Global Warming. Is the hype coming to an end?

[DizRotus]

Travis,

 

On a lighter note, when I was a proseutor I chuckled over the frequent juror questionaire that listed a conviction for having "impaired vision."  They just didn't understand the meaning of being "visibly impaired."

 

My other favorite juror questionaire answer was:

 

Q;  Highest grade completed in school?

 

A: "Cs & Ds"

 

Back to the topic.  I agree we should do our best to protect the planet and help each other while we're here.  No one can deny the end of the Earth will come some day.  It's no excuse to give up.

Edited February 10, 2015 by DizRotus

[Travis In Austin]

I am beginning to see more and more 'scientific' evidence to rebut the global warming data. I think this can be a healthy debate.  Yes, I know there are those that will try to discredit those data by either pointing to foul sources or claiming the writer has an agenda.  And perhaps they would have a point.  But I wonder if they would realize that what they are complaining about is exactly what the skeptics have been complaining about, only to be met with personal attacks on both our character and our intellect?

 

It's our Earth.  Not just mine and not just yours.  I don't want draconian regulation thrust upon me simply because three decades of research points in a direction that, for all intents and purposes, isn't 100% solid.  The stakes are high on both sides.  I'd just like a chance at some rebuttal without being shut down and given a political label like some sort of pariah and told 'it's our way or the highway.' 

Really?  I would like to see it, sincerely, just simply to be well informed.  Most, really all, of the scientific "evidence" I have seen recently about the data is from a big oil funded think tank or "Institute."  It really isn't scientific, it is spin, misinformation and sometimes just outright lies, just like the Tobacco Institute used to put out.

 

Here is a link to an article that identifies the well know big oil funded "Institutes."  http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545  The one you frequently see is the Heartland Institute.  There are other websites on the other side that have just as much hype on the other side.  And then there are a few that are science driven that expose what is science and what is hyperbole.  

 

I really would like to see any peer reviewed studies you run across to the contrary, or a mainstream source that makes reference to such a study.  I have been burned too many times on studies cited by talking heads on both sides to review a study they cite to prove their point.  I have yet to read a study they cite that says what they say it says.  

[Travis In Austin]

 

 

 

 

I've been skeptical of the global warming believers since the start.  Especially those proclaiming it is man-made.  It seems now the news media is starting to cool (no pun intended) to the assertions.  Which is good.  I think we need more sanity brought into this debate.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

in NY , you cant see the sky on smog days , the air has a kinda of a nice odor -like the smell of a car's muffler - you need a mask to filter the nasty dust particles that burn the eyes but again that is not man made ,yep , just natural

 

 

You are using a micro example to explain a macro phenomena. Does man create smog in New York?  Of course he does.  Does it change the temperature in Africa?  I'm not convinced.

 

the planet turns every 24 hours - next time you use your washing machine - take a close look , did you notice that your clothes got cleaner as they spun around , now add a bit of dirt and spin it , I betcha that your clothes are dirty -  same things with a planet -one huge washing machine -instead that the gases interact -it is called global warming -

 

 

My washing machine doesn't have the best scrubbers nature can make: Trees and plants. 

 

 

Lift top or front load?  Just kidding, a topic of another thread long ago and forgotten.  

[Mallette]

Crikey, a lot of effort into somehow making human events relevant to geologic events.  Humanity is not nor ever will be a significant geologic event.  Certainly human events are relative to US...but the planet doesn't care and will do just fine, thank you very much. 

 

Nobody, certainly not me, has questioned global warming.  The trend is ancient, and ebbs and wanes but always moving upward for eons.  If you are convinced that our flea brained science has the answers, then you should be willing to agree that one or more of the suggestions I made above for doing something about it rather than debating it are valid.  Personally. I don't think it matters to the planet.  But I think those concepts are simply good housekeeping and would be of general benefit to us. 

 

Win-win.  Or we can just pay a bunch of taxes that won't help a bit.

 

Dave

[oldtimer]

It doesn't matter to the planet, when speaking geologically.  A lot of things humans do matter to a lot of other living species though.  The planet will be the planet of course, but who and what gets to live depends on many things, including our actions in many cases.

[Travis In Austin]

Yeah TWK, I agree that does have some merit to it. I remember several years ago this subject was a very hot topic. As I recall there was a hole in the ozone but it shrunk or similar? Can you expound on what happened?

 

I can, it is pretty simple.  Our atmosphere has a layer of ozone that surrounds the Earth.  The ozone layer filters out UV light from the Sun.  Without it, life as we know it couldn't exist on Earth.  Some scientists way back when, the 60s maybe, believed there was a hole in the ozone layer.  Some other scientists thought the reason for the hole was being caused by chemicals such as CFCs and HFCs (contained in A/C refrigerants and aerosol sprays).  There was a big debate about all of this.  Science kept building and more and more data came in.  

 

We, being a world leader, sent up some satellites to confirm there was a hole and sure enough there was one and it was growing (slowly) and we, along with other nations adopted an international protocol banning the use of CFCs and other chemicals.  We were a couple of years behind in adopting it because the big chem companies like DuPont, were not convinced by the science.  The US went ahead and adopted the treaty in the 80s, signed by Reagan, which phased out CFCs, etc.  Since then we have been one of the leaders in the agreement, signing on to amendments to the protocol and I believe we signed on to something last year that limits things even further.

 

The hole is supposedly closing or closed up.  The 25th anniversary of the international agreement was a few years ago, some science journal I read said that treaty banning CFCs had over 100 states that had joined that that the banning of CFC was working to reverse the trend.  

 

We now have a bird up in the air that measures ozone in near real time.

 

It is kind of Deja vu all over again.

[Travis In Austin]

 

Yeah TWK, I agree that does have some merit to it. I remember several years ago this subject was a very hot topic. As I recall there was a hole in the ozone but it shrunk or similar? Can you expound on what happened?

 

The Montreal Protocol happened.

 

Opps, you already answered this, I just did a post.  I couldn't for the life of me remember the name of the Protocol.  

 

I believe it has been amended a few times and the US is at the forefront of it all.  

[mungkiman]

 

 

Yeah TWK, I agree that does have some merit to it. I remember several years ago this subject was a very hot topic. As I recall there was a hole in the ozone but it shrunk or similar? Can you expound on what happened?

 

The Montreal Protocol happened.

 

Opps, you already answered this, I just did a post.  I couldn't for the life of me remember the name of the Protocol.  

 

I believe it has been amended a few times and the US is at the forefront of it all.  

 

 

No worries. Your post was much more informative. Especially for any persons against Teh Google...

[Travis In Austin]

 

 

 

I mean if there is a global warming skeptic, that has science behind him I am most haapy to look whst he rvgas got,

 

 

 

Yes, we can look at motives.

 

1.  Big, dirty industry wants us to believe there is no anthropological global warming.

2.  Climatologists agree AGW is serious issue that can shake the foundations of our planet.  They want subsidies to study it and prove it.  Profiteers want to manage brokerage houses designed to trade on emission allotments.  

 

Who do you believe?  That's the question.  Seems you align with those greedy climatologists and profiteers.

 

The answer, naturally, is unscientific.  All it will derive from is the lenses through which you view politics.

 

 

 

I don't agree.  You were around when Texas, along with other states, got together to take on tobacco which resulted in the dismantling of the tobacco industry.  That case was all about science and big tobacco knew they had none and what science they did have, in unauthorized released documents, showed they knew it was harmful, they knew it was addictive, but they could fund around that.    

 

You have seen the standard change like I have from Frye to Daubert.  I have dealt with science, and "junk science" my whole career.  It can be political, certainly.  But you know as well as I do that in medicine and science there is funding protocols to keep it as independent as possible, and then there is funding that comes from business like tobacco, oil companies, drug companies and on the other side as well.  The Sierra Club and others have their own scientists, etc.  UT and A & M are two of the top public research universities  in the country (so is Rice).  The protocols for research grants, try to eliminate as much bias as possible, but we are dealing with humans who want the money, and humans who give out the money.  But in the end, what results is a peer reviewed research study.  This is the filter that science used to weed out the junk, the politics, and even is some cases, made up data.  I think it works really well. 

 

I am aware that administrations try and put a slant on the research that is conducted by various agencies.  This gets exposed, it happened with global warming.  But as you know, in science where there is disagreement a true scientist will say it needs to be studied further.  It sorts it self out one way or the other over time free of politics just like it did with the ban on CFCs over DuPont's strong stance there was no "scientific link."  Pretty soon you become the lone wolf in the wilderness.

 

Science has done so with tobacco, DDT, mercury, the ozone layer, Actos, thermography (remember that, they could diagnosis you after putting you in a freezer and then taking a "photo" of you) and on and on and on.  When you have "Institutes" created with tobacco money, oil money, chemical company money, drug company money it is pretty easy to see that they are not scientists.  The same is true of anti (fill in the blank) people on the other side.  I try to read the actual studies myself, both pro and con, if any, and make up my own mind. 

 

The key, is finding the real scientists on an issue, and avoiding the funded advocates who may happen to have a scientific background.  We deal with this all the time in forensics, I think that is why is so easy to see what is science, what is "hype" and what is advocacy.  Scientists in stating and defending their conclusions write a different way, talk in a different way, refer to prior conclusions in a different way then in the world of jurisprudence and political debate.  It is pretty easy to spot, at least for me, someone who is defending their conclusions based on observations (a scientist) and someone advocating a position that may be based on scientific data.  I have also seen on many, many occasions say, without hesitation, "the research is mixed on that," or "we don't have an answer to that yet, Dr. _________ over at _________ is doing a study on that now."  A real scientist will say when the jury is still out. 

 

I do agree, when money is at stake, we will all look through the lens that is going to preserve our self interest.  My point is that, given time and the desire to find objective answers, science is where to look.

 

I look at all of the peer reviewed studies on the casual relationship between fracking and local earthquakes.  The recent SMU study is pretty clear that they were unable to reach a conclusion one way or the other, much more research is needed.  While there is a temporal relationship, there isn't one that would withstand scientific scrutiny one way or the other.  Eventually there will be some solid scientific data on that, one way or the other.  Unfortunately, I think as a result of Denton banning fracking last November, everyone is going to hire there own private research to be done.  It will take years and years to sort that out I am thinking.

[oldtimer]

 

It doesn't matter to the planet, when speaking geologically. A lot of things humans do matter to a lot of other living species though. The planet will be the planet of course, but who and what gets to live depends on many things, including our actions in many cases.

Such as?

 

Mark don't pretend you are not aware of all the species that have become extinct primarily due to man's activities. Seriously.   if you want to find Captain Obvious look elsewhere.

[oldtimer]

What defensiveness?

[mungkiman]

 

 

 

It doesn't matter to the planet, when speaking geologically. A lot of things humans do matter to a lot of other living species though. The planet will be the planet of course, but who and what gets to live depends on many things, including our actions in many cases.

Such as?

Mark don't pretend you are not aware of all the species that have become extinct primarily due to man's activities. Seriously. if you want to find Captain Obvious look elsewhere.

I'm always skeptical of such defensiveness. A simple question is still the best way to sorry wheat from chaff.

 

 

Not so simple, really, to sorry one's wheat...

[angusruler]

The King says Climate change is the real deal issue, terrorist are just " news" hype. So...no, not coming to and end.

"he" never ceases to amaze.

[Mallette]

Comes down to belief rather than science.  However, most will agree that cleaning things up a lot is a good thing. 

 

Here is the US plan from the EPA:

By 2030, the steady and responsible steps EPA is taking will:

• · Cut carbon emission from the power sector by 30 percent nationwide below 2005 levels, which is equal to the emissions from powering more than half the homes in the United States for one year;
  · Cut particle pollution, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide by more than 25 percent as a co-benefit;
  · Avoid up to 6,600 premature deaths, up to 150,000 asthma attacks in children, and up to 490,000 missed work or school days—providing up to $93 billion in climate and public health benefits; and
  · Shrink electricity bills roughly 8 percent by increasing energy efficiency and reducing demand in the electricity system.

Granted, I get suspicious when something has to be headed "...steady and responsible..." and the specifics of this plan, which is based on improvements and modifications to existing coal and NG plants appear rather vague.  Even more suspect is the "reduce electricity bills by 8 percent" part. 

 

If I survey those who are passionately convinced that carbon dioxide emissions have us headed towards extinction many say we must reduce emissions to zero.  The truth probably lies in between.  Global co2 emissions from power generation account for over half the total emissions.  Certainly reducing US emissions by 30 percent by 2030 isn't going to change much.  What to do?

 

I mentioned this earlier, but let's review.

 

The only proven carbon neutral source for energy is nuclear fission.  Serious heartburn for the stop global warming cloud as those in that group also have a disproportionate number of those who consider fission the spawn of satan.  But...the worst ever nuclear accident, Chernobyl, has so far produced 50 deaths and the majority of those were first responders.  In the US, there are zero proven deaths from radiation exposure or releases at nuclear power stations. 

 

Here is one chart, perhaps skewed though the site didn't seem to be wingnut, of annual deaths at facilities averaged over 50 years world wide.

 

 

Interesting point here is that it would be far more bloated if you add the EPAs estimate of 6600 deaths and other health issues from coal/NG plants...and bear in mind this is only those that would be PREVENTED (in their opinion) by reducing emissions by 30 percent. 

 

If we, indeed, are facing global catastrophe, wouldn't it make good sense to form a global plan to replace all generation with fission plants as rapidly as possible?  As we still have a high skill level in fission plant design the US would certainly benefit economically in a big way.  Many nuclear engineers have said that the draconian 5 deep safety systems forced on the industry actually increased danger and increased costs by massive factors.  Given that, whether old and simple or new and complex, US reactors have a sterling safety record compared to ANY other industry seems to me that a world wide group of scientist and engineers could readily study the current state of the art and devise a standard, simplified, but still safe and proven design that could be rapidly deployed world wide. 

 

My take:  If the danger were real and proven we'd be doing precisely the above or something very similar.  The ruling elite of the planet may be selfish and greedy...but there is nothing for them in a dead planet.  For me, even if there is doubt about the danger, such a project as the above would lead to the development of even safer (if that's possible) and more efficient (definitely possible...we have an honored member of the Forum whose name you'd know who spent his career in nuclear and states that if allowed to apply what they learned power from fission would be "too cheap to meter") designs resulting in a minimum of a much cleaner environment and just possibly saving the planet.

 

Of course, solar has advanced massively in the past decade and could also play a big role, as well as wind.  A hybrid plan converting all residential and institutional power users to solar and big industry to nuclear is not hard to imagine. 

 

Fusion, the holy grail, has been 30 years in the future now for 60 years largely due to only a pittance being spent on research.  Money speeds things up.  Let's say we accelerate that funding by a factor of a 100 times...still probably less of a percentage of even just the US budget alone than Apollo...doesn't it seem like we might have working fusion designs in maybe 5 or 10 years?  The US went from basically zero to an atomic bomb in less than 4 years and nobody even knew it was happening.  THINK, fer cryin' out loud!

 

If you accept the science of human effect in global warming then the science of the above is irrefutable.  What is hard to accept is that functionally we are hearing air raid sirens an no credible defenses are being readied. 

 

Here is my own take:  Until the powers that be come together and clearly enunciate a plan to prevent planetary catastrophe I will not accept it as fact that one is eminent.  They may be evil, they may be good, they may be somewhere in between but I do not think they are suicidal and this nation, and others, have a history of pulling together when faced with an emergency.  If the call goes out, I am ready to respond. 

 

Dave

Edited February 10, 2015 by Mallette

[billybob]

Sorry but, thinking of Deniro in Cape Fear remake when thinking of global warming. He reminds me of the radio twisters seeking to convince others there is no such thing as they emit bubbles while they are sinking under...still talking.

What a hoot! Guessing that corporate sponsors will make you say anything, until you believe it.

[Mallette]

I hear you, Mark.  Since extinction, or at least massive economic upheaval is what we are hearing from the establishment and governments unless something is done there is a clear contradiction from the establishment here.  We are used to business and government being basically one and the same.  So why the contradiction?  That is actually the point I was trying to make.  Global economic and social collapse would also at least APPEAR to run counter to global business interests. 

 

As I described, if a massive reduction in carbon dioxide and related emissions will fix this perceived problem the remedies I proposed are really quite easy and the results would not only (assuming the predictions are correct) save us from an awful fate, but leave us with a much safer, economical, and reliable global grid while stimulating the economy in ways similar to a global war without the undesirable side effects. 

 

So, WTF????

 

Dave

[Mallette]

And if you want to talk about junk science and strange plots, why is

No one is willing to finance nuclear power.

 

No carbon emissions and the safest record on the planet.  Again, WTF???

 

Dave

[doctorcilantro]

I am certainly not skeptical about climate warming as I noticed it 30 years ago without the aid of science. However, I have my doubts about the significance of human activity to it as these mechanisms are massive and been the norm for earth since day one. Certainly this warming hasn't approached the levels of the 12th century or so when the best wine came from Britain and Greenland was, well, green.

I am suspicious of the powers that be on this as they've really made a huge effort to ridicule anyone denying that it's human activity. My sense is that if the really had the evidence there would be a world wide effort to perfect fusion (30 years in the future now for over half a century due to the pittance spent on it), solar and such.

No such effort, so methinks these people protesteth too loudly.

Dave

industrial revolution is not the norm for earth since day one. Exactly. "We" are a massive mechanism. Look up tipping point.

Imagine explaining why we need fishing seasons And regulations to someone in the 17th century. They would probably flog you.

We kill up to 100 million sharks a year. One example of how we are terraforming this planet.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mallette]

I was mentioning the PAW last night that Eisenhower, whatever his other qualities, was the last President I could think of who said something really important directly to the people:

 

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."

 

Sound like he though big business and government were already pretty well lined up. 

 

Anyway, you explanation doesn't really satisfy me.  I don't know what the proportion of true believers in the coming climatic catastrophe are, but if this Forum is an indicator at all there are quite a few.  You'd think there would be some of the 1% sounding the alarm and calling for action.

 

Other than platitudes and calls for more money to affix band-aids, I am just not hearing it.

 

For all here following this regardless of your attitude:  If there is ANY truth in the predictions don't you find it strange that global leadership is largely "meh.?"

 

Can you imagine the total cooperation that the approach of even a small asteroid capable of doing significant damage but not a global danger would bring about? 

 

There is NOTHING about this entire issue that conforms to one's expectations of reaction to a significant emergency.

 

Dave

[oldtimer]

I think it's time to draw a distinction between climate catastrophe and environmental destruction.  Personally I doubt humans can do much about massive global trends, whether we are exacerbating them or not.  Destroying our environment through pollution and wasteful practices however is not a good idea not only for other life on earth but ultimately also our own.  Both of these subjects are weaving through this thread.