Global Warming..Science and Politics

[xelasnave]

Ving lets see what they say next cold snap ... mmm how will we heat a planet covered in ice .. now we need nuclear, not only to heat but all those green houses needed to grow our food .. You gotta come down on the Nuclear power side if they pushed that one .
The good news is we have global warming fixed the bad news is .. the ice it will be everywhere.
alex

[okiscopey (Mike)]

Originally Posted by Argonavis

The latest GW inanity is:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-30417,00.html
It seems that the great barrier reef will be extinct in 20 years.
How does this pass even modest research? The reef has existed for 18 million years (the northern part - 2 million years for the southern) and gone through numerous climate cycles - there has been at least 5 ice ages and interglacials in the last 400k years and the reef is still there but the GW hysteria is going to make it disappear in 20 years!
lots of politics, not much science
I quite like this summary:
http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html
it is a bit of a read, but worth it as an excellent summary of climate science.

Well said Argonavis!

Whilst I don’t agree with your views on the relative expense of nuclear energy compared with coal (although a combination of coal, gas, hydro and renewables may be more appropriate for this country for the forseeable future), I’m tickled pink by your response to ‘The Australian’ article.

If we were to believe the newspapers of a few years ago (and the researchers keen to add more spice to their grant applications), the crown of thorns starfish should have done the demolition job on the Great Barrier Reef already.

I’ve been following what I believe to be sensible, science-based sources of information on ‘human-caused global warming (GW)’ for at least ten years and I’m convinced that there’s no definite proof that the minor rises in temperature some regions of the world have experienced in recent decades are caused by human action, or will result in catastrophic outcomes for ourselves and our children. I say 'some regions’ as not all the globe is affected. Readers may recall hair-raising shots of huge ice shelves setting sail from the Antarctica Peninsula on TV, all set to a predictably ominous music track. The Peninsula is only 4% of the Antarctic and is the only bit showing any evidence of warming. Satellite measurements show absolutely no temperature increase over the other 96% of Antarctica, which has an average temperature of -37 deg. C.

(Ref: http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarc...al_warming.htm

In fact it's also debatable whether the increase in CO2 is all man-made (and then produces warming), or whether it is the warming that comes first and produces more CO2 due to outgassing from the warmer oceans (which contain 39,000 gigatonnes of carbon compared with humans' 5.5 GT-C/yr ).

Historically we've seen it all before (the receeding glaciers in Europe are uncovering remains of villages), but this is the first time it’s been turned into a quasi-religion. When a population has an easy life as a product of human effort, science and technology, when their only source of information is the news media, when they’ve been through a fact-free school education system, when science is distorted by bad politics, there’s plenty of time and acres of fertile ground for illogical, non-productive speculation and agitation.

It’s wonderful to be among such knowledgeable folk here when it comes to astronomy. Many of you are experts in other areas, but most of us fall apart when it comes to disputed subjects outside our specialties. Let’s see now, we have intelligent design, sea level rise, feng shui, nuclear power, water divination, miraculous cures, UFO’s, diet regimes, the ozone hole, astrology and many others to choose from. Some effort may be required in some of these to reach an informed opinion, some end up just being a matter of faith. The links on GW posted recently should at least give food for thought for anyone with an enquiring mind and who appreciates the scientific method (that covers everyone at IIS of course!).

I’ve only skimmed through Kerry Emanuel‘s ‘Phaeton’s Reins, the human hand in climate change’ http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html At first sight it looks like a balanced view of the subject, but I (we all?) need to look at it more carefully.

As previously posted for those who missed it ...

GW Petition explanation (and link to a most important 2001 review paper on the scientific data): http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

[glenc (Glen)]

Ice cores unlock climate secrets
BBC 9 June, 2004

Global climate patterns stretching back 740,000 years have been confirmed by a three-kilometre-long ice core drilled from the Antarctic, Nature reports.
Analysis of the ice proves our planet has had eight ice ages during that period, punctuated by rather brief warm spells - one of which we enjoy today.
If past patterns are followed in the future, we can expect our "mild snap" to last another 15,000 years.
The data may also help predict how greenhouse gases will affect climate.
Initial tests on gas trapped in the ice core show that current carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are higher than they have been in 440,000 years.
…………
"There is great controversy as to whether human beings have changed the climate," said Professor McManus. "But there is no doubt about the fact that human beings have changed the Earth's atmosphere. The increased levels of greenhouse gases are geologically incredible."
He added: "It is something of grave concern to someone like me, who sees the strong connection between greenhouse gases and climate in the past."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3792209.stm

[glenc (Glen)]

It was suggested recently that if everyone on the planet started gorging themselves on fatty foods, the amount of carbon sequestered could reverse global warming as long as no one did a stitch of exercise other than to produce more butterball humans. An article by Mike Archer dean of science at the University of NSW. http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/n...919402348.html

[xelasnave]

It seems from the little I have read that there is a certain arrogance on the part of humans that comes from a belief the place was made for us. Unfortunately our “spiritual” book leaves those words “and man shall have dominion over the world and the animals” ringing in my ears and I suspect that even the non believers accept that part of the book. We have been here for a relatively short time..the spider for example has done it his way for over 20 million years just to name one creature that has more experience on the planet than humans. What is it about humans when confronted with rising sea levels they seek to build walls to hold out the sea rather than simply move to higher ground. One can only assume the words above give them the confidence and belief that they can manage this feat. There is an industry I call “the sky is falling corporation” that comes up with newer threats to our being but I suspect the only folk they really seek to help is themselves..to the profits of scare campaigns. That is the real problem with GW it is difficult to work out fact and fiction because so many vested interests support the data gathered when it suits their drive. The posts in this thread have been excellent and the wisdom of those contributing is a joy to behold.
alex

[glenc (Glen)]

This is a conservative report. It could turn out to be worse than this. The US government is trying to play down GW.

“Global climate change is "very likely” to have a human cause, an influential group of scientists has concluded.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said temperatures were probably going to increase by 1.8-4C (3.2-7.2F) by the end of the century.
It also projected that sea levels were most likely to rise by 28-43cm, and global warming was likely to influence the intensity of tropical storms.……………
Now, the panel concluded that it was at least 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet's surface……………
On sea level, there has been a more fundamental debate.
Computer models of climate do not generally include water coming into the oceans as ice caps melt. So the IPCC had to decide whether to exclude this from its calculations, or to estimate the effect of a process which scientists do not understand well but which could have a big impact.
They used the former, more conservative approach, projecting an average rise in sea levels globally of between 28 and 43cm. The 2001 report cited a range of nine to 88cm. “
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm

[xelasnave]

Thanks for that Glen ... Given the accuracy required in other areas the words "very likely" worry me as does the use of the words ""an influential group of scientists" I suppose that means we are to accept their conclusions without question . My point is simply the reporter sounds as though he is adding emotion to drive the point home... can’t blame him for that most of us will inadvertently display our leaning in the choice of words used... I like to know the odds in gambling but if there is room for doubt why seize on "90% certain" I wonder? Does this let in the concept of varying degree of difficulty I wonder?
But let’s take their estimates as probable and their 90% blame rate as in the ball park, and that water levels will rise do they have a study showing the effort required to change the current human input? And to stop any further increase in omissions and as one would reasonably presume we will need a level that existed before the humans caused the problem... Or putting it another way, on the assumption that the favorite wins and humans are responsible what is the percentage of their responsibility ? If humans stopped all contributes to greenhouse a little later today will the planet recover? How far will the reduction have to go before any successful result can be achieved? In my opinion,( which is for the large part uninformed and enjoying an opinion says nothing as to its correctness, particularly in my case.), I doubt anything can stop it if the facts show it is happening . Certainly if the problem is due to natural causes how can we stop that? But what chances do we have if of a human input. What chances do we have when it takes years to get the simples of matters resolved even at the United Nations level? From the little I have read even if every recommendation to reduce green house by everyone one the planet were to be implemented the problem will not go away . But the reality will be few will do anything so we must prepared to live in the environment they say is coming and abandon the belief that humans can manage and control the weather let alone their actions that may have impact upon it . Practical solutions like greater water storage for our drought plagued country, setting aside of land for agriculture that projections show has a chance of better rainfall in the new future, only electric cars allowed in city traffic, efficient bulk transport, discontinuing irrigation of land without which would be desert.. the list wow! what a list! But as simple as these simple solutions they will be stepped over to benefit vested interests not the overall interests of our country, I suspect (my opinion only) all that will come out of all the studies is a simple rollover to nuclear power (as seems to be happening from my following of the news provided for the general public)) ..Soon it will be we need nuclear power to run the desalination plants as they are energy intensive . The suggested placement leaves one with the expectation such news will follow soon ... The Plover Cove reservoir near Hong Kong shows how to manage the water that we simply let run into the sea in the land of drouhts... and yet someone says turning sea water into fresh is a good idea . Sounds like “double handling . Hong Kong and its water management should be looked at as their solution shows at least in respect of water management we could be doing it much better.” And even control the sea water levels in respect of our cities…
We will have a Federal election in August this year so it will be interesting times till then, still its good to have something everyone can feel they can vote upon ..so I wonder how the issues will be presented finally er by August I look forward to the adds
Alex

[glenc (Glen)]

Alex, I think nuclear power is better than coal but I hope we don't have to use it. We are trying to get grid solar power at our place but the company developing it needs more support from the government. We have a solar HWS, use tank water and drive a small diesel car. We are looking at other ways to reduce our CO2 output. I think everyone can do something.

We are trying to get a Grid Connect Solar Power System from:
http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/

[xelasnave]

That is terrific Glen . Save your cooking oil in a 44 gal drum for when you need a diesel supply . I also think Nuclear power will be a reasonable answer to power problems in so far as everyone wants more power, and some even need more power. With GW we certainly will need more air conditioning power allocation..thems the facts even now no one will turn them off even if a warning that power will shut down because there are too many air conditioners on.. It probably seems I am dead against nuclear power when in truth that is not entirely the case . After all how many nuclear power stations in the world now.. hundreds? What gets me is the way we are dealt with and presented with fear of the future and there is only one answer. Let’s have a fair trial and then hang them is the approach that gets to me. Why suggest we have input when all they are doing is political dances that avoid the pressing issues that should be addressed irrespective of what the weather is doing. I am not a communist but I think sometimes the market system fails us by letting us think we are given a choice and yet we are being manipulated to a position already pre determined.
We will be sold power plants and desalinates that’s where it all points and when they are here we will think it was us who figured it out.
Its like the war Mr. B finally came clean and said we need more troops to see a favorable Government that will not threaten our oil… that’s reasonable but to cloak the move as we are seeking weapons of mass destruction which we have now forgotten just seems a dishonest way to go about things.
I wonder what the tracking is like on those panels, you may be able to mount a scope on it and do some photos of the night sky... Ask them what is the periodic error of their tracking systems see how they respond to that one
alex

[mickoking]

Originally Posted by glenc

Alex, I think nuclear power is better than coal but I hope we don't have to use it.

Another disadvantage of nuclear-fission power is that is only a finite resource. If we go down that path its only a matter of time before we have to look at renewable energy anyway. Also countries like France, China,The US and Germany are working very hard at harnessing nuclear-fusion power. Australia could be left many decades behind, purchasing technology of China if we look at nuclear-fission for our energy answers. Governments are notoriously short term/ short sighted creatures.

We are trying to get grid solar power at our place but the company developing it needs more support from the government. We have a solar HWS, use tank water and drive a small diesel car. We are looking at other ways to reduce our CO2 output. I think everyone can do something.

I think every one can do something too, don't leave it to pollies or we will be very disappointed

[glenc (Glen)]

John Howard says solar and wind can't supply the base load, and we need nuclear power, but the current power stations can supply the base load easily at night if we replace electric hot water with solar hot water.

[xelasnave]

Half the problem Glen it is convenient that when faced with energy problems there is no introduction of practical and inexpensive methods of storing energy.. hot water from the Sun is still hot at night and large reservoirs can store heat for many days where the Sun does not shine. The irony is if we get nuclear power their problem will be how to get rid of the heat build up ...that’s why we are being conditioned to have them near the sea whereas the conditioning has only to do with the sale of desalination plants . Could one be a fool and suggest that once heating the water we could save that heat .. I await them to say ..we cant its too dangerous … but of course it can be used.. One must ask why the previous premier made it his business in the last days to look into desalination and traveled across the seas to look at the matter deeper. Gee if I was serious about taking power from the current Government, presumably the object of the game for the opposition I would be digging into what is really going on..
As to electricity storage that is not impossible when one realizes that a "car battery" is not a battery but an "accumulator" it gets only the power placed in it by a charge.. an accumulator is very simple and I doubt if it would take much to build some big enough to fill in the gaps of power supply.
But it’s not necessarily about reason and doing the right thing it is about "sales" and we are being sold nuclear power and desalinators and investigation of alternatives will be suppressed.
In the late 1800s one Australian dollar was worth 5 USA dollars, one could be cynical and ask are we buying too much stuff “we need to have”. I am one for spending money and spreading it around the community but the biggest problem with nuclear power and desalination is it drains more cash overseas, little will be spread around the Australian community. Rather it means we borrow more cash to send over seas.. , We are the rich country that’s why we are a perfect target for ideas that won’t get off the ground in other places…
Alex

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by okiscopey

I’m convinced that there’s no definite proof that the minor rises in temperature some regions of the world have experienced in recent decades are caused by human action, or will result in catastrophic outcomes for ourselves and our children. I say 'some regions’ as not all the globe is affected. Readers may recall hair-raising shots of huge ice shelves setting sail from the Antarctica Peninsula on TV, all set to a predictably ominous music track. The Peninsula is only 4% of the Antarctic and is the only bit showing any evidence of warming. Satellite measurements show absolutely no temperature increase over the other 96% of Antarctica, which has an average temperature of -37 deg. C.

The Antartica data was always the GW archilles heal. Recently someone claimed to have recorded increases in temperatures on the continent. If this is true, it does give substantial if not irrefutable support to GW.

Irrespective of this, the hysteria is still well ahead of the science.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...cd20bed2f6&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...1a1380121a&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...2b95c45dcf&k=0

[glenc (Glen)]

Edward Wegmen was working for the energy and commerce committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, you would expect him to say that. Also the data he used was old. The fossil fuel industry is doing its best to discredit climate change and they have plenty of money and the US president on side.

[mickoking]

Why are we talking nuclear anyway. We have enormous reserves of natural gas in this country, the least offensive of the fossil fuels. Gas can be used as an energy source until renewable energy is well and truly established. But the Uranium lobbyists and Johnny H stand in the way of common sense.
It would also appear that we are flogging most of our gas to China. When the WA premier decided to put some of our gas in reserve for national use there was an outcry from the big end of town and their political allies. Sadly climate change and commonsense are at the mercy of political ideology and business interests.

[xelasnave]

It is my belief that you are on the money Mick, what I would like to know is who now owns the bulk of the Uranium reserves I heard we lost control but its not something I follow closely, but it would be interesting to see who stands to benefit from power stations. I was thinking today about the words Mr Howard used "not real" and cant help but think that was specially chosen by a minder to appeal to a certain demographic its not a word Mr Howard would come into contact with so I see even a conspiracy in the words selected to "guide" us.
But what can we do it is clear the wheels are in motion and anyone standing in the way öf progress"will be marginalised as ""not real".
There will be an election in August and I hope this matter is one of the issues M aybe the opposition can offer an alternative now that Mr B has been set aside, I never knew what he stood for if anything at all, hopefully we see something from Mr Rudd but I suppose they are all really the same when in power.
alex
alex

[xelasnave]

AND where do they stand on light polution ?? We could save the planet if the lights got turned off it the cities can we not get some mileage out of GW for our own personal interests ... I would love to jump up at a press conferrence and slip in a question like that maybe I will
alex

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

AND where do they stand on light polution ?? We could save the planet if the lights got turned off it the cities can we not get some mileage out of GW for our own personal interests ... I would love to jump up at a press conferrence and slip in a question like that maybe I will
alex

maybe we should start pushing very hard for the removal of all streeet lights and other outdoor illumination

I like it

think of the carbon that would be saved

[okiscopey (Mike)]

Originally Posted by Argonavis

The Antartica data was always the GW archilles heal. Recently someone claimed to have recorded increases in temperatures on the continent. If this is true, it does give substantial if not irrefutable support to GW. Irrespective of this, the hysteria is still well ahead of the science.

Many thanks for that link Argonavis, it contains a lot more detail than most of the sources I've been following over the past few years.

Now, apologies for the capitals: EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD SHOULD READ ALL TEN PARTS OF THIS ARTICLE AND CONSIDER THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ... or should I say, relative lack of evidence for catastrophic GW.

I think I can be forgiven for posting a juicy extract from Part 3 "The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science" as an appetiser:

"Christopher Landsea received his doctoral degree in atmospheric science from Colorado State University. A research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanic and Meteorological Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he was chair of the American Meteorological Society's committee on tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones and a recipient of the American Meteorological Society's Banner I. Miller Award for the "best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting."

" the IPCC called (him) to be an author in the "Fourth Assessment Report." This report would specifically focus on Atlantic hurricanes, his specialty, and be published by the IPCC in 2007."

"Then something went horribly wrong. Within days of this last invitation, in October, 2004, (Landsea) discovered that the IPCC's Kevin Trenberth -- the very person who had invited him -- was participating in a press conference. The title of the press conference perplexed (Landsea): "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity." This was some kind of mistake, (Lansea was) certain. He had not done any work that substantiated this claim. Nobody had.

As perplexing, none of the participants in that press conference were known for their hurricane expertise. In fact, to (Landsea's) knowledge, none had performed any research at all on hurricane variability, the subject of the press conference. Neither were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability, (he) knew, showed no reliable upward trend in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes. Not in the Atlantic basin. Not in any other basin."

"To add to the utter incomprehensibility of the press conference, the IPCC itself, in both 1995 and 2001, had found no global warming signal in the hurricane record. And until (Landsea's) new work would come out, in 2007, the IPCC would not have a new analysis on which to base a change of findings."

My changes to make the text more sensible in this context are in ( ).

The URL (already posted) is:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=
22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

[xelasnave]

It is relatively easy to expose the myths if you take the time to question things rather than accept wild statements .
Unfortunately it is an emotive issue and those who are taken in by the hype who believe GW is caused by humans are probably sincere, taking responsibility is another thing they will wring their hands and probably take shorter showers in an effort to help.and I am guilty of same. I waste a lot of energy here but at home on 12 volt and solar you must conserve, .. My personal opinion is we will see a link between GW, nuclear power and desalination. I posted details of Hong Kongs Plover Cove project a solution if adopted here would go a long way to minimise our water problems thereby taking away part of the thrust that will be made when nuclear power stations move a little further forward. The need for desalination plants will be pushed hard when nuclear power is put to bed. It was a stupid idea when it first popped into my mind last week (in post re underwater dam) but to find out such an approach is alive and well and working well for Hong Kong makes me wonder why it has never been floated here. Many Australian engineers have been there know about it (look at the speaker lists associated with the Hong Kong water works) . It would have started when our colonial masters still had time to run on their lease so funny it has never seen the light of day here. I wonder how many suitable bays on the East coast. I even suspect the recycled water proposals may have been raised to get the public off side with that idea (conspiracy but it helps to practice looking for them ) after all when put to a vote it was canned someplace up North..
Maybe an arbitary move was made to do something to generate an even more negative reaction from the voting public . I dont know it is confusing me there are so many interests, so many players.
BUT there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the case for GW being caused by humans and humans can fix it is pumped up by many falsehoods and careless reference to "scientific facts".
I dont know if we could get all lights removed but when in the city at night one must wonder what benefits accrue by leaving all the lights on when workers have left the building. Not all lights could be removed etc but certainly less energy could be used without discomfort. I think that a "turn off your lights and save the planet"" T shirts could swing opinion in the current climate ... now I will count the puns .
Still it is a wonderful world full of wonderful people thank goodness most of them are here .
alex