Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » World Watch » Orson Scott Card: Energy

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Orson Scott Card: Energy
Maxwell Evans
New Member
Member # 6341

 - posted      Profile for Maxwell Evans   Email Maxwell Evans       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the interests of not posting an essay here, I've responded to the article "America Unplugged" in an article posted here:

http://tmereport.blogspot.com/2008/11/to-orson-scott-card-regarding-energy.html

but in general I'm a bit surprised. The same arguments Card has made regarding oil (if memory serves) apply also to coal. We need to be reducing our dependency on non-renewable energy sources regardless of what they are, and I would have thought OSC of all people would be making that argument himself... after all, he was the one who originally made the point that markets couldn't create more of a limited resource (meaning, I presumed, that markets won't solve the energy problem unless they diversify).

Posts: 1 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ajping
Member
Member # 484

 - posted      Profile for ajping     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've never understood the argument against reducing carbon emissions. What am I missing?

Someone help me check my logic:

1. As I understand it, carbon-dioxide is a greenhouse gas that will gradually cause our Earth to heat-up up until it looks like Venus.

2. It is not a matter of whether global warming will happen or not, it is about when it will happen or if it has already started.

If 1 & 2 are true then shouldn't we be trying awfully hard to get away from using fuels that increase the amount of carbon-dioxide in our atmosphere as soon as we can? My thinking is that not doing so will put our environment at risk. Why would we want to take risks with our environment?

These are some simple questions I have on this topic. Please help me to see the other side of the coin.

Posts: 6 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your #1 is an oversimplification mixed up with an incorrect conclusion.

As for #2, it may be true, but if you want to see 'the other side of the coin' you will have to address first the resistance to the the underlying hypothesis, and then resistance to the proposed solution on several levels.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 3319

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, except OSC doesn't take either 1 or 2 as a given, and thinks global warming is a hoax.

But that doesn't really matter. There are dozens of other arguments you can use against fossil fuels that have absolutely nothing to do with greenhouse gases.

There are other environmental, economic, health, and defense reasons that are all more pointed and direct that can be proven much more easily. I still think that environmentalists would get along a lot faster with pushing a green economy if they'd tout more tangible benefits rather than continually talking about global warming.

Posts: 729 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lyr, you nailed the answer perfectly.
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I still think that environmentalists would get along a lot faster with pushing a green economy if they'd tout more tangible benefits rather than continually talking about global warming.
Could be, but that wouldn't make global warming go away. And solutions that may solve some of the other problems may not address global warming.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ajping
Member
Member # 484

 - posted      Profile for ajping     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Your #1 is an oversimplification mixed up with an incorrect conclusion.

OK! That's a start. I made the post to learn. Let me share what I know. Then I'm thinking you can add to it so that I can understand what I am missing.

Here's what I know: The atmosphere on Venus is 96% carbon dioxide. The atmosphere on Earth is 0.04% carbon dioxide. As I understand it, this difference in carbon dioxide is the reason why Venus has a surface temperature above 480 degree celsius while Earth's surface temperature is much lower.

Please add what you know!

Posts: 6 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CSHaviland
New Member
Member # 6357

 - posted      Profile for CSHaviland   Email CSHaviland       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't know whether "global warming" is happening or not. Could be. The last Ice Age ended, did it not? And the Ice Age before that? The Earth warms up, the Earth cools down, the Earth warms up, Earth cools down... Seems to me that we better adapt to change instead of argue about it.

The guy who founded the Weather Channel thinks today's global warming is all a bunch of political phony baloney. I have to admit, it sounds suspicious. Rewind a few years and all the talk was about the "ozone layer." The political motivation is the same but the topic morphed.

It seems the world is pushed by politics and politics is pushed by extremist conclusions. Activists are overdramatic because it's how they drive their cause forward in a whirlpool of competing issues. It's like learning to scream the loudest in a room of screaming people.

It's the notion that humans are "causing" global warming that I find irritating. Affecting it? OK, maybe, whatever. But causing it? Did we cause the warming that melted the glaciers 20,000 years ago? Did our ancestors sit around campfires blaming their tribe leaders because the climate changed? (Heck, maybe they did.) But I have to laugh at signs that say, "Stop global warming."

I think moving away from reliance on Fossil Fuels can be nothing but a good thing. I'm all for it. But "global warming" is the least of my reasons. Just overall pollution is good enough for me, as well as reliance on a resource that has limits we can't predict (it's not like we can check to see if the Earth is at "half tank" or something). Plus the fact that it's mostly supplied by a handful of very lucky countries, with the extra spin that these countries breed terrorists who believe they have to kill themselves and take as many innocent people with them as possible; groups who plan raids on schools to rape and murder children (as in the Beslan massacre) for no bloody reason except hate. I'd really rather not do business with countries that have people like this.

Fossil fuel is a resource that got us to where we are today, but it's time to evolve.

Posts: 1 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 3319

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
I still think that environmentalists would get along a lot faster with pushing a green economy if they'd tout more tangible benefits rather than continually talking about global warming.
Could be, but that wouldn't make global warming go away. And solutions that may solve some of the other problems may not address global warming.
It's not about the product, it's about how you sell it.

They could get all the things they want if they'd stop trying to sell the moral angle and started selling the real life benefits. People don't want to do what they think will waste a lot of money for no tangible gain. So tell them what they will get out of it. Saved money from lack of mercury being pumped into the air from coal fired plants. Technological gains that make renewables cheaper than fossil fuels, and the health benefits that go with it, see above. Sell them on the defense angle, about how much better off we'll be if we don't have to rely on enemies to supply our oil, and how much freer our foreign policy could be if we didn't have to kiss up to them all the time.

And the bonus is that it'll greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They're talking about global warming and as an afterthought talking about the other benefits, but it isn't working. They should do it the other way around, and they'd get a lot more converts.

Sometimes you can't get people to do the "right" thing, they want to do the selfish thing. Sometimes you have to convince them that the right thing really is a selfish thing.

Posts: 729 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 3789

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CSHaviland:
I don't know whether "global warming" is happening or not. Could be. The last Ice Age ended, did it not? And the Ice Age before that? The Earth warms up, the Earth cools down, the Earth warms up, Earth cools down... Seems to me that we better adapt to change instead of argue about it.

Perhaps an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of adaptation?

A third of the world lives on the coast, and a heck of a lot of them are dirt poor. How well are they going to be able to adapt?

Sure, the ice ages came and went. And when they did, species died. And the faster the change, the more species died, and the harder survival was for everyone else. We have to live on this planet for the forseeable future, and killing off species left and right for no good reason at breakneck speed will make it a lot less pleasant for us first-worlders, and down-right horrible for those less fortunate.

quote:
Activists are overdramatic because it's how they drive their cause forward in a whirlpool of competing issues. It's like learning to scream the loudest in a room of screaming people.
Then why don't you completely ignore the activists, and confine yourself to only reading the scientific research papers, and draw your conclusions from that?

Or, if you aren't up to analyzing the raw data, why don't you rely on the judgement of the people who collected it?

No need to listen to a single professional or political activist.

quote:
It's the notion that humans are "causing" global warming that I find irritating. Affecting it? OK, maybe, whatever. But causing it? Did we cause the warming that melted the glaciers 20,000 years ago?
Probably not, but why does that preclude us from altering it now?

We know that we are putting lots of CO2 into the environment. We know that CO2 is a greenhosue gas. Are we just supposed to take on faith that there exists some magical feedback process that will counteract all of the effects of that?

quote:
But I have to laugh at signs that say, "Stop global warming."
Fine. But would you support slowing global warming?
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jim Bergsten
New Member
Member # 3030

 - posted      Profile for Jim Bergsten   Email Jim Bergsten       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I once told my kids that "the difference between California and Afghanistan is electricity."

Maybe I'll have the chance to see my theory tested...

Posts: 3 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
close enough. generic term = "infrastructure"
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ajping
Member
Member # 484

 - posted      Profile for ajping     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The point about ice ages is a good one. I did a bit of reading on that point and I learned that there is a scientific explanation for ice ages.

The ice ages are caused by eccentricities in the Earth's orbit. The theory is not perfect, but it has a lot of support. You can read more about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

I see some debate about whether we should worry about climate change or not. Frankly speaking, I think we should be very concerned. I agree that we don't understand what is causing it. That should be all the more reason for caution. The discussion reminds me a bit about how scientists studied radiation back in the 40s and 50s. They didn't understand it and many of them died from cancer because they were not properly shielded. I think global warming is a lot like that. The only difference is that we will not get a chance to learn from our mistakes.

Posts: 6 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KonerAtHome
Member
Member # 2168

 - posted      Profile for KonerAtHome   Email KonerAtHome       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm starting to think that global warming would be a good thing from a LONG term environmental standpoint. If a couple billion humans are killed off it would dramatically reduce the demand for energy thereby reducing emissions allowing the environment to self correct (which it would). With a couple billion fewer humans running around using up land, a lot of that land would revert back to natural grasslands and forest which would help reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. Yes it would be a sad thing that so many people had to die but such is the ebb and flow of life. Humanity would survive, the planet would survive.

George Carlin did a bit about how the Earth would shrug off humans like a disease after it got what it wanted from us. He suggested that the Earth wanted plastic, and that now that it has plastic it doesn't need us humans any longer. It was quite funny.

I say that in limited seriousness of course but I think that maybe, just maybe there is some merit it the thought process.

Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KonerAtHome:
If a couple billion humans are killed off it would dramatically reduce the demand for energy thereby reducing emissions allowing the environment to self correct (which it would).

I know you aren't 100% serious but ... you going first? [Wink]

This could be accomplished through birth control. Lace the water supplies with it. Attrition will do the rest. When we get the the correct levels of human population we can stop the drug distribution.

If the environmental impact is too much, just force women to get a norplant implant - good for 5 years IIRC.

Mandate a global one child per couple law. You get one and only one child. Upon delivery, mandatory irreversible sterilization of both parents.

Population would decline significantly within a generation and this planetary disease known as humanity could be controlled. I don't see any downside here.

[ November 20, 2008, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by swbarnes2:
We know that we are putting lots of CO2 into the environment.

The amount we put into the atmosphere is a drop in the ocean. If the atmosphere were the length of a football field, human CO2 contribution would be the thickness of a dime. Much, much more comes from natural sources. We are currently at historic lows for atmospheric CO2. The planet has seen as much as 14 times current levels.

quote:
Originally posted by swbarnes2:
We know that CO2 is a greenhosue gas.

This works pretty well in a lab. Not so well in an open environment. CO2 has been rising and temperatures level or declining for the last decade (particularity rapid declines in the last 7 years). Correlation between CO2 levels and temperature have not been established much less causation.


quote:
Originally posted by swbarnes2:
Are we just supposed to take on faith that there exists some magical feedback process that will counteract all of the effects of that?

Are we just supposed to take on faith that AGW is true? So far that's all there is ...

[ November 20, 2008, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ajping
Member
Member # 484

 - posted      Profile for ajping     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2,

You offer the most compelling argument I've seen so far. Can you share more about natural emissions? I'd like to see the data you are referring to. At the same time, I don't see yet how thickness works as a measure. The glass walls of a greenhouse are pretty slim too but they are awfully effective. They would still work if the greenhouse were the size of a football field.

Correlation may never be established. It's a pretty difficult thing to do given how much is happening in the environment. We may never know what the impact of increased C02 is until after the fact. That could prove to be too late.

To your point on faith, I see this as more of a difference in philosophy. You could also call it religion. Philosophy and religion are not that different. I think we should take a risk-averse strategy to managing the environment since we do not know the impact of man-made actions on it. I think your strategy could be called a risk-tolerant strategy to managing the environment. You are willing to take the risk of destroying the environment (granted that the risk may be extremely small - I agrre that we do not know what it is).

That seems to be the biggest difference I see so far between people who support AGW or deny AGW.

Posts: 6 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The amount we put into the atmosphere is a drop in the ocean. If the atmosphere were the length of a football field, human CO2 contribution would be the thickness of a dime. Much, much more comes from natural sources. We are currently at historic lows for atmospheric CO2.
And as you very well know by now, the amount of temperature change caused by CO2 is miniscule, too. Greenhouse gases account for something like 59 degrees of the average global temperature. The maximum amount of increase that AGW could amount to (excluding any runaway global warming) would be a mere 4 degrees. Less than a 10 percent difference.

However, this is enough to radically change our climate.

Of course, with your analogy, you are thinking linearly, and as you well know by now, the climate system is not a linear system. It is a chaotic system, which includes all those wonderful aspects of chaotic systems, such as non-linear responses and feedback. So a small increase in forcings does not always correlate with a small increase in temperature.

And, as you well know by now, CO2 is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than the most prevalient one, water vapor.

So, while your analogy may be true in a quantitative sense, in a qualitative sense it is full of s**t. [Smile]

quote:
The planet has seen as much as 14 times current levels.
Which might be relevant if humans had been around anytime during those levels. But we haven't been. So the highest level in the last 140,000 years is far more relevant to this discussion.

quote:
Correlation between CO2 levels and temperature have not been established much less causation.
That is because you are still thinking of climate in a nice, simple, linear fashion. Climate has natural variations, which cause the average temperatures to go up and down over the years. Overall, there is a definite upward trend that correlates well with the increased levels of CO2.

And causation has been established in the laboratory. The question is not whether increases atmospheric levels of CO2 are increasing global temeperatures, but rather how much an effect it has.

You really should review the actual science of climate before you make simplistic assertions that are easily dismissed by people more knowledgeable than you. [Razz]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That is because you are still thinking of climate in a nice, simple, linear fashion. Climate has natural variations, which cause the average temperatures to go up and down over the years. Overall, there is a definite upward trend that correlates well with the increased levels of CO2.

And causation has been established in the laboratory. The question is not whether increases atmospheric levels of CO2 are increasing global temeperatures, but rather how much an effect it has.

You really should review the actual science of climate before you make simplistic assertions that are easily dismissed by people more knowledgeable than you.


Same to you [Smile] All global warming models have a relatively consistent outlook on how much of a direct effect CO2 levels have, which are all supported by that laboratory correlation that you speak of. And the fact of the matter is that that extra amount of warming is very small and not worth worrying about. Instead, all the doomsday scenarios created by these models are based off of indirect heating caused by CO2. These are NOT as well known, not proven in the laboratory, and not an exact science. So the question, technically, is not how much of an effect CO2 has, but rather how much of an effect the effect of CO2 has. And that's a big difference.

Why is it a big difference? Because it means we can't use the historical correlation of warming and CO2 as proof of the global warming theory, no matter what Al Gore says. This is because there is another perfectly legitimite and well understood phenomenon: that global warming causes CO2 levels to increase rather than vice versa. We all know that heating up liquids decreases the solubility of gases within those liquids (don't believe me? Just play around with some Coke. You'll figure it out). And so when the oceans warm, CO2 escapes. Voila, causation is shown, but in the opposite direction.

Ajping, G2 is obfuscating the truth when it comes to natural emissions of CO2. Yes, it is true that mankind accounts for merely a tiny bit of the global carbon cycle (I believe it's somewhere around 3%). However, the fact remains that it is that 3% that is causing an imbalance in the carbon cycle, one that the planet cannot fully account for. Roughly half of our outputs end up absorbed in the overall carbon cycle; the rest remains in the atmosphere as CO2. Basically, we screwed up the nice steady-state nature of the carbon cycle, and nature is still in the process of adjusting to it.

So while it is true that we are only a small part of the carbon cycle, we are a very large part of the net gain in CO2 in the air. I don't think anyone who has seriously studied the issue can argue against that.

The question still remains whether or not that's completely a bad thing though...

Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Little oddity: we haven't had sun spots for squat for two years now.

Spot

Maunder Minimum seems to be right on schedule. Gonna wreak havoc on global agricultural patterns.

Y'all stop squabbling about carbon credits and global flatulence and how some kind of structured balancing regulation of global energy consumption will kabosh our obviously oh-so-stable economy vis a vis energy prices (*snort*) and pay attention to geophysical reality with some kind of phenomenal lens not totally filtered per your pet ideology, wouldjya?

My grandkids wanna eat.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, we could have another Maunder Minimum, somewhat warmer because of the extra greenhouse gases. Even the U.S. government does not presume to tell the sun how to behave.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mariner:
However, the fact remains that it is that 3% that is causing an imbalance in the carbon cycle, one that the planet cannot fully account for. Roughly half of our outputs end up absorbed in the overall carbon cycle; the rest remains in the atmosphere as CO2. Basically, we screwed up the nice steady-state nature of the carbon cycle, and nature is still in the process of adjusting to it.

CO2 levels are at historic lows, just barely above the level to sustain life - around 260-280 ppm plants begin to suffocate. We have seen as much as 14 times more CO2, the carbon cycle handled it just fine. If it is even possible for us to "screw up" the carbon cycle, we're a long way from the levels necessary to do it.

CO2 continues it's rise, temperatures are flat and/or falling. Historically there has been no established link between CO2 and heating - there have been periods of ice age (with glaciation even) with higher CO2 levels in our planetary history.

AGW is nothing more than the doomsday scenario of a quasi-religious pseudo-scientific following. We have much more to fear from the current cooling than anything we might see from warming.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Well, we could have another Maunder Minimum, somewhat warmer because of the extra greenhouse gases. Even the U.S. government does not presume to tell the sun how to behave."

That's my take on it. Global climate change, even up0heaval, is in the cards, and this bickering about prevailing models of anthropocentric climate change mostly contribute to a prevailing forecast of anthropocentric failure to deal adequately with reality in progress.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
shagdrum
Member
Member # 6029

 - posted      Profile for shagdrum   Email shagdrum       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Most of the "science" that claims dire consequences if the earth gets warmer and that man is causing global warming is based on junk science in the form of computer model (high end mathematical models).

Computer models, at best, are only as good as the scientific understanding of the processes in which they are trying to predict, and at worst, are nothing more then tools to re-enforce a certian point of view and give it a false legitimacy.

Any computer model is ultimately a "best guess" prediction of the future. When it comes to something of this scale, computer models are almost always wrong. They cannot predict the economy with any degree of accuracy, they cannot predict when (or even if) our fuel sources are going to run out wih any degree of accuracy. Some of the best models at the time said that we should have run out of fossil fuels before I was born in 1980. Those were obviously very accurate.

There is not a clear understanding of many of the processes involved in warming and/or cooling the earth. The best example would be the thermostate function that clouds provide in regulating the earth's tempertature. Most any scientist will tell you that the scientific understanding of that function is almost non-existant.

Also, most of these climate models don't account for all factors, expecially the fluctuations in solar activity. you can see an almost direct correlation between an increase in solar activity and an increase in earth's temperature, with the increase in solar activity often coming first (as you would expect).

In contrast, when you look at the increase in temperature and compare it to the increase in CO2 emmissions, the increase in temperature actually comes before the increase in CO2 emmissions. This is a big part of why looking at CO2 emmission as the cause of global warming is a bit of a red herring, IMO. Not suprisingly, that view also convenienty serves certian political agendas.

Besides, computer models are arguably not scientific, because they are not empirical in their findings. One of the core tenants of science is that findings are epirically derived. The computer models plug in numbers and algorithums with current scientific understanding as assumptions. Any assumption make the experiment non-empirical.

Climate models are a reflection of current scientific understandings and an interesting academic exercise. They are an important tool in the evaluation where the scientific community is in regards to reality. The further off base the conclusions from one of these models are, the more off base the scientific theories underlying the model are likely to be. Models are always going to be wrong, it is just a question of degree.

But to use climate models as the basis for formulating public policy is to turn those models on their ear and assume that they are always right or nearly right so as to change public policy.

Posts: 8 | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
shagdrum
Member
Member # 6029

 - posted      Profile for shagdrum   Email shagdrum       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'

This is an interesting report about the decietful hyping and fearmongering associated with global warming that the media perpetuates.

Posts: 8 | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Shagdrum-
Welcome to ornery. You are wrong.

No, really, you have incorrect facts in your post.

"Also, most of these climate models don't account for all factors, expecially the fluctuations in solar activity."

Actually, they all do. I'm not sure where you read this lie, but its just that: A lie.

"In contrast, when you look at the increase in temperature and compare it to the increase in CO2 emmissions, the increase in temperature actually comes before the increase in CO2 emmissions"

This is a bit more complicated. Linky

"This is a big part of why looking at CO2 emmission as the cause of global warming is a bit of a red herring"

C02 is a greenhouse gas... it traps energy, which causes anything inside the C02 cloud to stay warmer. This is basic physics, and well understood on a theoretical and experimental level.

"Besides, computer models are arguably not scientific, because they are not empirical in their findings"

Computer models are not evidence for a theory, they are used to make predictions, or check results. Climate models are used for both... if a model accurately predicts the future, then its reasonable to assume the model contains at least semi-reasonable assumptions about how climate reacts to the variables included in the moel. This is whats called "testing a hypothesis." You can also do this backwards by seeing if your program, or model, produces a set of data points that corresponds with what reality produced.

Interestingly, many climate models have fairly accurately projected both forwards and backwards. This is strong evidence that the assumptions in those models are at least decent assumptions.

Linky 2

"Climate models are a reflection of current scientific understandings and an interesting academic exercise. They are an important tool in the evaluation where the scientific community is in regards to reality. The further off base the conclusions from one of these models are, the more off base the scientific theories underlying the model are likely to be. Models are always going to be wrong, it is just a question of degree.

But to use climate models as the basis for formulating public policy is to turn those models on their ear and assume that they are always right or nearly right so as to change public policy. "

You seem to be arguing that we should never make public policy based on the predictions of scientific understanding, because all scientific predictions are made through models. Is that really what you are arguing?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
C02 is a greenhouse gas... it traps energy, which causes anything inside the C02 cloud to stay warmer. This is basic physics, and well understood on a theoretical and experimental level.

This is often cited as proof from those that don't fully understand the science of CO2 concentrations or simply wish to mislead. CO2 effects are logarithmic with increasing concentration, not linear (google CO2 and logarithmic for details) . As it approaches 400 ppm - like it currently is - the effects of CO2 virtually flatline and get flatter as concentrations increase.

Between 1900 and 2000, atmospheric CO2 increased from 295 to 365 ppm, while temperatures increased about 0.57 degrees C. To get the same effect we are currently allegedly seeing from CO2, CO2 levels would have to double. At current rates of CO2 production, this would take over 200 years to accomplish.

This is basic physics, and well understood on a theoretical and experimental level.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" CO2 effects are logarithmic with increasing concentration,"

This is correct.

"As it approaches 400 ppm - like it currently is - the effects of CO2 virtually flatline and get flatter as concentrations increase. "

This is incorrect.

Pre-industrial C02 levels were about 280 ppm, and current C02 levels are about 380 ppm (might be a year or two out of date). The direct temperature forcing from a doubling of C02 is about 1.2 degrees. From 280ppm-380ppm gives you about 44% of the temperature change you'd get from 280-560, or .528 degrees of temperature change from direct C02 forcing from 280-380 ppm. From 380-480 ppm would give you another .40 degrees of temperature change from direct C02 forcing. From 480-560 would give you another .27 degrees of change from direct C02 forcing. From 560-660 would give you another .27 degrees of change from direct C02 forcing

Each of those temperature changes is multiplied 2-3 times from indirect forcings. E.G. a 1 degree temperature change from direct c02 forcing is between 2 and 3 degrees change of surface temperature.

So, while, as you say, the basic physics of how temperature is impacted by C02 forcing is well understood on a theoretical and experimental level, you did your math wrong. There's no 400 ppm cutoff here.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
P.S. to calculate logarithmic increases:

T*ln(X/C)/(ln(2C/C)) where X is the variable, C is the baseline you are measuring from, and 2C is the point at which your temperature will double.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There's no 400 ppm cutoff here.
Well, to be fair I think you could probably make a graph with the scales monkeyed so that it looks like the line gets flat at 400 ppm. [Wink] G2 probably saw one like that.
Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"This is often cited as proof from those that don't fully understand the science of CO2 concentrations or simply wish to mislead."

Whereas you do... [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:

So, while, as you say, the basic physics of how temperature is impacted by C02 forcing is well understood on a theoretical and experimental level, you did your math wrong. There's no 400 ppm cutoff here.

You're attempting to cherry pick and end point. I never said a cutoff, merely the point at where the absorption of CO2 begins to dramatically flatten. If you google something besides RealClimate, you may see your math is also incorrect. But I'm not insisting anyone take my word for it ... just google it up and get the truth. CO2 is simply not the bogey man it's made out to be.

Of course, you could be like OpsanusTau and merely select your truth based on the political ideology of others (that's not science but more like wishful thinking) but I strongly encourage anyone interested in the truth to simply follow the link to google and do a little thought on their own.

[ December 26, 2008, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Your math is also incorrect."

So what did I do wrong in my math? THe formula I used is there for you to critique if, in fact, I did something wrong.

"You're attempting to cherry pick you end point, not me I never said a cutoff, merely the point at where the absorption of Co2 begins to dramatically flatten."

As the math above shows (and as it stands until you show how the math is wrong), there's no 400ppm dramatic flattening.

[ December 26, 2008, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again, follow the link.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*Sigh*

I know how to do calculations for logarithms, G2. Do you?

ln (x/y) is the same as ln x- ln y. So the formula I used has the change in the value of the log of the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere in the numerator (where we're at now, or at some other hypothetical concentration) and in the denominator (the doubling from where we are at pre-industrial). Because C02 is a log function, for every doubling of C02 concentrations, the change in temperature will be the same. E.G. ln 4-ln 2 is the same as ln 8- ln 4, which is the same as ln 16 - ln 8.

By dividing one point, by a doubling point, we get a ratio, which we can then multiply by the difference for a doubling.

In other words, ln (380/280) is the same as ln 380- ln 280, which gives us the change in the log of C02 concentration in the atmosphere.

ln (380/280)/((ln 560/280))gives us the log of change in the atmospheric concentration of C02 from pre-industrial times til today, divided by what the change would be for a doubling of C02. Since the temperature sensitivity is 1.2 degrees C per doubling, we multiply that ratio by 1.2 to get a .52 degree increase from the greenhouse effect of C02. Do the same thing with a future concentration of 480 ppm (the same increase as we're using from pre-industrial til today), and you find a temperature increase of .4 degrees. So, the same change in C02 concentration for this particular log function gives us 3/4 of the first increase as the second increase. While this is indeed a drop off, characterizing it as a "Dramatic flattening," seems bizarre to me.

[ December 26, 2008, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh gosh, you're so smart! You should be a brain surgeon or maybe a double naught spy! *Sigh* Take a peek at what the real scientists are doing instead of trying to baffle people with faux brilliance. You might take a look at this ...
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks, G2. We should really share this thread with everyone to show them how smart you are...

[ December 29, 2008, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NSCutler
Member
Member # 1403

 - posted      Profile for NSCutler   Email NSCutler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Oh gosh, you're so smart! You should be a brain surgeon or maybe a double naught spy! *Sigh* Take a peek at what the real scientists are doing instead of trying to baffle people with faux brilliance. You might take a look at this ...

Real scientists use figure legends. From that link, I can't tell if they're measuring global warming or the rectal temperature of hypoxic wombats.
Posts: 789 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1