Climate Science Predictions Too Conservative

[Bravus]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative

[olger]

http://www.cfact.org/pdf/ClimateDepot-ExtremeWeatherReport2012.pdf

[Tom Wetmore]

I'll go with Scientific American as a reliable source over the discredited CFACT...

No contest, actually.

Ger, it's just propaganda. The acronym is a complete misnomer.

[CoAspen]

There is a saying, Never give up, never say die even if it is a lie!

[Bravus]

If I had the time (i.e. didn't have two papers, a chapter and a book on the go) I'd take just one of the claims made and demonstrate its falsity.

[cardw]

Here is a link to a blog article whose author has researched the ratio of climate denying within peer reviewed scientific articles.

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility

The chart below indicates a ratio of 0.0017. That's pretty slim.

This debate is no longer a scientific debate. It's an ideological one. And typically fundamentalist Christianity is on the wrong side.

[CoAspen]

Yes, I don't understand why they are the some of the biggest deniers.

Quote:

And typically fundamentalist Christianity is on the wrong side.

[JoeMo]

I'm not a denier of global warming; but I am a denier that the principal cause is man; and a denier that reducing the carbon footprint of the United States will make a significant difference in global temperatures when China and India produce more greenhouse gas than the U.S; or that replacing fossil fueled generation with non-dispatchable and uncontrollable solar and wind generation at a cost of trillions of dollars is good for the economy of the United States. Get a grip, people!

[olger]

Joe be soundin' real GOOD !!

[olger]

http://www.livestream.com/zondervanacademic/video?clipId=pla_365be52b-10cc-432b-9bce-99bad08bf8c5

Calvin starts his plenary session at around 54.00 mark. This presentation was given at the ETS meeting in Chicago two weeks ago. A very interesting session ensues.

[cardw]

I'm not a denier of global warming; but I am a denier that the principal cause is man; and a denier that reducing the carbon footprint of the United States will make a significant difference in global temperatures when China and India produce more greenhouse gas than the U.S; or that replacing fossil fueled generation with non-dispatchable and uncontrollable solar and wind generation at a cost of trillions of dollars is good for the economy of the United States. Get a grip, people!

Well, the truth is we are in a significant swing in climate that is very likely being accelerated by man.

The conversation at this point is we are too late to stop the effects of global warming and we need to both minimize its effects and prepare our cities for the eventual consequences. Insurance companies believe the scientists and are adjusting their products appropriately.

I drive an electric car and the payment costs me less than what I was paying for gas. I pay 8$ in electricity to drive 600 miles each month. I have no oil changes, air filter changes, smog checks, transmission issues, etc. The only costs I have are tires and brakes. The cost of the battery will be a tenth of the cost it is now when the warranty is over. The cost of the battery is already half what I payed.

There are working prototypes of batteries that have 10 times the energy density that my battery has. If I had one of those batteries my travel distance between charges would be between 700-1000 miles. The technological barrier right now is how to mass produce this technology. Once that happens batteries will be lighter and provide longer distances for less cost. We saw this happen in the computer industry and it will do the same in the auto industry. Tesla is selling every electric Sedan it can produce and this will pave the way for the eventual mass production of an affordable electric car with at least 240 miles range.

When I finally put solar panels up on my house I won't have any cost. The problem with petroleum is that it takes more electricity to refine 1 gallon of gas than to use the electrical power directly. It also uses 4 gallons of water. That doesn't include the fuel used to transport it and take it out of the ground. I also don't have the ability to produce my own fuel. Electricity gives me the choice.

We subsidize oil companies to the tune of 10 billion a year. That is far more than we give alternative energy. We wouldn't have to spend any more to simply shift that subsidy to the production of clean energy. Clean energy helps all of us because it reduces health costs directly related to pollution and provides us all a better quality of air.

This resistance to clean energy is an ideological one, not a scientific one. It makes no sense to place money and the economy over the health of people. When you loose your health you can't make money.

The truth is that clean energy is both less expensive in the long run and better for people. I will eventually run my whole house on clean energy and I will convert to some type of plug in car for all our cars. Some of those will be plug in hybrids in the interterm until battery density is higher. I do this because it will cost me less in the long run.

I think we are going to see a personal energy revolution once people figure this out. If you want to keep paying big oil be my guest, but for those of us who want to be free of that, stop getting in our way.

[olger]

Well, the truth is we are in a significant swing in climate that is very likely being accelerated by man.

Originally Posted By: olGer

You have a twofold premise here.

1) Universal warming is occurring.

2) The planet is frangible.

The conversation at this point is we are too late to stop the effects of global warming and we need to both minimize its effects and prepare our cities for the eventual consequences.

Originally Posted By: olGer

This suggestion rests on your first premise, and is buttressed by your second premise. You haven't yet addressed the possibility that your premises may be flawed, or you believe that they are incontrovertible.

The truth is that clean energy is both less expensive in the long run and better for people. I will eventually run my whole house on clean energy and I will convert to some type of plug in car for all our cars. Some of those will be plug in hybrids in the interterm until battery density is higher. I do this because it will cost me less in the long run.

Originally Posted By: olGer

Cheap is good. Having choices is good too. I like my (4) Powerstokes as much as you like your DeWalt car.

I think we are going to see a personal energy revolution once people figure this out.

Originally Posted By: olGer

Maybe so. If capitalism is allowed to innovate as it should - there will be breakthroughs. Battery life is a huge technological roadblock right now. A cell phone charge should last thirty days, and someday it will.

If you want to keep paying big oil be my guest, but for those of us who want to be free of that, stop getting in our way.

Originally Posted By: olger

If you bought an electric car with money you earned, who is getting in your way?

[Tom Wetmore]

Ger, read the article and comment about it. Not even negligible scientific support for your point of view.

Here is a link to a blog article whose author has researched the ratio of climate denying within peer reviewed scientific articles.

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility

The chart below indicates a ratio of 0.0017. That's pretty slim.

This debate is no longer a scientific debate. It's an ideological one. And typically fundamentalist Christianity is on the wrong side.

[JoeMo]

cardw,

What fuel is burned to make the electricity that powers your electric car? Probably coal or gas - both carbon-belching fossil fuels. You may say that eventually renewables will replace fossil fuels. Not anytime soon. Solar and wind power is not controllable or dispatchable. It's only on when the sun is shining or wind is blowing. What backs up power generation when the sun ain't shining and the wind ain't blowing? Carbon-belching coal- and gas-fired generation - that;s what! Energy storage at bulk utility scale (over 25 MwH) won't be widely available for years - more likely decades.

What will we do about termite f-arts? The accumulated GHG emissions by termites is about equal to the entire GHG production of humanity. Google it of you don't believe me.

Who's gonna pay for all this carbon reduction? You and me! You surely don't think energy companies and government subsidies are gonna just absorb trillions of dollars of cost out tof the goodness of their hearts, do you?

So let's go nuclear! No carbon there! Great idea. It takes 15 - 20 years to get permits for design, construct, and start up a nuclear plant - if things go smoothly.

Let's say we could take the U.S. carbon footprint to zero by midnight tonight. Within 5 years, the incremental carbon footprint of China and India combined will exceed the current total carbon footprint of the U.S. and Canada combined. Even if that wasn't the case, the U.S. and Canada are only responsible for about 30 ppm of the 775 ppm of CO2 currently in the atmosphere.

What do we do about water vapor in the atmosphere? Water vapor makes up 98% of all of the GHG is the atmosphere.

How do I know this? I have been working in the energy industry for the past 40 years; as an Enterprise Risk Manager for the past 10 years. I'm well aware of the geopolitics involved with global energy policy. Trust me - gas and coal are not going away any time soon.

You don't believe I know what I'm talking about? look up the data on www.eia.gov; or Google Robert Bryce. You'll see that I'm not in a delusional fantasy here. Just cuz a vast majority of people believe in man-made climate change don't make it so any more than a vast majority of people believing in some form of deity makes it so.

Unless people are willing to freeze or fry in the dark, carbon-based fossil fuels will be with us for the next 30 - 50 years.

[olger]

I like Nuclear.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Well, the truth is we are in a significant swing in climate that is very likely being accelerated by man.

You have a twofold premise here.

1) Universal warming is occurring.

2) The planet is frangible.

Originally Posted By: cardw

The conversation at this point is we are too late to stop the effects of global warming and we need to both minimize its effects and prepare our cities for the eventual consequences.

This suggestion rests on your first premise, and is buttressed by your second premise. You haven't yet addressed the possibility that your premises may be flawed, or you believe that they are incontrovertible.

[cardw]

cardw,

What fuel is burned to make the electricity that powers your electric car? Probably coal or gas - both carbon-belching fossil fuels.

[cardw]

"Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy. There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

Desmogblog (http://s.tt/1mn3r)"

This quote describes the effect of climate denial. We may disagree about how to solve the problem, but to deny and outright deceive on issues that affect all people is being a traitor to humanity.

[olger]

I see you are quite religious after all.

When individuals discover that the Global Warming hoax is just that--a hoax, they demonstrate one of two options.

The honest ones are relieved. The political ideologues are offended and shout "It's real" all the louder.

rejoice always,

G

[JoeMo]

Quote:

It's too late to stop the effects of global warming. It's a population issue and the massive increase in energy generation. The issue now is how to prepare for it and minimize it.

I agree 100% with this statement cardw. Preparing for and/or adapting to climate change on a parallel path with developing alternative/renewable energy resources if much more feasible and economically/socially sound than "legislating" clean air. Resilient and flexible policy is the better answer to addressing the issue. Global climate change is a "global" problem; and one country legislating trillions of dollars of cost on its own citizens will not solve the problem.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

When individuals discover that the Global Warming hoax is just that--a hoax......

Did you hear the story about the guy who claimed it was going to rain for several decades and no one had even heard of rain!!!

You do realize we still have a 'flat earth society' that one can join up with !!

[Planey]

You do realize we still have a 'flat earth society' that one can join up with !!

But even the Flat Earth Society place limits on who they will accept...

Graeme

[JoeMo]

We're making progress...

"As the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative undergoes a comprehensive program review by member states, a new report suggests that regional emissions are expected to fall 45% below the cap-and-trade compact’s cap for the year.

According to the report, “RGGI’s Past and Future: Emissions Trends and Potential Reforms,” released by Environment Northeast on Dec. 10, RGGI emissions are projected to fall to 91 million tons, the lowest level ever, and 45% below the current RGGI cap, even as electricity prices have dropped 10% since the program began in 2009."

[JoeMo]

Two seperate viewpoints:

1. Global warming proponents are wrong: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323981504578179291222227104.html

2. Global warming proponents are correct: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/12...es-10f-warming/

[phkrause]

Two seperate viewpoints:

1. Global warming proponents are wrong: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323981504578179291222227104.html

2. Global warming proponents are correct: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/12...es-10f-warming/

Sadly enough this is the way it will always be, but having said that, there is always two sides to every story.