Friday, February 2, 2007
The IPCC report is out
And mankind is almost certainly to blame for climate change (probablity is now over 90%, revised from the original probablity of 66% to 90%).
So it's time to wake up to the reality of the situation we are facing right now.
Bush and co have a madcap plan to have mirrors in space that will reflect the Sun's solar radation away from the Earth and thus cool it down. Nice theory, but it will make little difference if we keep pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.
Of course certain people will just keep their heads buried in the sand about it and the oil companies will probably follow the example set by the big Tobacco companies did when the link between smoking and lung cancer surfaced.
The scientific debate is over. Climate change is happening, now is the time to do something about it. If America replaces it's energy sources with renewable one's, then America will become less dependent on the Middle East for Oil. America is the best equipped nation on the planet to push through technologies that can help us tackle climate change, but it needs grass roots pressure from the American public to get the politicians to take notice.
In fact that needs to happen in Western countries and we should also aid developing nations to tackle climate change.
I shall probably write more, once i have read the IPCC report properly, there is some heavy duty science to get through.
IPCC report
The Times report
BBCNEWS
CNN report
FOXNEWS (for those who don't like pesky liberals).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Kevin:
I take issue with this:
The scientific debate is over.
Yes, I do believe the debate over whether climate change is happening is over. No dispute from me. But climate change has also happened in the past via natural means, and in fact the debate over the extent of human involvement, and even what humanity can do at all to stop this, is very much alive and well.
If we can slow down climate change then we should.
There are a mulitude of angles that you can go with this. Some people even think we are heading for a new Ice age.
The debate in scientific circles is over for the most part, there are still certain scientists who disagree with the IPCC. It's the public debate that needs to begin.
Fact is we will continue to heat up the climate if we don't curb the amount of greenhouse gassess we produce. But the Artic permafrosts have started to melt, and that could be very bad indeed. Because it contains very high levels of methane gas, which has a bigger effect on the climate than carbon dioxide does.
My belief is that we should do something about it now, rather than wait until all the various disagreements have been sorted out, because by then it will probably be too late. And i think we would be doing future generations a disservice by not attempting to tackle the problem, even it appears we can do nothing about it.
The scientific debate is certainly not over.
The best evidence is that man is responsible for about .2% of greenhouse gasses.
There is far more evidence that increasing solar flares cause warming, just as decreasing flares cause global cooling. The just proved that cow farts and burps put out more gas than cars!!! Please also note that there was a scientific "consensus" in the mid '70's that global cooling would do us in.
The IPCC is stuffed full of people who signed on to make their enviro-socialist point. It is not objective, and if you believe they and their ilk are objective, read up on how their preferred solution, they Kyoto Protocol, actually works. It is nothing more than international, socialism and "tax the US and give it to me" redistribution of wealth.
Seeing you here again makes me want to vomit and slit my eyes open to avoid seeinb you disgusting name.
Now Jason,
We are all told in the media, by "diversity trainers" that gays are just like everyone else, and then here you go acting all hysterical.
I just have to say...LMAO @ Jason. And Smarty, how exactly does Jason's gayness have to do with his comment? You are just looking to have another go at gay people, with no cause. Pretty pathetic.
Smarty, please link to a credible scientific site that says manknd is responsible for .2% of global warming.
And I already noted that the scientific debate is not over, for the record.
Some analysis of the report, including the parts that the MSM didn't exactly highlight:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009625
His comment was pretty dramatic. Men don't usually respond quite like that. I thought it was funny in light of the current climate where we are supposed to pretend that everyone is the same, kumbaya etc.
Here are some numbers and analysis:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
I think when it boils down to it, we don't really know, but the global warming pushers are clearly off the hook and are spinning crap in the hope that some of it sticks. Sadly, politics has overtaken the science, and soundbites have overtaken logic. You simply do not screw with the world economy based on the BS that the left has invented and fudged to reach their conclusions
www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
But it was so tranquil here without you derailing every single thread and going off on a tangent about something only vaguely related to it.
And i wonder how many of the sites Mrwankstainerthanyou linked to are supported by the big oil companies etc.
I've had a good 10 years of learning about the climate and everything i've seen so far indicates that man is largely to blame for disrupting the Earth's natural climate which does vary over the eons.
Though the Sun could lose all it's sunspots and the Earth will cool down, thus negating climate change for 70 years or we may just end up in a new Ice age.
Wolly Mammouth stew here i come
Gee Kevin, it must be convenient to dismiss anything that goes against your grain by claiming bias and conspiracy. Prevents you from having to actually reason, and prevents others from seeing how poorly you do it.
Big ego boost when you don't need to deal with opposing opinions.
Try actually reading the stuff. If you have actually researched the issue, the second site provides enough data with their conclusions that you should be able to debunk it, no matter who sponsored it.
Smarty:
The science is in. Mankind actually is responsible for climate change to some degree. Logic dictates that factories, cars, and power plants MUST have some sort of an impact. The question is what degree? And this is a question that is not well settled.
Kevin believes that if mankind is responsible for climate change to any degree, then mankind has a duty to act to stop climate change. Given what it will take in practical terms to reverse or stop climate change, I do not believe this is the responsible position to take. After all, the bottom line is that this would require incredible sacrifice from mankind in very tangible terms, and there is also the "tragedy of the commons" problem where no one wants to be the only one sacrificing.
So anyway.
The bulk of scientists are saying that mankind is responsible for enough of the problem of climate change in order to warrant action. The problem is that, until a recent report came out, these scientific reports have not been economic reports, and the economic impact of action has not been examined.
There recently was an economic report that came out which said the cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action, but it rested on the problem of generally relying upon some of the more extreme scientific predictions, as well as not examining exactly how to get nations to cooperate and overcome the "tragedy of the commons."
Kevin and Smarty, this is not an easy topic with any obvious solutions, as much as you two would like to believe otherwise.
-Red Tulips
The technical challenges of trying to tackle climate change are quite large. But we can do simple things to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses we pump out each year. By running more efficent cars. In the longer term:-
Cars for example - Hydrogen fuel cells (they've been around since the 1960's) and biofuels can be used and could eventually replace petrol, thus America will be less dependent on the middle east for it's energy needs.
Solar power - The first order for a solar panel power plant has been placed for the state of California. The Technology works. Some solar panels can make energy even on an overcast day.
Wind Power - Proven technology, already used in some parts of the UK. You would of course need other sources of energy for when there is no wind.
Wave power - Needs more work, but it's quite promising so far.
And of course there is always the nuclear option. However if the work on the ITER Fusion reactor is successful then we may well have a clean source of energy. At the moment Fusion reactors require more input of energy than they actually output. But the next generation of fusion reactors may well have overcome that problem.
So there are pratical things we can be doing to soften the blow of climate change. And to be honest we will have to go down those routes eventually as Oil will run out one day. Sitting around and thinking we are all doomed and why bother to tackle climate change, may well lead to the scientific predictions worst case theories coming about.
The Earth's climate is a vastly complicated system, that we have probably thrown off course. Even if our efforts are futile, at least we will have given it our best shot.
Humans work best when faced with a problem that affects us all.
Necessity is the mother of all inventions.
Kevin,
No arguments from me that alternative fuel sources are needed. Oil is running out, and the oil we do use is culled from jihadists. So I agree 100% there.
But the urgent need for alternative fuel sources has little to do with global warming and everything to do with jihadists and oil running out!
Furthermore, this is but ONE ASPECT of how mankind has caused climate change. Other aspects include power plant and factory emmissions.
What should be done about THIS? The answer is not so easy. I don't know, don't claim to know. The IPCC report also said it actually may be too late to do anything, anyway!
So we just sit around and do nothing then ? Waiting for doomsday when the seas rise and the land is sallowed in fire and water ?
Screw that. We take each problem and we attempt to tackle it. Factories are a problem, but at least some could be powered via solar power in certain areas of the world.
While i do accept that there may not be anything we can do about climate change, that does not equate to us sitting around and doing nothing at all.
I doubt we can reverse climate change, but we can at least try to slow it down enough to soften the impact.
Oil is a secondary concern in all of this. Because if the seas rise, then people will become homeless and move into other countries which will spark wars over natural resources as well as land. A ripe situation for the Jihadists to take advantage of. Every choice we make has a consequence. From personal consequences to larger ones that effect us all. Doing nothing at all about climate change will be a consequence that will have impacts on future generations.
However until America leads the world on this issue, then nothing will happen. Though some postive things are starting to happen at the state level in the US.
The bulk of scientists do not agree to a human component. However, the bulk of funding and press coverage goes to those who support the human-warming connection.
There are even loud public calls for censureship of people who dare dissagree. But the disparity in grant funding is already a form of censureship.
Talking about oil interests backing anti-warming scientists is idiotic when you ignore the forces behind the leftist view. Sadly, warming is a tool of socialists for wealth redistribution and damaging the US. Like I said, look into Kyoto and it is obviously an instrument of economic warfare against the US and about redistribution of wealth. Throw in a cup of "those poor shitheads in the third world don't really need to develop anyway".
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=AA7D3FBA-E7F2-99DF-381E7E230ABA3946
earth orbit eccentricities and global warming.
Wanna bet that most global warming supporters cannot read what I just wrote and figure out the thesis of the link? That's why this is such a political issue, one side has fairly scientifically ignorant people convinced that their side is right, and when you convince a stupid person with emotion, it takes real work to educate them out of it.
I'd rather read peer reviewed papers, Mrsmarterthanyou. I've read a few due to my science education. First rule of science, leave the bias at the door and figure things out in a logical manner.
The Earth's orbit has always had an effect on the climate, as it occassionally wobbles out of orbit which can cool down the climate or heat it up. Sun spots also have an effect on the climate, one theory goes that if the Sun loses it's sun spots it may contribute to an ice age. I'd say the Met Office projection models take a lot of that into account when they model various different climates.
If it ain't peer reviewed, then it ain't worth wiping your bum with.
Kevin, Maybe you need to expand on your definition of science education that allows you to raise your nose at the 3 different articles that I listed, or even just the Scientific American article. Quite frankly, your initial comment that the scientific debate is over disqualifies you as a connisour of science, serious amature scientist, or anything else but someone with a political bias coloring his thinking.
The IPCC report itself seriously revised DOWN the projected changes in global temperature and water levels from previous reports. How can you trust something as important as the world economy on models that are off by factors of 2 or 3 in 10 year projections? If they cannot predict, they have nothing but imperfect theory, not fact. They have yet to get close to being in a position to get into causality
First of all i have a vastly open mind about a lot of things in life.
The Scientific evidence for climate change is vast with some differing interpretations of that evidence. I'm well aware of the conflicting views about the subject. I have come to my conclusion, but if new evidence comes to light that knocks climate science on it's head, then i will reconsider my position.
I've never claimed to be a scientist rather that i understand the scientific method. Which you need to brush up on. Personal attacks are your method of not wanting to respond to people who have a differing view point to your own.
Scientific reports often revise figures upwards or downwards depending on the facts and latests theories.
Science is theory based, the Scientific method proves or disproves those theories. Hence the facts become known, and new theories evolve from the facts, that lead to new discoverys and understanding about the universe around us.
And the IPCC reports have been meddled with in the last few years due to the Bush adminstrations interference. I expect a rant about liberals from you about that.
Kevin, IPCC is a UN body, Bush cannot "meddle" with it. Seeing as how it is UN, don't you think we can agree that they are more just a little bit anti-US, and are willing to play fast and loose with the truth to hurt us?
Don't lecture me on the scientific method. I am an engineer, and I use it every day, and if I didn't, I'd be fired. I am also a Highly Qualified (according to NCLB) High School science teacher. I can also recognize crap and (technical) incompetence, and I understand that one needs to do a bit of research before beginning a project.
Let's forget for a moment that we are in an environment where liberals are playing the pope vs. Galleleo, wrt those who don't buy the current BS about manmade global warming. Funding and publication are being denied to skeptics, and even one noted climatologist has proposed denying lisences to climatologists who dissagree.
So, while I really do support alt energy, it needs to be driven by the math, not by the emotions of people ignorant of physics, economics and electricity.
An example of ignorance in solution:
If we had 100% efficient solar cells, for example, we could make 1,340watts per solar collector that measures 1m x 1m. If it was always pointed at the sun, and there were no clouds or dust. State of the art is less than 25% efficiency. So how many acres of panels required to power a factory? A 1 HP motor requires 745w continuous, about 1.5x that amount to start. How many kilowatt hours do you think you can add up to real fast? Lets say 5 such motors, 10 200w computers, 300 15w environmentally correct bulbs (I only use thes), 20 1/4hp handtools, and an average of 10000w of climate control ( a blowdryer is 1200w).
That's 24kw continuous. @ 25 efficiency, and we spend the money on controls that point the panels, that means we need 71.5 sq meters of panels. Cost per a site I just hit, $107,600, not counting inverter, tilt controls, structure. A $10k diesel generator would do the same job, day or night. So do you prefer hungry people who need food aid, or people with jobs and some diesel exhaust, the effects of which are not truely known?
This is the decision that western liberals are trying to make for the third world.
The investment is out of reach for anyone, much less 3rd world equitorial countries.
Hydrogen fusion is another one. Everyone wants to push them into cars. The intelligent start for them is in home/factory/grid power systems. They would then be profitable quickly, and over time and thru the competative process, become small/durable/cheap enough to run cars. But liberals are so fixated on cars that they would rather cause a delay in use from these devices to focus on cars.
Let's go for wind power. OOPS, Not In My Backyard!!! They have been trying to put in costal windmills, but the rich liberal a$$holes with beachhouses have been putting a stop to it. The kennedys in Mass. killed a windpower project because it was an eyesore by their beachouse/yachting areas. Rich hollywood stars have killed similar proposals in Cali.
Seems the wealthy socialists pushing this crap don't want to give up their mansions, they don't want to stop flying private jets, heck, Nancy Pelosi wants a 757 to hop back and forth to San Fan every week or so, the Gulfstream 5 isn't good enough for her. But global warming is important enough for her to want to kill our economy.
It's quite easy for Bush to meddle with a UN body. Through America's Security council veto to Bush refusing to hand over funds to the UN. And there must be a lot of communist/liberal American scientists in the IPCC ;-)
Your scientific views are biased by your insane fear of pesky liberals and communists out to destroy America using climate change as their tool.
Renewable energy sources need economic investment to overcome the technical challenges and limitations. As with all technology that has come before it.
The Economic costs are known, through the model Stern created that will be refined by other economists in the next few years.
Hard choices have to be made by everyone, rich and poor.
The car industry could have had hyrdogen fuel cell powered cars out 10 years ago. But the Oil companies said no, as it would hurt their bottom lines.
However you don't need fossil fueled power stations. Nuclear technology, is ideal in the short term. Even though it scares the crap out of environmentalists.
Hard choices lay ahead for all of us. No matter what your stance is on climate change being entirely man made, natural climate change influced by human activity or an entirely natural process of climate change we face tough choices. If sea levels rise, then the economic costs will be much more dire than the costs we face at the moment in chaging how we power our technology. Oil will run out eventually, so the costs will be incurred at some point in the future.
MMMM war over land and resources here we come ;-)
Blah blah blah Kevin.
"Hard choices will have to be made..." is nothing but pap, cliche substituting for intelligent thought. How can you think you can respond to my mathematical PROOF that solar powered factories are a no go with garbage like that? If you lack the education or the intelligence to understand the economics of alternative energy, then you have NO PLACE debating it, unless you like to hear the sound of your own voice.
As far as fuel cell cars go, provide some evidence to your idiotic charges about the oil companies. fuel cells were barely developed 10 years ago. They are not near the stage of generating 150hp and fitting under the hood of a car and getting 300 miles on a tank or bottle of fuel.
My scientific views are based on intelligence and education. I don't respond to questions and cases that I lack either to understand by saying garbage like "hard choices...". You can start to be honest by admitting that your solar powered factories are a pipe dream for the forseeable future.
The UN is in no danger of a funds cut off with a liberal congress, so why did you mention it? The old liberal trick of spewing stupidity hoping that the time it takes to counter it will obfuscate the real points? There are 2 billion in govt grants out there to fund global warming research (say thanks to Bush), but they are being handed out to proponents, not skeptics (say thanks to the career liberals in the gov't, and the leftover Clinonites).
More oil-company financed global warming skeptics:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/
news/181_1925164,0008.htm
http://www.breitbart.com/
news/2007/02/13/upiUPI-20070213-100336-9529R.html
http://apnews.myway.com/
article/20070213/D8N8PUTG1.html
We're boiling alive!!
Oh no!! I found them on drudgereport!! No way we should ever sully our minds reading anything linked there!! It's lies, all lies!!
Now this one!! Strip him of his title!!! Whip him, silence him!! Take away his title for aposty!! That way morons can go on saying "The debate is over, because there are no creditable scientists opposing the accepted theory!!"
http://www.washtimes.com/
national/20070211-112902-4433r.htm
"Timothy Ball is no wishy-washy skeptic of global warming. The Canadian climatologist, who has a Ph.D. in climatology from the University of London and taught at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, says that the widely propagated “fact” that humans are contributing to global warming is the “greatest deception in the history of science.”
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/
opinion/columnists/steigerwald//s_492572.html
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/
stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html
Post a Comment