Global Warming 2.0 (thread reopened; let's keep it civil)

[Urwumpe]

Just for good order this hearing was on the 9th of february this year.

Which again leaves the question why somebody should ask Holdren on Climate Issues, if he is actually Plasma Scientist... of course he writes a lot about this topic and rarely about his real field, but he does not seem to be the person I would ask about Climate Change.

It is like asking your butcher, if he can fix your car. He might have an opinion on your car, and have an possibly good opinion, what is wrong, but he is no car mechanic.

There are better people to select and ask... but Obama did not really choose people by skills, but rather by position inside the political circus of Washington.

The real scientific heavy-weight in the US regarding the global warming is still the American Geological Union (AGU):

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

Even the American Astronomical Society has an official opinion on the topic:

In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement [issued by the American Geophysical Union], the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change.

 

[Moonwalker]

Yes, they have an opinion

 

[Omhra]

There is no attempt to prove any negative in it. Look closer.
Nothing exists till evidence for the contrary.
Atheism is not a reaction to theism (I hope I'm not opening pandora's box). A person is born atheist. So no need for knowledge to be one.

For once I agree completely.

My daughter has no concept of Devils or Gods. She is free of "such stuff" [winks at Moonwalker] and she does not know "sin". She is a good kid.


-----Post Added-----

It is not me who now needs to do experimental observations using Orbiter and the economy, after comparing it with the ability to predict the future state of the earth. It is not me who is soothsaying the future of the earth and mankind or who relies on such stuff.

I do not have to prove a theory which I do not have. The climate is not bad. Humankind is making more progress than ever before. During industrialisation and global warming, mankind is increasing and industrial nations experience wealth like never before in history. That's not theory, that's fact. Anything else what might happen in the future is sheer speculation and theory, no matter if its about 6°C global "average" warming, or just 1°C, or if it is a cooling trend within the next 15 years which is believed to be just a natural "overlay" until the dangerous warming continues, or whatsoever....

Of course you are soothsaying and PREDICTING...
You predict that we will not have understanding and less control even.
Just because you do it with no theory or such stufs... it doesn't mean you are not doing it.

And do not compare wealth to a "vast collection of trinkets" please... or advancement with the propagation of old technology to poor nations.


-----Post Added-----

The future state of the earth is not predictable, which is no alternate future. ....
....I'd even say the majority of epople decides so, because they do simply not experience a catastrophic climate change.
....Nobody has the know how to predict the future state of the earth. Beside numbers, diagrams and professor Weisenheimer, there is nothing left which shows that the current climate change is the most dramatic one within the billion years old history of earth, and that the future is going to become catastrophic.
Some scientists and politicians became megalomania. They are rather arrogant and seem to feel like god, like the center of everything, now finally able to tell the whole humankind with huge self-imposed certainty: you all are going to feel warmer in future, you are facing a catastrophic climate change the earth has never seen before, you are responsible for that. Scientists and especially the media behave like prophets. Many people luckily do not like to take prophets seriously anymore in the 21th century. But some do, and try to obtrude their believes upon others. Some practise environmentalism like a new kind of communism. It won't ever work anyway.

Proving what I said.


-----Post Added-----

Its the "You should not ask questions" mentality advocated by climate-alarmist that i find suspicious, good science is about being skeptic, asking the questions in the first place.

And yes i am very skeptic about the whole alarmist-claims that we are nearing the climate tipping point, act now or it will be to late, the point is i have been hearing that for the last 35 years.

OK, so when would you recommend getting on with real progress... And for what reason.


-----Post Added-----

Yes, they have an opinion

Exactly, tell me, what do you have?

 

[Robert van der Veeke]

OK, so when would you recommend getting on with real progress... And for what reason.

Could you define real progress?

 

[Omhra]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/progress
in opposition to
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stagnant
in the light of
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advancement

 

[Robert van der Veeke]

The kind of answer that you could expect.

How can we decarbonise our energy production without plunging the world into a depression that makes the current "Credit crisis" look like childsplay?

 

[Omhra]

OK, you want more verbose...

I can do that... it just gets old being so long winded...

"Real progress" is progress that DOES NOT injure us.

Is progress that advances us into more efficient (should I define what I think that is? ...OK), meaning -not more expensive, no more polluting, and more friendly to the "original" state of the world... and by "original" I mean the way it was in the pre-industrial age. Whatever trends there were... Before we turned into 6 billion hungry, greedy, burn-happy creatures.

More over,
By Real progress I don't mean. "Stop every thing, Destroy the factories, fire every one; We need change" as the anti AWG imply we mean... NO.

Progressively... carefully, continuously... change to a zero pollution society.

Your side tho; loves to let decades roll saying that we can't right now... because [insert cost and I.Q. litany here]...

So when do you think we should get serious... ... ...?
After another 130 billion go into keeping your stagnant taste?
So now give me a bigger number than 130 billion to tell me a car company can't do better...
Oh and an estimate of when we will be ready to really progress..

 

[Moonwalker]

Exactly, tell me, what do you have?

Not the ability to predict the future state of the earth, just like any mere mortal.

 

[Omhra]

Like your posts indicate and I have noted, you are predicting uncertainty... No escape... my good sir.
Except you predict by guessing... not by testing your guesses...

 

[Moonwalker]

Omhra:

As I said, for a zero pollution society, people should stop using energy and relying on technologies. They should stop shopping, stop flying, stop driving car, stop almost everything, and go make their own clothes and food. But we should reduce humankind back to about 1 billion at first if we want turn the state of the world back to the pre-industrial age.

AGW proponents are contributing to things they criticise. They are a part of what they believe is causing to change the earths climate dramatically. They are no victims, they are contributors, guilty (to use their choice of words), just like anybody else, no matter if it's end-consumers or big oil bosses. It is not only the industries, it is basically people who use it because they want to live comfortable and long.

I say it as it is: it's our choice, my choice. I won't chose to change back to something "original". I chose what is available and I do not have any negative feeling, guiltiness, in doing so. Life, progress and the climate obviously is as good as never before in human history.

 

[Omhra]

Omhra:

As I said, for a zero pollution society, people should stop using energy and relying on technologies. They should stop shopping, stop flying, stop driving car, stop almost everything, and go make their own clothes and food. But we should reduce humankind back to about 1 billion at first if we want turn the state of the world back to the pre-industrial age.

AGW proponents are contributing to things they criticise. They are a part of what they believe is causing to change the earths climate dramatically. They are no victims, they are contributors, guilty (to use their choice of words), just like anybody else, no matter if it's end-consumers or big oil bosses. It is not only the industries, it is basically people who use it because they want to live comfortable and long.

I say it as it is: it's our choice, my choice. I won't chose to change back to something "original". I chose what is available and I do not have any negative feeling, guiltiness, in doing so. Life, progress and the climate obviously is as good as never before in human history.

Moonwalker;
The first step is knowing there is a problem...
Second step is to identify what the problem is...
Third is taking steps to correct it...

The way I see it no one here is claiming to be victims. Just participants on large markets that have no interest on "clean"... just bigger, faster and ... more brute...
To STRIVE to get clean tech and to strive to get consumption under control to sustainable levels DOES NOT mean what you say...
NOTHING has to stop...
NO ONE has to go to the stone age, which is where narrow, alarmist views on your "side" come in.

You choose whats available because you are comfortable. I am not comfortable... I drive as little as possible, I recycle, I keep my vehicles in top shape. I try to make it easier on the environment as much as it is possible within what is available... (as you say).
I want more things available to help a reversal of excessive over use further...

What do you want?

If you think that the only way to cut emissions is by walking or returning technologically to the stone age; sir, I feel bad for your group. You have totally misunderstood (which I refuse to believe possible)...
There are smarter choices, but will you see/accept them?
It has become clear...
Not.

And you say we are sensationalistic and dramatic? :rofl:
Made me laugh, sorry.

 

[simonpro]

One word: Nuclear.

(edit) Two words: Nuclear, baby!

 

[Andy44]

One word: Nuclear.

(edit) Two words: Nuclear, baby!

Agree with that.

 

[lockingtoggle]

Which again leaves the question why somebody should ask Holdren on Climate Issues,

Because he is a science advisor to President Obama, I suppose.

 

[Urwumpe]

Because he is a science advisor to President Obama, I suppose.

Yeah, possible. But he is no science advisor anymore, he only was in the transition team, as far as I can tell.

 

[RisingFury]

As I said, for a zero pollution society, people should stop using energy and relying on technologies.

Because electrical devices produce CO2, right? And because nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar and geothermal used to produce electricity also produce CO2, right?


Come on!


For anyone who thinks that we need to minimize our energy use to prevent global warming, that's completely wrong. Our energy use doesn't really matter. What matters is how we produce it.

 

[Urwumpe]

Also, Zero emission is utopic. In the worst case, we emit heat. I don't know how much energy we emit as heat every year (A PC for example emits almost all energy it consumes as heat), but as this goes mostly into the atmosphere because of the dominance of air cooling, I would not be surprised if this also already is a factor in heating the atmosphere.

A nuclear powerplant, which produces 100 MW electrical energy, emits about 400 MW as thermal energy.

 

[RisingFury]

Also, Zero emission is utopic. In the worst case, we emit heat. I don't know how much energy we emit as heat every year (A PC for example emits almost all energy it consumes as heat), but as this goes mostly into the atmosphere because of the dominance of air cooling, I would not be surprised if this also already is a factor in heating the atmosphere.

Well, large cities are warmer because of the exhausts of cars and everything and because of buildings blocking the wind... but in an atmosphere with not too much CO2, that heat is radiated out into space during night. The higher the temperature, the faster it cools.

A nuclear powerplant, which produces 100 MW electrical energy, emits about 400 MW as thermal energy.

20% efficiency for nuclear power plants?
I know that the coal power plant in my town has about 30% efficiency...

 

[Moonwalker]

I doubt that we would ever do everything fully CO2 free. But our CO2 emissions is just about 6% of all natural annually CO2 emissions anyway. And CO2 is no pollution. It is a natural gas and not the universal remedy to do something "against" climate change.

 

[Urwumpe]

I doubt that we would ever do everything fully CO2 free. But our CO2 emissions is just about 6% of all natural annually CO2 emissions anyway. And CO2 is no pollution. It is a natural gas and not the universal remedy to do something "against" climate change.

If you increase the mass flow of a rocket engine operating at 97% of the maximum thrust by just 6%, you get a quick explosion when the mass flow exceeds the capacity of the throat.

6% is not much in absolute terms, but 6% more than normal is often a critical problem in many systems. This especially applies to such systems like the climate, which have a range, in which they can regulate deviations - and which become instable, if you exceed them.

The question is: How much is too much?