and not 30-40X the price of coal. If the price of these power plants drops in half, it will be very competitive with coal.

quote:
Cheap abundant energy translates into prosperity and economic growth...and that is anathema to the hardcore environmentalist movement.


There are radicals on every side of every argument. They are hardcore left-wingers...what about hardcore right wingers...oh these guys?

http://www.kkk.bz/

I'm assuming you're not one of these guys...And yes, I can agree with you that nuclear energy is good.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/26/2008 6:27:40 PM , Rating: 3
> "In my home state of New Mexico, sun gives 14 hours of usable sun..."

Err, I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse, but New Mexico obeys the basic laws of geometry like anywhere else. The planet is a ball, exactly half of which is shaded at any time. Thus, any spot on the globe averages 12 hours of daylight.

In the summertime, New Mexico gets about 14 hours/day...but in the wintertime it only receives 10. A polar area will get 24 hours/day of sun in the summer, zero in winter. It still averages 12 hours/day.

It's even worse though, as cloud cover reduces useable sunlight (though NM admittedly suffers little from that), and times near dusk and dawn provide very little useable flux, due to the angle of obliquity.

> " It will pay for itself in 8-9 years. After that, all the revenue is profit."

No. First of all, you've forgotten that solar plants have an availability factor of about 25-30% (closer to 35% in a state like NM), whereas coal/nuclear plants usually run 90%. Secondly, they don't require fuel, but they do require vast amounts of maintenance. Operating costs excluding fuel are far higher than an equivalent coal or nuclear plant.

As for salt storage, it IS experimental -- that plant isn't built yet. And if you look in that DT thread, I posted actual figures from a salt storage plant. The projected costs were indeed 30-40X higher than coal generation.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By MadMaster on 3/26/2008 6:43:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Secondly, they don't require fuel, but they do require vast amounts of maintenance. Operating costs excluding fuel are far higher than an equivalent coal or nuclear plant.


85 skilled technicians each year. Loaded average salery of 100k a year...that's 8.5 million dollars a year.

Compared to a equally sized coal power plant, that's about 35 million. Also, coal power plants are not exactly free of maintenance, probably pretty close the price to that solar facility.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/26/2008 6:55:57 PM , Rating: 2
> "85 skilled technicians each year. Loaded average salery of 100k a year...that's 8.5 million dollars a year."

That's just the workforce to operate the plant. It is far short of total maintenance costs.


By phxfreddy on 3/31/2008 8:18:56 AM , Rating: 1
Don't blame the kkk on conservatives. The same CONTROLLING impulse that drives these guys is the same impulse I see the dems / socialist / communists use. Its called authoritarianism. REALLY right wing is libertarian where we believe in no gun,drug,sex,financial control. That is what really scares you. Freedom. And after all it was the dem party that was the party of the southern slave holders. Strange ...they want to be tax slave holders now.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By dluther on 3/26/2008 11:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cheap abundant energy translates into prosperity and economic growth...and that is anathema to the hardcore environmentalist movement.

Says who?

I'm not an environmentalist, and to be sure not a hardcore one, but what makes you think that these so-called "hard core environmentalists" are opposed to prosperity, economic growth, and cheap, abundant energy? I'm all for these things in spades, and while I'm not "hard core", I have replaced all my light bulbs with CF tubes, insulated my home, replaced my gas water heater with a gas on-demand system, traded my mini-van for an HHR, and I recycle.

quote:
yet environmentalists fight [nuclear power] even more than they do coal.

Now I'll give you that one. To me, it is perplexing how the most vocal opponents of a thing are the ones who least understand it. Which is why I'm so amazed on your stance on AGW.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/26/2008 11:43:13 PM , Rating: 3
> "what makes you think that these so-called "hard core environmentalists" are opposed to prosperity, economic growth, and cheap, abundant energy? "

Says the environmentalists themselves. In addition to the quote I already posted, about cheap energy being "worse than a machine gun", here are a few more gems:

quote:
We already have too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure ."
Famed environmentalist Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist and advisor to Albert Gore.

quote:
We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age , where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion -- guilt-free at last!
Stewart Brand, in the Whole Earth Catalogue

quote:
If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won't give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.
Amory Lovins

quote:
The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world
John Shuttleworth

quote:
Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.
John Davis, Earth First!

quote:
The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.
Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

quote:
Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.
David Foreman.

quote:
Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets...Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.
David Graber, environmental biologist.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By MadMaster on 3/27/2008 1:45:48 AM , Rating: 1
What makes you think every environmentalist is like that?

You conservative! You actually believe that the holocaust was a myth!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad

(In case you didn't catch on, I'm assuming you are a conservative, and I'm comparing you to another radical conservative. It's exactly what you are doing above, it's called the straw man argument technique.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man )

Sadly, the climate doesn't care what argument technique you use.


By nstott on 3/27/2008 3:49:11 AM , Rating: 2
Well, did you expect us "global warming deniers" to be that far off from the Holocaust deniers? We're "evil" and "stupid." We "want to destroy the world for profit" by following the lead of "Bu$Hitler."

quote:
Sadly, the climate doesn't care what argument technique you use.

Wow! The climate has feelings?!


By nstott on 3/27/2008 4:13:30 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, I'm not following how masher2 made a scarecrow argument. He was asked:

quote:
"what makes you think that these so-called "hard core environmentalists" are opposed to prosperity, economic growth, and cheap, abundant energy? "


Then he answered with quotes from actual hard core environmentalists. That is not a scarecrow argument. That is directly answering the question.

A conservative Iranian is not comparable to a conservative American (most American conservatives are ultra-liberal compared to conservatives in the Middle East). Masher2 answered a question about "apples" with statements from "apples." You're comparing apples and oranges and saying he did the same thing, which he did not.

Now, had he posted the following link, you might have made a small point:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/englund5.html


By phxfreddy on 3/31/2008 9:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yes the environment does not care what argument you use. And thus we're going to see your scam made a laughing stock. Y? 2k.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By dluther on 3/27/2008 4:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In addition to the quote I already posted, about cheap energy being "worse than a machine gun", here are a few more gems:


Yeah -- I get it. That there are idiots and granola nut-munching, tofu-snorting, patchouli-stenched Gaia-worshiping enviro-fascists out there should be no surprise to anyone. And really, that's fine -- people are rightfully entitled to their opinions, and even to have those opinions published (at least in this country).

So, maybe we should stop using "environmentalists" as the people of record here and start using "ecologists".

Whaddya say?

Just like there are


By masher2 (blog) on 3/27/2008 4:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
> "That there are idiots and granola nut-munching, tofu-snorting, patchouli-stenched Gaia-worshiping enviro-fascists out there should be no surprise to anyone"

But these aren't just a few loonies on the fringes of the movement. They're the LEADERS of that movement. They're the founders of the organizations like the Sierra Club, Earth First, the World Wildlife Fund, etc. They're the professors who teach environmentalism in colleges, the people who write the articles for the environmental journals.

It's not just a few loose nuts rattling around in the corners. The rot goes to the core.


By phxfreddy on 3/31/2008 8:56:13 PM , Rating: 2
That's the point you are NOT hard core. The hard core are religious fanatics who believe we must repent! They are luddites. Look it up!


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By Ringold on 3/25/2008 11:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
'it will be too costly to fix.'


I was going to say "I'm sorry the facts disappoint you" on the cost, but I suppose it's not a "fact" that it would be "too costly to fix." While it might be a fact that the more popular schemes for battling global warming would do more economic harm over 100 and 200 year time periods then doing nothing at all would, it can't be called a fact because it would be a viable opinion that the survival of some species of fish (or whatever) is more important than the improved wealth of mankind. Interpersonal comparisons of that sort are impossible, but, uh, to each their own. For me, man > all else.

That said, while there has been no credible study to my knowledge that has suggested massive schemes and vast sums of money could be spent and yield a good return, most do at least say some small amounts of spending and regulation make sense on the margin, based on IPCC projections.

This line of argument isn't something that has been "switched to" in lieu of a lack of science. It's simply become more prominent. In fact, economists scratched their heads over ethanol from the very start. If people had listened from the beginning, we wouldn't have historic inflation in the price of good across the entire planet. Starry-eyed types were too excited to have an alternative to oil, unfortunately, and naively jumped in to bed with the farm lobby -- a group of families and companies that were engaged in dirty politics long before modern liberals grandparents were even born. Mistake of the decade. Now, finally, economists are finally being listened to over ethanol, but only after agflation hit the rich nations and general misery struck the poor ones, as people look for an explanation.

To be fair, I recall always hearing about "skeptics" that didn't think ethanol was ethical or made sense from an energy perspective, but the left-wing media would give them 1 or 2 lines in a whole page about ethanol -- if any at all.

Ignore economics at your own peril. Historically it hasn't worked out well to do so. :P


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By MadMaster on 3/26/2008 2:46:09 AM , Rating: 1
I tend to stay out of the economics for a few reasons...

1. How much AGW will cost is impossible to predict. Anybody who puts a 'study' forward that says how much it will cost is probably off by a large margin. (A general trend, predictions of the cost caused by AGW tend to paint a more bleak picture).

2. To fully beat global warming, it requires new technology. Of which, this technology hasn't been invented yet. Anybody
who thinks they know how much it will cost is full of it.

In a nutshell, the systems is way to complex to predict, especially 10-50 years into the future. (Hell, even economists who study just one piece of the economy, oil, are wrong in predicting the price of oil for the next week. They are only right 51% of the time. All they have to predict is up or down.)

quote:
While it might be a fact that the more popular schemes for battling global warming would do more economic harm over 100 and 200 year time periods then doing nothing at all would


Fyi, not even coal reserves will last 200 years. We have to move over to a new technology at some point anyways, why not move the change up a few notches on the priority scale?

quote:
For me, man > all else.


For this, I have to agree 110%. This is one of the pitfalls of many environmentalists (and it makes my skin crawl, who cares about polar bears...really?). But your idea is not a new one...100 years ago Teddy Roosevelt was an environmentalist and he believed humans took precedence over all else.

quote:
some species of fish


Remember, millions of people depend on fish to feed their families. Also, worldwide, fishing stocks are in decline, and demand is going up (luckily, this has not been a major issue yet, but it will in the future). AGW is not helping this situation.

quote:
Starry-eyed types were too excited to have an alternative to oil, unfortunately, and naively jumped in to bed with the farm lobby


There is only one partial economic alternative to oil (ignoring bio-fuels which have always been cruddy). BEVs, which were heavily opposed by the oil lobby... keep in mind, hydrogen is heavily pursued by the oil lobby, of which the only economical way to produce it is with natural gas...hmm... (Also, Bush is a oil man, Cheney own stock in oil companies and holds meetings with oil company executives...hmm....)

This is just a piece of the puzzle, but we are delving into a political game that is extremely difficult to understand. The argument will never end.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/26/2008 11:06:24 AM , Rating: 4
> "In a nutshell, the systems is way to complex to predict, especially 10-50 years into the future"

So you believe the economy is too complex to predict even 10 years into the future, but believe the far more complex climate system is predictable as far as 100 years into the future?

> " How much AGW will cost is impossible to predict"

If one can predict a rise, one can predict the cost (or benefit from it). And that assumes there's even a problem to "beat"...and as time wears on, even the IPCC has begun to realize that problem isn't nearly as large as we once thought.

> "Also, worldwide, fishing stocks are in decline, and demand is going up "

You're young, so perhaps you don't remember all the wild claims environmentalists made about fish stocks in the 1960s and early 1970s. Literally thousands of "experts" told us that wihin a decade, fish stocks would be totally exhausted, the catch would go to zero, and hundreds of millions would starve to death.

And yet the global fish catch keeps going up and up. And still, environmentalists continually tell us we're on the verge of a "tipping point".


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By MadMaster on 3/26/2008 6:23:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So you believe the economy is too complex to predict even 10 years into the future, but believe the far more complex climate system is predictable as far as 100 years into the future?


In fact I do. Historically, temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations have been strongly correlated. Also, CO2 concentrations are going to continue going up because of how much fossil fuels we are burning. Thus, temperatures in the future will get higher (idk about a hundred years from now, I'm not that smart).

Not a bad prediction is it?

Now look at this, a survey of 34 oil analysts. 29 predicted prices would fall, 4 predicted they would rise and 1 was unsure. Seems to be a pretty bad prediction...(prices went from $101 to $106 today, yes I know, the week isn't done yet...).

The problem with economic systems is they depend on humans cognitive nature. Something nobody can predict or define for that matter.

You've said it yourself, models (or predictions) are only as good as their assumptions...

quote:
If one can predict a rise, one can predict the cost (or benefit from it). And that assumes there's even a problem to "beat"...and as time wears on, even the IPCC has begun to realize that problem isn't nearly as large as we once thought.


If you are so old, you should also know that each IPCC prediction gets worse than the one before it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Pan...


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/26/2008 6:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
> "Historically, temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations have been strongly correlated"

Very true! The problem is the temperatures begin rising before the CO2. The CO2 didn't cause temperatures to rise...rising temperatures increased atmospheric CO2. Look up the so-called "champagne effect" for why this is true.

> "If you are so old, you should also know that each IPCC prediction gets worse than the one before it..."

Err, flatly incorrect. The AR4 (2007) projections for both maximum sea level rise and temperature increase are well below what AR2 and AR3 predicted. The reports are all online; look them up yourself if you don't believe this.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By dluther on 3/26/2008 11:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Very true! The problem is the temperatures begin rising before the CO2. The CO2 didn't cause temperatures to rise...rising temperatures increased atmospheric CO2. Look up the so-called "champagne effect" for why this is true.


The problem is that CO2 is not the most prevalent greenhouse gas being generated -- it's methane. When combined with CO2, NOx, SOx, hydrocarbons, benzenes, ozone, and other volatile organic compounds (that have absolutely no truly natural source other than byproducts of human industry), the picture becomes a little more focused.

And this is what really gets me about the whole AGW/greenhouse gas debate. People are so focused on CO2 that they forget this is a SMALL PORTION of the problem.

So bear with me just a bit longer here -- Ocean temperatures are rising, enough to be the "two" in the one-two punch of temperature and pollution that has essentially killed off most of the coral reef systems. But more importantly, there are billions of cubic feet (some say trillions), but pressure alone is not enough to keep the gas in a frozen state; an increase in temperature can (and has) release massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere.

AGW is a complex problem. But do deny it with a straight face takes either a special kind of evil or a special kind of stupid.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By dluther on 3/26/2008 11:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
Well, that one paragraph somehow managed to get a couple of lines deleted. Let me try again:

But more importantly, there are billions of cubic feet (some say trillions) of methane trapped just below the ocean floor in a frozen state called methyl hydrates. These frozen gas bubbles are kept frozen by a delicate balance of pressure and temperature, but pressure alone is not enough to keep the gas in a frozen state; an increase in temperature can (and has) release massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere.


By MadMaster on 3/27/2008 12:32:19 AM , Rating: 1
That is a major problem, in fact that's why I see AGW as a serious problem. This issue is not factored into the IPCC report because there has been a little research into it.

It is possible it could cause runaway global warming... which might not stop till it's 5-10 degrees C above normal...which will be catastrophic.

There has been some focus on methane, the Carbon Dioxide has a much stronger forcing. Also, methane levels quit going up recently, because there has been some clamp down on emissions (and methane can be burned to generate electricity).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Radiative-forci...

Also, fixing the carbon dioxide problem is much more difficult than then methane problem...


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By nstott on 3/27/2008 12:27:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
AGW is a complex problem. But do deny it with a straight face takes either a special kind of evil or a special kind of stupid.


And that's what I call taking a scarecrow and throwing it under a bus.

The planet is warming with the solar cycle, and CO2 and CH4 are being released from the oceans as the planet warms. Neptune is following a corresponding trend in warming, and it probably isn't from AGW.

Hammel, H. B., and G. W. Lockwood, 2007, "Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth’s temperature," Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L08203, doi:10.1029/2006GL028764.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/0...

If you want to phase out fossil fuels to reduce pollution (along with the disease and sickness it causes) and the funding of terrorism, then I'm all with you. However, I'm not going to follow along with the AGW junk science. If that's evil and/or stupid, then so be it.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By dluther on 3/27/2008 8:29:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you want to phase out fossil fuels to reduce pollution (along with the disease and sickness it causes) and the funding of terrorism, then I'm all with you. However, I'm not going to follow along with the AGW junk science. If that's evil and/or stupid, then so be it.


Okay.

But just so I'm clear here -- you believe that we can generate billions of metric tons of volatile organic compounds per year and release them into the atmosphere, pollute rivers and oceans to the point that it substantially alters the chemistry and causes mass disruptions to the ecology and food chain, and increasingly deforest the very areas most responsible for cleansing the atmosphere without deleterious global effects that may include altering the temperature?

Well, good luck with that. Like I said -- special kind of stupid or evil.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/27/2008 10:14:17 AM , Rating: 2
> "you believe that we can generate billions of metric tons of volatile organic compounds..."

CO2 is not a volatile organic compound. It's natural airborne fertilizer, crucial for all life on the planet. Every breath you take generates some...and even today, nature produces 33 times as much CO2 as do humans....and has been producing that much for countless millions of years.

If the focus was on VOCs and other pollutants, then I'd have no problem with reductions. But instead it's on carbon...and everything we do generates carbon. Control carbon, and you control life itself.

No wonder it's so attractive an option to certain elements.

> "and increasingly deforest the very areas most responsible for cleansing the atmosphere... "

The largest driver for deforestation currently is the drive to produce biofuels. Blame this ridiculous focus on CO2 for that catastrophe.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By dluther on 3/28/2008 1:27:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The largest driver for deforestation currently is the drive to produce biofuels. Blame this ridiculous focus on CO2 for that catastrophe.


Uh, better bring that horse back to the barn there, Huckleberry... The driving factors behind deforestation in the rain forest regions is twofold: logging and farming. This has been going on long before the biofuels craze, but since biodiesel needs a methanol component to transesterify the oil, I can see that as another item to add to the list.

quote:
CO2 is not a volatile organic compound.

I think I've made my position on CO2 pretty clear, which is why I intentionally didn't mention it. If we were to focus on one gaseous culprit altering our ecology, wouldn't it be better to focus on methane?


By masher2 (blog) on 3/28/2008 1:56:46 AM , Rating: 2
You're a bit behind the times. If one ignores just two countries in the world -- Indonesia and Brazil, then net global forested area is actually *increasing*. That's how large the loss is in those two nations. In Indonesia, biofuels are now the #1 cause of deforestation, and in Brazil, they're roughly #3.

quote:
"Biofuels are rapidly becoming the main cause of deforestation in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and Brazil," said Simone Lovera, managing coordinator of the Global Forest Coalition, an environmental NGO based in Asunción, Paraguay
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37035

quote:
Top Scientists Warn Against Biofuels... scientists have increasingly questioned the sustainability of biofuels, warning that by increasing deforestation the energy source may be contributing to global warming....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/25/...


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By nstott on 3/27/2008 7:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
You make it sound as though Planet Earth is a barren wasteland/toxic waste dump. You need to quit drinking the econut Kool Aid statistics, and... OK! I can't do it anymore! You figured us out! I'm a member of a secret shadow group that roves the world, clear-cutting entire forests and dumping barrels of chem-bio goo into the rivers, streams, and oceans. We've built a giant chemical evaporator to release trillions of tons (although the real numbers are thought to be higher than these estimates) of organic solvents into the atmosphere. We even invented giant space (get it, SPACE, yuk,yuk...) heaters to warm other planets, like Neptune (I notice you completely ignored the paper on Neptune warming), in order to fool people into believe the solar cycle is responsible. We won't stop until we've destroyed everything! In fact, just the other day, masher2 and I were out clubbing baby seals. "Why?" you ask. Well, it takes a special kind of evil.

Got granola?


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By nstott on 3/27/2008 8:37:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Despite the Amazon being at least 87.5 percent intact, many claims abound as to how fast the forest is being cleared.

In "Amazonia," the narrator intones that "in the brief amount of time it takes to watch this film, roughly 400,000 acres of forest will have been cleared." Ruy de Goes of Greenpeace Brazil says in the last four years "an area the size of France was destroyed."

Actor William Shatner in a National Geographic documentary claims that worldwide, "Rainforest is being cleared at a rate of 20 football fields a minute." Rainforest Action Network says the Amazon is being deforested at a rate of eight football fields a minute. Tim Keating of Rainforest Relief says that the deforestation can be measured in seconds. "It may be closer to two to three football fields a second," says Keating.

When de Goes of Greenpeace Brazil is confronted with the disparity in numbers regarding these football fields, he replies, "The numbers are not important, what is important is that there is huge destruction going on."

However, Moore says that the only way such huge numbers are generated is by using double accounting. "You would have cleared 50 times the size of the Amazon already if accurate."

Luis Almir, of the state of Amazonas in Brazil calculated using five football fields a minute and concludes sarcastically that if the numbers were correct, "we would have a desert bigger than the Sahara."


http://209.62.84.132/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=1...

I suppose such deforestation alarmism takes a special kind of good or a special kind of smart to understand. That's why I don't take the "barren planet" statistics seriously.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/27/2008 9:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
> "When de Goes of Greenpeace Brazil is confronted with the [disparity], he replies, "The numbers are not important..."

Reminds me of another famous quote:
quote:
Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen."
- John Houghton, first head of the IPCC.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/26/2008 10:29:44 AM , Rating: 3
Skeptics is the acceptable term we're pushing. I think its far more balanced than "deniers," "believers," "alarmists," and some of the other rhetoric that gets pushed around in the media.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By Symmetriad on 3/26/2008 12:03:22 PM , Rating: 2
Would the skeptics, then, be so kind as to quit calling those of us who advocate action to prevent possible climate change "communists," "leftists," "hippies," "greenies," "idiots," "economic saboteurs," "ignorant pawns of the global conspiracy," and all the other terms that get so blithely tossed around?

If there's going to be an intelligent debate on this, respect has to flow both ways. As far as I've seen on DT, many of the AGW advocates are content to spew vitriol without much argument to back them up.


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By Symmetriad on 3/26/2008 12:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I made a mistake in terminology. Put "skeptics" in place of "AGW advocates."


By MadMaster on 3/26/2008 6:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you!


By nstott on 3/26/2008 10:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
Freudian slip? :D


By nstott on 3/26/2008 10:23:07 PM , Rating: 2
But I'm still proud to be a "global warming denier," even though I don't watch Nascar... ;)


By phxfreddy on 3/31/2008 9:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
Oooh ....And I saw his face(Al Gore)........Now I'm a denier ...I couldn't try-er if I tried......( set to the tune of the Monkeys I'm a believer )


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By cochy on 3/25/2008 5:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
Ha! I'm in Montreal and I just heard on the radio today that they expect that the snow could last on the ground until May, perhaps June!

So I was just gonna past exactly what you did. Where's this Global Warming? I'm looking forward to it personally.


By cochy on 3/25/2008 5:42:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
past


post.


By See Spot Run on 3/25/2008 11:57:48 PM , Rating: 2
You wanna send some my way? I'm in Nova Scotia, and I haven't seen snow since the start of March. And my ski hill is bare, as in 1-2 feet base bare. I am soooo jealous of the rest of Canada and all their snow. Record snow fall, and I get zilch. Life is unfair.

On the flip side, I did get out and swing my golf clubs around for a little bit. Ahhh, golf. Life is good.


By wordsworm on 3/26/2008 10:54:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ha! I'm in Montreal and I just heard on the radio today that they expect that the snow could last on the ground until May, perhaps June!


Is that why the Habs are looking so promising this year? Could we really see the end to the longest dry spell in the franchise's history? Go Habs Go!


RE: Are people still pushing this crap?
By Sulphademus on 3/26/2008 11:46:56 AM , Rating: 2
March 20th, I saw the first Global Warming article in months. Something about the cherry blossoms.

http://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/ap/20080320/twl-war...

Being that I live 40 minutes from there, I can say for sure that temps are and have been ~50ºF for the past couple weeks.

One week before that article I was reading that Quebec was setting snowfall records. No mention of global warming.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/26/2008 12:10:22 PM , Rating: 3
From your link:
quote:
In much of Florida and southern Texas and Louisiana, the satellites show spring coming a tad later, and bizarrely, in a complicated way, global warming can explain that too

This is the new "science" of global warming. Spring comes early? Blame Global Warming. Spring comes late? Blame Global Warming. Hot summer? Blame Global Warming. Cold winter? Blame Global Warming.

The theory has become unfalsifiable. Anything and everything that happens is considered proof. And thus it's no longer science, but simply faith.


By Sandok on 3/27/2008 7:58:50 AM , Rating: 2
Are people still not understanding what Global Warming is? It means more EXTREME weather. So your record snowfall is a sign of that, as is the fact that the warmest / coldest weather extremes records have all been reset in the past 5-10 years.

Global Warming is happening, the cause is still being discussed however.


By P4blo on 3/27/2008 10:28:24 AM , Rating: 2
In addition you don't want to forget global dimming. It is a fact that it's distorting apparent temperatures and lowering them by as much as 2 degrees. After 9/11 when all the planes were grounded the skies cleared of aviation soot and US temperatures + sunlight levels shot up by an astounding amount in the space of 24 hours.

In various hot sunny parts of the world (such as the Middle East or parts of Australia) they do regular evaporation rate tests because they need to know how much water it will take to irrigate their crops. So we have records going back many years on the rates for these regions. They've apparently gone down by as much as 40% due to pollution causing global dimming.

So before you get on your high horse (like a lot of people seem to be right now). We really dont have the full picture and we'd all be pretty damn stupid to assume the climate was cool and funky just because you're having an icy winter Holmes.


By mxnerd on 3/27/2008 1:00:31 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with global warming is that some area becomes hotter and hotter, some area becomes colder & colder. The air & water circulation system has been different or damaged.

North pole & south pole are getting warmer and icebergs are breaking apart and icy water flows into the sea.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197...

And here in Sothern California, we probably won't have water to drink in just under 15 years, since there is little rain & little snowfall for several years.

Just becuase your area is getting colder does not mean the whole world is getting colder. The world as a whole is hotter than before. Period.

Who cares our next generation and who care the problems we left for them, huh?

Keeps calling global warming a crap as you like.


grown men are immune??
By kattanna on 3/25/2008 4:48:47 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
indoor inhalation of smoke is suspected to cause the deaths of as many as 400,000 women and children


but all the adult men are somehow spared?

now i understand talking about men dying doesnt make that good heart wrenching story point like women and children, but come on. if your gonna present facts.. then present all the facts.

also the area shown in the pic probably holds a good 2+ BILLION people whose source of heat for heating and cooking is wood/peat fires. Now while 20,000 new "smoke free" stoves is nice, its not really doing anything but to help a few people in the western world feel good about themselves that they did something. seriously.




RE: grown men are immune??
By elessar1 on 3/25/2008 6:58:27 PM , Rating: 2
could it be that in these cultures women and children stay at home while the man goes out and work???

And when " the source of heat for heating and cooking is wood/peat fires" for those women and children, who stay home, aint that a major source for "black carbon" inhalation???

seriously...think again...


RE: grown men are immune??
By kattanna on 3/26/2008 12:54:08 PM , Rating: 2
please do some research into how family units function in tribal situations.


RE: grown men are immune??
By phxfreddy on 3/31/2008 9:07:28 PM , Rating: 2
ooga booga oooga googa


By Andy35W on 3/27/2008 7:49:50 PM , Rating: 2
By nstott on 3/27/2008 9:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
And here's some better insight into what's really happening:

masher2 said:
quote:
Research showing Antarctic to be cooling:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JD009094...

Active Volcano found underneath Antartic Peninsula (the only part of the continent currently warming):

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=1003...


By nstott on 3/27/2008 10:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
And this:

masher2 wrote:
quote:
Stuff and nonsense. The Realclimate bozos began pushing that party line after the real-world data contradicted their models. Let's go back and look at the REAL historical record, shall we? Back before the alarmists began trying to patch up their computer models to align them with reality.

From a new report in 2002: Every climate model predicts that if global warming is indeed underway, the greatest warming will occur at the poles. For this reason, many scientists are closely watching these two regions for signs of ecological change. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/01...

As for your RC revisionists nonsense, researcher Roger Pielke points out the problems with it. The justification is that somehow "cooler waters" are keeping Antarctica from warming. But that conflicts with observational data:

quote:

Today CSIRO in Australia reports that southern oceans have in fact been warming...

I have no doubt that these observations of warming will also be found, somehow, to be consistent with predictions of climate models. And that is the problem; climate scientists, especially those involved in political advocacy for action on climate change, steadfastly refuse to describe what observations [would] be inconsistent with model predictions . So all observations are consistent with predictions of climate models.

The reason for this situation of total ambiguity is a perceived need to maintain the public credibility of climate model predictions... So what do we get? Nonsensical and useless pronouncements such as a cooling southern ocean and a warming southern ocean are both consistent with climate model predictions , thus we can trust the models.


Education
By FS on 3/25/2008 3:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
Both these countries need to educate* there masses that the couples getting together are producing a lot of heat leading to global warming and on top of that; overpopulation.

*read, I am not talking about forcing as is the case in China.




RE: Education
By Ringold on 3/25/2008 11:24:58 PM , Rating: 3
China's population is actually about to become rather grey; the lack of children is going to be a problem. Probably not as a bad as the demographic catastrophe some other nations will experience -- namely, Japan.

"Overpopulation" applies primarily to Africa. Political ideology hasn't kept up with fact (no surprise), but the rest of the world in general terms is facing demographic problems over the course of this century as intergenerational wealth transfer schemes (the foundation of welfare programs for the retired in socialist states) completely collapses.


Self Serve anyone?
By JayDeeJohn on 3/28/2008 5:07:57 AM , Rating: 2
" quote:
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.
" If this isnt the most self serving, mind numbing, insolent claptrap Ive ever read... Lets start with REAL working climate SCIENTISTS I guess I wont even have to have my own opinion after that claim. Sheeesh. And as was stated earlier, that this "RealClimate group is headed NOT by those working climate scientists, no, but by a mathematician Hmmmm. Responding quickly... to Journalists? Normal folks who want to believe what theyre pumping out, not allowed or even having to think for themselves? Its been my experience that anytime you aim something at the media, its for political reasons oooops, well they cover that too. We, the high and mighty serving for the betterment of mankind arent interested in politics, no NO. The very contradictions of their mission statement allows for only one thing, either swallow the whole pill, or, as others have tried and become vilified, think for yourself at your own peril What a joke




By phxfreddy on 3/30/2008 8:03:38 PM , Rating: 2
....but mmgw is not happening except in the lefts dreams of tax sugarplums dancing in their heads!




"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles
















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki