Man Based Global Warming....

Yes, I'm an optimist. Once fossil-based fuel is seen as the economic detriment that it is, we'll be well on our way. Nothing will stop the stampede to renewables. Oh and earlier, I forgot geo-thermal. Great for base-load power.

 

Well...that's your problem isn't it.

 

Yes - apparently - you who believeth shall be saved!

Oh - and don't forget to buy your TerraPass indulgence.

 

The crux of the problem is really summed up quite nicely here, by Henk Tennikes, former director of research at the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute:

Of climate models, Tennikes notes:

"Meteorologists tend to forget that just a few meters of [ocean] water contain as much heat as the entire atmosphere. Also, the oceans are the main source of the water vapor that makes atmospheric dynamics on our planet both interesting and exceedingly complicated. For these and other reasons, an explicit representation of the oceans should be the core of any self-respecting climate model. "...

..."Since heat storage and heat transport in the oceans are crucial to the dynamics of the climate system, yet cannot be properly observed or modeled, one has to admit that claims about the predictive performance of climate models are built on quicksand."


I would like somebody on this forum who believes the AGW models to demonstrate to me why Tennekes' proposition is false and why we should believe climate model projections.

 

Political groups and various industries take advantage of large scale movements, AGW being the most notable presently. During the Carter administration, the PURPA regulations to encourage sustainable energy were used by a great many to launder money in "energy" tax shelters. A real perversion of the original and sensible intent of the legislation. I shudder at what perversions will take place under a "Cap and Trade" Carbon economic system.

I have pointed out in previous AGW posts, that a number of corporations (e.g. Planktos, Climos) are waiting in the wings to earn carbon credits by performing "Carbon Sequestration in the Open Ocean using Iron Fertilization". Basically it works out that they see an opportunity to be paid to dump rusty scrap metal in the open ocean. If the AGW worries are so "urgent" that drastic actions like this are necessary, it's to their benefit to stress the imminent threat of AGW. A lot of supporters of doing something about AGW is understandable, but this may be what results from being too gung ho. This kind of thing that warrants having intelligent skeptics around and making sure we are taking the right actions, based on the right reasons, using the right mechanisms.

 

Exactly right:

"The result is that factories in China that install equipment to destroy HFCs, which is standard in much of the West, generate millions of credits and windfall profits - as much as $6 billion of credits for making about $150 million in pollution-control investments."

Not exactly wise use of dollars.

 

There are literally billions and billions of dollars riding on the outcome of the AGW political quandry. The media constantly says that a certain analyst or speaker or whatever receives $50,000 form Exxon but it is never mentioned when a pro-AGW speaker has received all of his/her funding for AGW research over the last 15 years. Does Al Gore have to disclose his investments in carbon trading outfits?

 

I leave for a couple of hours and find you guys reinforcing each other's ideas with abandon. Any one care to post some data? Anyone?

 

Care to answer this?

The crux of the problem is really summed up quite nicely here, by Henk Tennikes, former director of research at the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute:

Of climate models, Tennikes notes:

"Meteorologists tend to forget that just a few meters of [ocean] water contain as much heat as the entire atmosphere. Also, the oceans are the main source of the water vapor that makes atmospheric dynamics on our planet both interesting and exceedingly complicated. For these and other reasons, an explicit representation of the oceans should be the core of any self-respecting climate model. "...

..."Since heat storage and heat transport in the oceans are crucial to the dynamics of the climate system, yet cannot be properly observed or modeled, one has to admit that claims about the predictive performance of climate models are built on quicksand."


I would like somebody on this forum who believes the AGW models to demonstrate to me why Tennekes' proposition is false and why we should believe climate model projections.

 

May I point out the HUGE difference here? There is zero scientific (or even logical!) evidence that "following god" will benefit me. There is overwhelming, uncontested scientific (and logical!) evidence that lowering my CO2 output (along with all that drags along with it) will benefit everybody (except for the fossil energy providers in the short term, natch).

While I don't contend that it is good to follow ANYTHING blindly, if you find yourself having to choose, you might as well follow something that has tangeable benefits.

Maybe the benefits I'm talking about have nothing to do GW. And I'm happy to stipulate that. And still there are benefits to reducing our CO2. Don't make me read that coffee cup again! Hell, just as simple as not buying/burning as much gasoline is an easy one right off the top.

 

Not data.

 

A little touchy? It isn't a coincidence that AGW is sold in the same way as religion. Ultimate destruction for non-belief is a powerful tool of coercion. They also both use the "If I'm wrong nothing happens, if you're wrong you're doomed forever" stick. AGW takes this up another couple notches. If AGW is real I'm not just doomed, the entire planet is doomed.

Some more parallels:

Clergy: We are going on a mission trip to Africa.
Me: Cool, what are you working on, food aid, medical clinics?
Clergy: No, we have a more important mission, we are going to save their souls.
Me: Don't you think they might want some food or medicine? Millions of people die every year for lack of food and medical treatment.
Clergy: That would only help them short term, we will save them for eternity.
Me: I think they would rather have some food and medicine

IPCC: The developed world really need to help Africa.
Me: Cool, are you working to end famine, treat AIDS, or malaria?
IPCC: No, we have a more important mission, we are going to stop global warming by reducing CO2 levels.
Me: Don't you think they might want some food and medicine? Millions of people die every year for lack of food and medical treatment.
IPCC: That would only help them short term, we will save them from the apocalypse of Global Climate Change.
Me: I think they would rather have some food and medicine.


As Malorn said, AGW has become like a religion for the non-religious.

• Cheat on your wife. No big deal, go to confession, say some hail Mary's, give the church some money and all is forgiven.
• Live in a 10,000 sq ft mansion and fly commercial aircraft as a hobby. No big deal, just buy some carbon offsets.

Isn't it nice to buy a clear conscience?

 

Be very careful Darelldd. You seem to be a moderate and wishy washy in your beliefs. HERETIC! They will be coming for you just as soon as they take care of us infidels.

Shawn Clark has been very clear. My policy positions don't matter. If I'm not supporting them for AGW then I'm an obstructionist and support the status quo. Reducing oil use because for nation security reasons isn't the right reason. We must do all in the name of CO2 and AGW. :hail:

Again very similar to religion. It doesn't matter how good or moral a life I live. If I don't say the right magic words to the right god I'm damned for eternity. If I do then :rapture:

 

Um - newsflash Alric - global climate models are not DATA. But you obviously trust and believe them anyway. Now why don't you address Tennikes' issues with the models you so believe in?

 

Models are just that; models. They have nothing to do with the empirical observations that CO2 is rising and that temperature is rising along like it is supposed to.

Models give us an idea of what is possible with our best understanding of how the actual system works. It is our best tool to put constraints on what is possible. You and the people you cite claim an argument of personal disbelief. However, if they wish to challenge a model they should create their own and show what different results they obtain.

If Tennikes has issues with models he should write them down and get them published. Just like the modelers he criticized went through the effort to do.

 

No, it is not. When you ignore the well-supported and post a chart that proves your theories incorrect I question your professional judgement. It's fine to be skeptical, but I prefer a bit more sensibility and logic behind the skepticism rather than your obvious religious fervor about denying it. With you it's like that Prius dash thread all over again. You go off half cocked not knowing what you are talking about insisting others have it all wrong (even though they have the vehicle, can see it, touch it, and correctly report the discrepancy--and despite official documentation showing your assumption is incorrect.)

First principles support AGW. Modeling supports AGW, trends support AGW. It's not religion unless you consider weighing data and fitting models religion.

It's not that you "aren't supporting AGW" it's how hard you are trying to refute it with bogus reasoning. The "either/or's" that you pose are not ones that are supportable. It's too bad that you don't have a history of watching AGW over a longer time period, and the CFC debate. I'm willing to bet you would have been just as opposed to the Montreal Protocol with similar fervor.

(And I'm not a Lefty. I'm still independent, just completely fed up with those billing themselves as conservatives. The Right went off the deep end in the late 90's unfortunately. My views haven't changed that much...I didn't partake of the Koolaid. Hope the GOP finds its way again, but it doesn't appear likely.)

Unfortunately, AGW isn't like the Prius dash where you can simply go to the dealer lot and determine whether you are right or wrong. You seem to have had a kneejerk reaction to An Inconvenient Truth, formed an opinion, and I doubt any data will change that opinion, because you can't go out and directly verify at the dealer lot.

Could AGW be wrong? Sure. It could be predicting too little, or too much. The question is one of degrees. If we are LUCKY it will be inconsequential or even helpful (such as if we truly are headed for massive cooling due to solar cycles or other phenomena.) What is not in dispute is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that we are adding to its concentration at an ever increasing rate, and there is no indication that it will be removed from the atmosphere by the earth in short order. Since it is something we are doing, it is something we actually have some control over, should we deign to exercise it.

Now, a smart/conservative engineer would normally be very concerned about this and the potential for a runaway condition that we have not even fathomed yet. Engineers rarely are rewarded for taking obscene risks when the odds, data, and theory are against them. Yet you tell me that we should ignore it (for dubious reasons at best.) My engineering instincts scream otherwise...and the numbers and science are on the side of my instincts. What exactly is the benefit of ignoring it? <crickets chirping> Is there some reason we can't do the other things AND address CO2?

Instead of accusing others of religious fervor in this matter, you should reconsider your own. :rapture:

 

How many years has it been since this was first proposed? Ten? (I think it is even longer.) My memory is rusty, but I hated the concept from the start. It is typical of the "hey I didn't realize what I was doing over here, so let me do something even less tested over there to see if I can fix it." "Gee, sorry, experiment didn't work and we ruined the ocean...oops, our bad."

 

That's why I'm not a huge fan of the Cap 'n Trade model. Too much leeway for nonsense and fraud. If you wanna control CO2 emissions, tax 'em. It's simple and transparent. It also sends a stronger message that emissions are being disincentivized.

 

For some models are models, for others they are a belief system. And you believe - despite a lack of data - that oceans are adequately represented in climate models.

But it is a matter of record that Argo floats only started deployment in 2000 and were only completed in 2007. Among the reasons they were deployed:

[FONT=Arial,Times New Roman, Times][FONT=Arial, Times New Roman,Times]Lack of sustained observations of the atmosphere, oceans and land have hindered the development and validation of climate models. An example comes from a recent analysis which concluded that the currents transporting heat northwards in the Atlantic and influencing western European climate had weakened by 30% in the past decade. This result had to be based on just five research measurements spread over 40 years. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Times New Roman, Times]Argo is a global array of 3,000 free-drifting profiling floats that measures the temperature and salinity of the upper 2000 m of the ocean. This allows, for the first time, continuous monitoring of the temperature, salinity, and velocity of the upper ocean, with all data being relayed and made publicly available within hours after collection.[/FONT]

So again, you are relying on belief (in climate models), not data. What else can I say. Just like with religion, you can't argue with a true believer, so I will cease trying.

 

I propose we do nothing until the ice caps are melted, then continue to do nothing.
That ought to work.

The ice caps are shrinking I hear. Funny enough the people who say this have been there several times and seen it.

Oh well, not to worry.