Man Based Global Warming....

I would take 31 off the list altogether as I consider the assumptions behind it suspect and believe it would have little to no impact. They forget the balance of ruminants that were replaced by cows for example. And what do ruminants do? They produce methane. (Deer, bison, moose, etc.)

I'm also highly suspect of much of the "buy organic" stuff.

I have to disagree with Sagebrush. Figuring out how to keep the convenience while eliminating/reducing the energy consumption IS the answer. Suggesting that we should live like Spartans just plays into the hands of the Global Warming Denialist movement. Afterall, they complain about investing in efficiency improvement...wanting instead to invest the same money in regressive increasingly inefficient schemes.

 

Sadly Shawn is more right than not.

I spend a large part of my day convincing people that by living efficiently one doesn't have to live in a cave. We (all) just have to change our assumptions about how much energy things really need.

One can make a McMansion energy efficient and the would be a good thing,, but to change the mind set that we don't need McMansions (either in our houses nor our cars!) and that similar resources spent on a greater number of smaller houses would have a much greater effect on the planet.

But just as CFLs were once thought of as "those creepy bulbs that only granola heads used" they now have become more or less mainstream. What we in North America suffer from is cheap energy,,and because of that we can ignore the simple things that would begin to change behavior. As I have said many times,,, if electricity were priced at it's true environmental cost,,, then adding insulation, hi-ef furnaces, good windows etc would make much better "short term" economic sense.

Perhaps the most important people can do,,, in addition to walking the walk (that is most important) but talking the talk as well. Spending time learning,, and speaking and writing to convince people that there is a better way,,, so that they too can convince others,, who in turn can can convince others.

But by all means,,, don't give ammunition to the naysayers!

Icarus

 

I'm not sure I follow you.

So while you're not exactly quibbling with the arguments found say here, or here .....

...you do expect millions of bison to spring up on the plains again, negating all the emission benefits of meat free diets?

Please help me understand your position.

(And somebody tell Chogan to get in on this one. I think he is the meat calorie guru around here).

 

There wasn't a problem with the millions of bison, so there should not be a problem with millions of other ruminants taking their place.

And back home I can attest to deer replacing cows that were once on more of our land.

I'm skeptical of the transportation cost conclusions as well since there is still cost in moving other foodstuffs around. I'm sure not planning to go to a "local only" diet with all the limitations that entails.

 

Ahhh.... since I know you're normally a smart guy, I wasn't sure if you had something logical... turns out you don't. You just don't want to give up meat or eat local.

Yeah, that's normal. Maybe you could just eat LESS meat and MORE local. You don't have to make an extreme change to produce benefits.

Or if you don't want to change at all, I suggest you just stand up and say. "No matter what, I'm not changing what I eat."

Beats telling people that meat doesn't matter - don't lead people astray just so you can rationalize to yourself that you are a good person.

 

Huh? It was quite logical. You've failed to make the case any better than the vegetarians who produced the questionable "study." But, hey, believe what you want to believe.

 

Oh you think that this is all some vegetarian based propaganda or something.

Well here's a little more to chew on:

from Foreign Policy: Meat: The Slavery Of Our Time : NPR

Also this was new to me:

Study Finds Meat and Dairy Create More Emissions Than Miles : TreeHugger

 

There is a difference between millions of Bison, and billions of cows. the bigger issue with cows is that they don't eat native forage much of the time,,, and the energy input into beef is huge. You could feed way more people on the fee that is fed to cattle than the cattle give. (I do eat meat however. I try to limit it to some extent however)

Secondly,, I am a huge fan of eating locally,, mostly because it makes people aware of fundamental causes and effects. The net effect on the local economy is way bigger by feeding ourselves locally. The local truck farmer, buys from the local hardware store, in turn buys from the local furniture store, who in turn buys local produce from the local farmer. All the net profits stay at home,, instead of migrating to Bentonville AR.

In spite of the above logic,, there is an interesting energy argument, potentially against local food however. Let's say that my local orchardist brings ten boxes of apples to the farmers market on saturday,, driving his pick up that gets say 10 ton miles to the gallon for 10 miles. How much fuel was required to bring those apples to my shopping cart? (10mpg pick up with 1000lbs net load)

Now suppose that the local super market brings in a semi-load of apples at the rate of say .000125 ton miles to the gallon for 2000 miles which used less fuel to bring me the apples? (5 mph semi with 40,000 net payload)

Regardless of the answer,, for a variety of reasons,,, I want the local apples.

Icarus

 

MJ: Climate Change Reconsidered is a missive put out by The Heartland Institute. Who are they?
The [Heartland] Institute has been actively involved in debate over [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco"]tobacco[/ame] policy, opposing [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban"]restrictions on smoking[/ame] and criticizing science which documents the harms of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondhand_smoke"]secondhand smoke[/ame].[11] Given the close financial and organizational relationship between the tobacco industry and the Heartland Institute, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights described the Heartland Institute as "an active partner of the tobacco industry".[12]
Heartland has been criticized for employing executives from such corporations as [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil"]ExxonMobil[/ame] and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altria_Group"]Philip Morris[/ame] on its board of directors and in its public relations department.[13][14] The Heartland Institute disputes this criticism, stating that "no one on Heartland's board of directors works for a tobacco company (Roy Marden retired years ago) or for an oil company (Walter Buchholtz was on the board but no longer is)."[15] Heartland states that it does not accept government funds and does not conduct "contract" research for special-interest groups.
MJ: With a pedigree like that what makes UFOURYA think he’s gonna win any skeptics over? But let’s dig further in his posts when he talks about taxation. He quotes the National Taxpayers Union giving a link. I went to that link and although I am no genius, in their column titled ‘Percentage of Personal Income Tax Paid’ the percentages don’t quite add up to 100%. They add up to 357%. This tells me they are manipulating either figures or the public to make their point. Either way manipulation of the unwashed masses (me) doesn’t exactly instill confidence in either their own data OR THE OP WHO REFERENCED THEM.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Taxpayers_Union"]National Taxpayers Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
The NTU favors either a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Tax"]Flat Tax[/ame] or the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax"]FairTax[/ame] (a national sales tax with rebate)…The organization's briefs and policy papers decry the "death tax," (a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States"]tax on estates[/ame])[5] and supports [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation"]deregulation[/ame]
[FONT=&quot]
MJ: The above are long standing goals of the neocons and should be immediately dismissed as bogus simply by the fact of what they have done to my country. So…to summarize, Climate Change Reconsidered is put out by The Heartland Institute which if you read the above about Heartland immediately makes them suspect as a tool of the CONS. Then there’s the NTU, which obviously by their bio favor the wealthy at the expense of the poor by ATTEMPTING TO REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH FROM THE BOTTOM UP according to the policies they espouse. This brings us to a newby claiming that those who don’t read or agree with his posts: “I'm beginning to suspect your head is no larger than a grain of sand.” AND “Those of you with your head in the sand will, of course, not avail yourselves of the latest information, but perhaps those with open minds will.” Since I consider myself an open mind, I linked, read and concluded. A word to UFOURYA. We on this board are above average in intelligence, we read, research, digest and come to our own conclusions, and I have concluded you, sir, are BOGUS![/FONT]

 

I do commend you for following a link or two, unlike some of your fellow posters with allegedly open minds. So, I am sorry to have to publicly embarrass you, sir. In your defense, you are able to fairly adequately add a column of figures. However, that seems to be where the competence ends.

One has to be able to comprehend some other simple concepts. For example, one must be able to understand that when the table refers to 'the Top 50%', that 50% includes the top 1, 5, 10, etc. percentages, so it is a mistake to add them again.

To arrive at the conclusions you do demonstrates a complete lack of basic understanding. So, I wouldn't be crowing about your superior intelligence, your 'research', or your open mind- and I certainly wouldn't label another person 'BOGUS' based on your own demonstrable lack of intelligence or competence.

Now if you go back to the link, study the tables, realize the mistake you made in understanding the data, and apologize for falsely accusing me of being 'bogus', I'll delete this embarrassing expose.​

 

China and India have huge incentives to reduce global warming: India doesn't want to deal with 100 million refugees from Bangladesh forced out by sea-level rise, and China doesn't want the social disruption caused by a collapse of agriculture and the drowning of its coastal cities.

Contract with your electric utility for 100% renewable or nuclear power. If the option is available to you it is probably the single most significant thing you can do to reduce fossil CO2 emissions.

For discussion of the facts of global warming by climatologists and atmospheric physicists see http://realclimate.org

 

Nice to be back on topic. This is not directed solely to you, Mr. Schumacher.

I believe the scientists at realclimate.org to be biased toward research that the founders of the site have conducted and that which agrees with theirs. The preponderance of what is found there comports with the IPCC's conclusions. This is understandable but unfortunate.

I much prefer other sites, ones where the scientists themselves have open minds and adhere to the scientific process.

Now, before you tune me out, PLEASE avail yourself of this VERY instructive link. It leads one to a series of climate debates conducted by the S.F. Examiner's Thomas Fuller. Obviously, this is no right-wing wacko, denier, skeptic, etc., etc., site. He has an open mind and seeks to hear the many sides of the debate.

Examiner.com's exclusive global warming debates: Roger Pielke Sr., part 1

This link is specifically to Roger Pielke Sr.'s portion. I find him to be one of the more reasonable voices in the climate change discussion. Anyone who dismisses him out of hand is doing a disservice to his own understanding of the situation. The second part of Dr. Pielke's comments is available as well as other guests of Mr. Fuller. Regardless of your present position in this debate, you will not be disappointed by reading IT ALL. That is, if you wish to advance your understanding rather than to antagonize those with a different view.

There are links to pertinent papers galore. All I have ever intended to indicate in my comments in this thread is that the science and the consequences of climate science are NOT settled. All one has to do is have an honest look at ALL the material. For that I have been villified and insulted.

Unfortunately, this thread has turned into a shouting match which includes so much extraneous B.S. as to be ridiculous. I apologize for any part I played in that.

 

Welcome back,

you write,,, and I quote

"All I have ever intended to indicate in my comments in this thread is that the science and the consequences of climate science are NOT settled."

I believe that the VAST majority of scientists world wide believe that human caused climate change exists. The vast preponderance of scientific study shows this to be so. The contrary opinions of a few doesn't negate that of the majority. For example,, 3 contraindications out of 1000 doesn't proof the 1000 wrong.

What is at the heart of the issue, is the depth and speed of change, that indeed is subject to wide fluctuations in the data. As modeling changes so do the conclusions,,, but the vast majority conclude that that something is happening.

What folks like me get upset about by "deniers" is that they take one small anomaly in a result and discredit all the other results. It is like saying, "we had record cold in Buffalo this winter,,,so much for global warming!"

In my opinion,, and the opinions of many others,, while we hold out the possibility that we might over react,, the consequences of not doing everything now to counter act even the best case scenarios are potentially fatal to future generations.

Just like GWB was quoted as saying he didn't want GM to fail on his watch,,, I can't stand idly by and not speak out against those who believe other. It is my honest opinion that there are a few people (perhaps yourself included) who for what ever reason genuinely believe that there is no such thing as global warming. I also think that there has been and continues to be a concerted effort on the part of some corporate/oil/energy/government interests to sell you (and us) a bill of BS,, with the idea of clouding the issue so that they can continur to profit from it.

And please don't give me the tired argument that there is some big "green" conspiracy" to take over the world/business/government! Who has more power,, the Green party or Exxon/mobil?

Icarus

 

I thought in science only facts mattered, not opinions. Whoever proves or disproves the hypothesis matters, am I wrong? In your example does the 997 mean anything?

 

You are correct - in science data is the ultimate arbiter - not opinion, not expertise.

BUT you or I must rely on the scientific community to tell us what the data is. Meaning: the general public needs to get the conclusions indirectly via the scientific consensus.

As laymen, we can try to directly "interpret" this or that piece of data, but if we have a bias or an agenda we can easily make claims that aren't supported by the majority of the data/observations.

The scientific consensus is extremely strong that AGW is happening and that it could get out of hand very quickly by the end of the century.

Security and economic experts have weighed in that the effects of temperature increase of more than 2 degrees would be very costly in terms of economic growth, government instability and overall human suffering (100s of millions of refugees, increased conflict over water resources, etc).

Estimating the political, security and economic effects of AGW is not science IMHO, it is largely based on conjecture or educated guesses, but since the predictions start at bad and end at extremely bad, there is no prudent course but to decarbonize the world economy as quickly as possible.

 

It seems as though the doomsayers are politicians and not actual climate scientists. Aren't two of the original IPCC scientists now vocal opponents?

 

Exactly. Along those lines, here is something from the aforementioed Dr. Pielke Sr.:

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News Short Circuiting The Scientific Process - A Serious Problem In The Climate Science Community




an exerpt: "...A useful summary of the scientific method is given on the website sciencebuddies.org.where they list six steps

• Ask a Question
• Do Background Research
• Construct a Hypothesis
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
• Communicate Your Results

Unfortunately, in recent years papers have been published in the peer reviewed literature that fail to follow these proper steps of scientific investigation. These papers are short circuiting the scientific method.

Specifically, papers that present predictions of the climate decades into the future have proliferated. Just a two recent examples (and there are many others) are
Hu, A., G. A. Meehl, W. Han, and J. Yin (2009), Transient response of the MOC and climate to potential melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet in the 21st century, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L10707, doi:10.1029/2009GL037998.
Solomon, S. 2009: Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published online before print January 28, 2009, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812721106

Such studies are even reported in the media before the peer reviewed process is completed; e.g. see in the article by Hannad Hoag in the May 27 2009 issue of Nature News Hot times ahead for the Wild West.

These studies are based on models, {...} only a portion of which represent basic physics (e.g. the pressure gradient force, advection and the universal gravitational constant), with the remainder of the physics parameterized with tuned engineering code (e.g see).

When I served as Chief Editor of the Monthly Weather Reviews (1981-1985), The Co-Chief Editor of the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences (1996-2000), and as Editor-in-Chief of the US National Science Report to the IUGG for the American Geophysical Union (1993-1996), such papers would never have been accepted..."

Heck, I should have posted the whole thing. He goes on:

"...What the current publication process has evolved into, at the detriment of proper scientific investigation, are the publication of untested (and often untestable) hypotheses. The fourth step in the scientific method “Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment” is bypassed.

This is a main reason that the policy community is being significantly misinformed about the actual status of our understanding of the climate system and the role of humans within it."

 

The reality is that we are using predictive modeling,,, and anomalies and variances will inevitably exist. Just as in medicine, (which is clearly a blend of art and science) Aspirin has been shown to have a demonstrable effect on the rate of heart attacks in the general population. Because 1 person who is on an aspirin regimen has a heart attack doesn't invalidate all those that benefit from the regimen.

My previous point was,, that for what ever reason, climate change deniers will take one study/case/example and throw out the vast preponderance of other evidence to "prove" that climate change is not real. I argue that this is disingenuous at best,,, and (metaphorically) criminal at worst,,, for reasons I have often described.

Icarus

 

They aren't all politicians. Some are economists, military experts and of course many are environmentalists.

Even if 2 original IPCC scientists were now vocal opponents of the entire idea of AGW there are hundreds of IPCC scientists to begin with so it doesn't change things much does it.

Admit it. You WANT AGW to be a scam. It doesn't fit with your world view. Same with Icarus and TimBikes. It just rubs you guys the wrong way to think that the world would have to take collective action and regulate something like emissions.

It's not the way you want the world to be. That's ok, this conservative, independent thing is in your genes. Just don't let it control you into making serious errors in judgement.

 

I was solidly in the AGW camp at one point. I had just watched gores movie and that had sealed the deal for me. The problem is the more I read and the more I look it seems the more that the AGW theory is full of holes. As for his movie it would make joseph goebbels proud. I guess if the facts are so solid why did he make a movie like he did?

1. why is the correlation between Co2 and temp so weak? no warming for 10 years? has co2 stopped entering the atmosphere?

2. I am all for protecting the environment, I don;t thinkk AGW is about protecting the environment anymore, it is about controlling people and of course money and power.

3. without China is anything the US does on carbon meaningful?