Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by dbob on June 12, 2015 at 13:30

To add my $0.02 here - The Sulfur argument only goes so far - in particular, sulfur tends to precipitate out within a few hundred miles of where it is release, and since it tends to be both heavy and reactive with water vapor, it does not stay in the atmosphere.

A better example may be changes to CFC's regulations, which appear to have increased the cost of air conditioners and refrigerators, but have also stopped increases in the size of the hole of the ozone layer. It took world wide cooperation.

I personally favor a carbon tax based on the carbon intensity of products - This would tend to make products produced by carbon inefficient means more expensive, and reward economies with strong use of natural gas and renewables. The amount of tax might also need to vary based on standard of living. To add my $0.02 here - The Sulfur argument only goes so far - in particular, sulfur tends to precipitate out within a few hundred miles of where it is release, and since it tends to be both heavy and reactive with water vapor, it does not stay in the atmosphere.

A better example may be changes to CFC's regulations, which appear to have increased the cost of air conditioners and refrigerators, but have also stopped increases in the size of the hole of the ozone layer. It took world wide cooperation.

I personally favor a carbon tax based on the carbon intensity of products - This would tend to make products produced by carbon inefficient means more expensive, and reward economies with strong use of natural gas and renewables. The amount of tax might also need to vary based on standard of living.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 13, 2015 at 2:20

Excerpt:

While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science.

It's worth pointing out that Al Gore is a politician, not a climate scientist. Debunking Gore does not disprove anthropogenic global warming. Nevertheless, it is instructive to look at the purported errors in An Inconvenient Truth as it reveals a lot about climate science and the approach of his critics.

What Al got right

Retreating Himalayan Glaciers
Contrary to James Taylor's article, the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate never said growing glaciers are "confounding global warming alarmists" - that's a quote from the Heartland Institute website written by... James Taylor. He's actually quoting himself and attributing it to the AMS! To put the Himalayas in context, the original AMS study is not refuting global warming but observing anomalous behavior in a particular region, the Karakoram mountains. This region has shown short term glacier growth in contrast to the long term, widespread glacier retreat throughout the rest of the Himalayas due to feedback processes associated with monsoon season. Overall, Himalayan glaciers are retreating - satellite measurements have observed "an overall de-glaciation of 21%" from 1962 to 2007. In essence, the Karakoram glaciers are the exception that proves the rule.

Greenland gaining ice
Re Greenland, a big clue is the study's title: Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland. The study finds increasing ice mass in the interior due to heavier snowfall - an expected side-effect of global warming - and doesn't factor in all the melting that occurs at the edges of the ice sheet. Overall, Greenland is losing ice according to satellite measurements here, here and here.

Antartica cooling and gaining ice
Antarctic cooling is a uniquely regional phenomenon. The original study observed regional cooling in east Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the Pole causes increased circular winds around the continent preventing warmer air from reaching eastern Antarctica and the Anta.... The flip side of this is the Antarctic Peninsula has "experienced some of the fastest warming on Earth, nearly 3°C over the last half-century". While East Antartica is gaining ice, Antartica is overall losing ice. This is mostly due to melting in West Antarctica which recently had the largest melting observed by satellites in the last 30 years.

Hurricanes
The dispute isn't that global warming is causing more hurricanes but that it's increasing their severity and longevity.

What Al got wrong

Mount Kilimanjaro
Indeed deforestation seems to be causing Mount Kilimanjaro's shrinking glacier so Gore got this wrong. In his defense, the study by Philip Mote came out after Gore's film was made. But Mote puts it in perspective: "The fact that the loss of ice on Mount Kilimanjaro cannot be used as proof of global warming does not mean that the Earth is not warming. There is ample and conclusive evidence that Earth's average temperature has increased in the past 100 years, and the decline of mid- and high-latitude glaciers is a major piece of evidence."

Dr Thompson's thermometer
Al Gore refers to a graph of temperature, attributing it to Dr Thompson . The graph is actually a combination of Mann's hockey stick (Mann 1998) and CRU's surface measurements (Jones 1999). However, the essential point that temperatures are greater now than during the Medieval Warm Period is correct and confirmed by multiple proxy reconstructions. More on Dr Thompson's thermometer...

Note: the vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalization. When opponents attack something abstract - like science - the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioral characteristics - being a rich politician, for example - it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Francis Mayo on June 13, 2015 at 4:22

The vilification of Al Gore was not the point. I am impressed with the elaborate straw man arguments and redirection. Al Gore used many documented studies to support his claim, much as any article anyone cares to link. Al Gore was a smart feller who wanted to "repair the world" (and make a killing in the process). Just as some smart fellers want to make the world right and display knowledge while implying the lack of such in others. We can have flame wars and link competition, but the fact remains much of touted science, full of certainty, have been hyped up with inaccurate and dishonest datum. Most of it is agenda driven by foundations and various NGOs. Much of it is sponsored by multinationals wanting to game and initiate the agenda to stifle competition and form a powerful synergy with their governmental shills. Science, or what is pushed as science, has an agenda and is based on erroneous figures. How else can one explain these scientific predictions referenced by sophisticates such as Vice President Gore, ABC, and various other knowledgeable pontificators and educators?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/05/29/global-warming-ala...

Want to answer Joe's question?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 13, 2015 at 8:11

Claims of conspiracies often go hand in glove with science denial. I was not the one to introduce Al Gore to the discussion.  Since you did I thought a little background and rebuttal was in order.

I've already communicated to Joe that I will answer his question when I return home from the lake.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Francis Mayo on June 13, 2015 at 11:32

The carbon trading scheme, at the base of the climate warming/climate change scam, was pushed and captained by Lloyd Blankfein and Gensler at Goldman Sachs after close to one million were contributed to the Obama campaign in 2008. There have been many millions more contributed to the Democratic party and others to further this scheme. 

Why not? We are talking about a trillion dollar plus bubble of a new gimmick, carbon offsets. Of course, this is all coincidental to the constantly shifting "science" involved pushing this agenda. Coincidence theory and bs science (pharmaceuticals FDA, weather stats UN NASA, et al) go hand in glove, huh? 

Yes, I mentioned Al Gore. I did not vilify him. I used him as an example of one citing "science." Note the fact checkers and sophisticates at ABC also. Also, attack the source of this link, but disprove the assertions, please.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble...

    

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 15, 2015 at 2:14

My apologies for the delay.  Now that I am home we may continue.

Once upon a time supporters of coal as a major domestic energy source could say, yes, it's dirty but it is cheap and abundant and there is nothing to replace it.  After the advent of unconventional natural gas - both abundant and cheap - it can now only be said that it is dirty.    

Regulations to address acid rain did not put the coal industry out of business.  The direction in regulation by the EPA is not new - it is a continuation of policies and regulations formed over many years and under many administrations and congresses.  I don't have any fear of the EPA cutting off our use of hydrocarbons in my lifetime.  I think that science based regulation will lead us to use hydrocarbons that pollute less.  And to continue the trend of requirements for greater fuel efficiency. 

IMO the EPA has not only the authority but the mandate to make policy that furthers the health and well being of the citizens of the United States, not corporations depending on coal - although sometimes that's hard to tell in Washington.  Yes, there are environmental groups that appear crazy enough to push regulations beyond the rational but their influence is far over stated by those with the opposing, but equally irrational, view point. 

For those of moderate political views and some knowledge of the circumstance we find ourselves in I think there is a growing opinion that there are rational options that can be taken to address global warming without giving up our modern life or adversely impacting our wider economy.  There will be a cost for phasing out coal, for closely regulating the burning of other fossil fuels and for mandating greater energy efficiencies so we manage the growth in how much we use - however those costs are small when weighed against the potential that the more catastrophic impacts of global warming are correctly forecast and not so far in our nation's future.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on June 15, 2015 at 2:59

So would the goal to slow global warming would be to price energy out of the reach of the average citizen to curb consumption huh?
How much reduction in consumption would be necessary to have any meaningful impact on Global Warming..?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 15, 2015 at 3:06

I don't know the answer to your question, P.G., largely because I didn't make that argument nor do I consider it a likely outcome that energy will be priced beyond the means of average Americans.  My contention is that there are options in the energy sources we choose to use and means to limit how much energy we use through technologies that improve efficiencies.  Cheap natural gas removes any cost advantages claimed for coal.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on June 15, 2015 at 3:36

I don't believe any one has answered that one.
Science says CO2 is a contributing factor in rising global temperatures but have they ever said how much it must to be reduced to stall or reverse the warming? They might be able to say how much total CO2 of the whole in the atmosphere should be reduced but how much of that reduction should come from electrical production to achieve it?
Simply slinging hope at the problem at the expense of masses of citizens without a defined goal just seems wrong.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 15, 2015 at 4:08

The goal for limiting the amount of rise in global temperature has changed over time.  Currently there appears to be a growing consensus for 3.6 degrees F ( 2 degrees C or 2C as it is often abbreviated).  The serious debate is just now beginning to focus on specific goals as public opinion demands a response.  Each country will have to determine what "expense" they will be willing to endure.  That's why it has taken so long to get to the point where there is some expectation of real commitments in the Paris talks.  

Just as the attempt to understand global warming has been a lengthy process so will the actions taken in response.  That process will unfold over time and results will inform how the plans and agreements change.  It is time to get past the debate over whether global warming is a real threat and to start the debate about what is the appropriate respons

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on June 16, 2015 at 11:33

I heard about a new climate change boogie man today...salad. Rotting salad, to be specific, in landfills.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on June 16, 2015 at 13:21

Better eat all your veggies!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page