Re: The real villain?
the downvote suggests yes :-)
New research produced by a Norwegian government project, described as "truly sensational" by independent experts, indicates that humanity's carbon emissions produce far less global warming than had been thought: so much so that there is no danger of producing warming beyond the IPCC upper safe limit of 2°C for many decades. “In …
the downvote suggests yes :-)
Warmologists with torches & pitchforks, non-IPCC-approved science turned me into a newt, etc, etc
It's a sad thing that "Earth not warming as fast" doesn't grab you as much as "Sea level to rise 24ft - More at 11!"
The media is deliberately or accidentally trying to make the news, driven by the knowledge that a play to "Green guilt" will stimulate a positive response.
The agenda has been set by the guilt ridden tree huggers consuming idevices and prius' like they are going out of fashion.
Far too many vested interests troughing at the CO2 payments made by the mere mortals who want to drive a car or heat a home for any realistic change to be made in the lemming like charge to fund pointless windmills and other feelgood stuff that wont make the blindest bit of difference.
We need to address the use of hydrocarbons which are not limitless and are polluting but the only way with current technology to do that and to maintain our rampant need for energy is to go nuclear.
Of course as the researchers are from an oil producing country they will immediately be discredited by the bonkers warmists as being in the pocket of the oil industry etc etc. ad infinitum
It doesnt matter how much good science comes out showing the doom and gloom of the corrupt and vested interests from the green warmist groups is bollocks as they will continue to maintain the gravy train that is hurtling out of control.
It'll be interesting to see the detailed reviews of this research, especially the validity of the modelling which the researchers admit is relatively simple. Any review might take some time as they have used a heavily statistical approach using Bayesian probabilities, the values of which are always open to argument - but hey this is computer modelling - what's new?
I think this is their key paper:
Maths fans will love it.
> Bayesian probabilities
There are no such things. There are probabilities. And then there are Bayesians and Frequentists.
But good link.
that no-one seems to be able to agree on almost anything to do with climate change/global warming etc etc just proves how flaky the "science" behind it is...
Yes, but then just let them work and try to improve the knowledge. It took some time to move the earth from the center of the universe to a planet. Anybody you like to accuse of that fairly slow progress or perhaps some scientist you would like to thank.
I agree, but that took hundreds of years, had it not been for the dark ages, we would have been well and truely flying amongst the stars, as it is now, we have very few statistics from a relatively short timeframe.
Nothing can be proven beyond doubt about our climate or why its changing...
that no-one seems to be able to agree on almost anything to do with the evolution of man just proves how flaky the "science" behind it is
There's lots of agreement on ACC and global warming. This article is a good example with its "shocking" statement that one of their models shows the effect of doubling CO2 to be 2-3 degrees instead of the 2-4.5 degrees predicted by some other models. You percieve that the science is flaky because certain yellow journalists will seize upon a paper like this (which simply presents an alternative but evolutionary perspective), lard it up with inflammatory language ("alarmists", "imminent doom scenario", "dishonest machinations") and a "News of the World" headline ("Climate Shocker!"), half bake it with an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory and toss in some random psuedoscience to make it look that way.
I can assure you that anthropogenic climate change was as accepted as evolution and a round earth in my climate classes back in '90. The fact that many people still believe that two out of three are "unproven" has nothing to do with the science and everything to do with the golden rule of journalism.
You know this how ? The Dark Ages were another solar minimum causing massive migration. Why else do you think populations moved south in Europe and SW in Central Asia. Later less Roman-centric studies showed the post Roman world to be quite innovative. Just lost super rich parasites and their politics.
As for climate and weather trends, lets just do research and stop the vitriolic personal attacks. I and many others are tired of true believers of any kind. John Ralston Sauls' Doubters Dictionary is mostly very good as to why doubt and uncertainty is a "good thing". Certainty is deadly.
There were "climate classes" in the 90's?
You missed my point. Back in the dark ages, science was treated as witchcraft, had it been readily accepted we would have been 400 or 500 years more advanced than we are now.
Almost all scientists (including it seems the authors of the report mentioned in the article) agree that global warming/climate change is going to be bad, the only scientific discussion is on the details of how bad it will be.
Page has written a series of articles highlighting parts of this discussion in order, it seems to me, to cast doubt in the whole science of climate change. Similarly creationists will often highlight differences of opinion between evolutionary scientists in order to attack evolution in general . We should pay each just as much attention.
"Page has written a series of articles highlighting parts of this discussion in order, it seems to me, to cast doubt in the whole science of climate change. Similarly creationists will often highlight differences of opinion between evolutionary scientists in order to attack evolution in general . We should pay each just as much attention"
Not another one who has to drag Creationism into the argument? Really? Related to Nom' perchance?
On a slightly different tack (and not necessarily aimed at 'labourer'), one thing that Mr Page's articles highlight is, that some hereabouts, may well extol the virtues of free speech and an open and fair society one day and then call for Mr Page to be silenced on another.
Hypocrisy, I reply. Hypocrisy!
There's a world of difference between free speech on the one hand and peddling distorted and biased journalism on the other. Journalists have a responsibility to get to the bottom of issues, not just trot out their pet theories.
It is totally clear to any casual observer that Page has a very specific axe to grind and he does so to the exclusion of balance. This is the definition of poor journalism.
I will readily withdraw this criticism of him on the day that he presents one piece of the mountain of evidence that is on the other side of the argument.
"There's a world of difference between free speech on the one hand and peddling distorted and biased journalism on the other"
Er, it's not like he's denying the Holocaust now is it? So, all I can really say is... Rubbish!
Journalists should work without fear or favour. Whether right, wrong, biased or distorted, he has every right to his platform.
If you or I find his articles intellectually offensive, so what? Put simply, that's your/my problem. Everyone else has the right to decide that for themselves what to read and whether to believe it
It's trivial to write a killfile'esque plugin to selectively filter forum posts (for most decent user agents anyway). I'd rather see those whining about Lewis Page put their effort into writing themselves one, rather than have to see them bleating about his articles all the time.
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives”.
~ Leo Tolstoy
> that no-one seems to be able to agree on almost anything to do with the evolution of man just proves how flaky the "science" behind it is
For all the twisted models behind each side of the warming debate, at least some of them are aiming to do something useful, to benefit society however wrong or right they are.
What future progress in science or in the welfare of man or the natural world is brought about by the science of the evolution of man?
And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
Some old book, the Bible I think.
@ P. Lee: Just about the whole of medicine is informed by understanding evolutionary biology.
" anthropogenic climate change was as accepted as evolution and a round earth in my climate classes back in '90. The fact that many people still believe that two out of three are "unproven" "
Actually there are people for whom 3/3 of those are 'unproven'
I, for one, was studying climatology in the 60s.
"Nothing to see here, please move along"
Should apply to all of this silly debate!
America is the only major country which has substantially reduced emissions - the shale gas revolution has reduced coal use. Overall American energy use has risen, but coal emits far more CO2 for a given amount of energy than gas, so the switch to gas has led to an overall reduction.
"Green" Europe on the other hand has failed to reign in emissions. Through a combination of perverse incentives, irrational opposition to shale gas, and post Fukishima panic, Europe has substantially increased emissions of CO2.
Given how close scientists are to breakeven nuclear fusion, Thorium fission, and other breakthrough technologies, it is doubtful we will be using carbon intensive energy in 20 years, let alone 50 years (at least not on the same scale as today).
But there's a catch - only rich societies can afford to experiment, to try new things. Any environmental legislation which harms economic growth is likely to cause emissions to rise, just as they have risen in restrictive, legislation happy Europe.
Nothing against your post. But shale gas (not available all over Europe) has nothing to do with Free Markets.
And how do you fit it into China and India. What I agree with is "Given how close scientists are to breakeven nuclear fusion, Thorium fission, and other breakthrough technologies". But "close", as you know, is an adjective, and does not really say anything about the number of years needed to breakeven.
Still I think it would be foolish not to continue research, and the use, of nuclear fusion, not forgetting any of the alternatives. Burning oil is silly because oil can be used in more intelligent ways.
"Given how close scientists are to breakeven nuclear fusion, Thorium fission, and other breakthrough technologies, it is doubtful we will be using carbon intensive energy in 20 years"
That's what they claimed 20 years ago. And 20 years before that.
In 20 years time someone like you will be claiming it again.
And by then I bet the US increases it's coal use again (because the gas will turn out not to be enough)
> Burning oil is silly because oil can be used in more intelligent ways.
Less than 5% of crude oil is used to generate electricity. The rest is used more intelligently.
Thorium is old old hat. 4 Gen fission reactors are yet to be built. None of these are hard, just require extention of what is already known. Fusion probably another 40 years away if ever, but fission technologies are usable now, except for superstition encouraged by credulus and ignorant animist believers.
"That's what they claimed 20 years ago. And 20 years before that. In 20 years time someone like you will be claiming it again."
So then, are you a realist (nuclear) or an idealist (wind)?
Yes, nuclear fusion is the power of the future — and always will be!
Thorium is plentiful, a Thorium LFTR reactor is low pressure, which means it can be built without containment buildings and 80-150 times pressure piping. It can power the world for hundreds of thousands of years. It would burn the unused fission waste piling up around the world, produce no CO2, is 99% efficient and has very short life waste.
Correct me if I´m wrong, but I thought >90% of crude oil were used to drive ships, planes and cars around... and there could not possibly be other options for that.
An intelligent use I would consider the manufacture of plastics (with all their problems) and similar, constructive uses - certainly not simply torching the stuff.
Free markets reduce emmisions????
Companies are remarkably adverse to spending money on basic research, and preticularly on reactors.
I believe that there is one start-up doing work on Fusion, but other than that, it is all publicly funded (government) research that have produced breakthroughs in energy production. Even in the last century The US Navy spent the money to develop advanced refining techniques, platforming to raise the octane rating of gasoline, and the Fisher Trope for Process to make gasoline from coal before the Second World War. (Standard Oil gave the the tech to the Germans).
Companies do not have the will and the revenue to sustain this kind of endeavor. They would much prefer to patent the spinoffs as they have done with the silicon chip.
Free Markets seek profit, and where barriers to entry are very large, monopoly control of existing resources is the easiest way to extract rent. Luckily the wind and sun can be harvested at low cost are distributed.
Increased use of (cheap) shale gas is due to free markets, but that's just due to the availability of shale gas. The decrease in emmissions is just incidental.
If the US had found a huge new oil reserve, then oil would be cheaper and emmissions would be worse - that's teh free market for you. The only way that free markets will bring down emmissions is if carbon emmissions are priced into the fuel costs.
Is that so when you factor in consumption of Chinese imports? And it stands against a very high per capita carbon dioxide footprint, Is that down to European levels yet? Europe's switch to gas was much earlier. The devil is in the timing of the statistics and the baseline set. The USA has a long way to go before it can lecture Europe.
Fusion is still off the practicability horizon , Thorium fission is laden with very serious and unresolved engineering challenges. It is taking a decade or more to build current generation nuclear plants, we are nowhere near being able to simply replace carbon intensive energy without seriously addressing consumption rates.
About the latest discovery of enormous amounts of OIL in Australia, as in more or less "More Oil:" that sort of everywhere else put together, and how it was being touted as the greatest boon for all mankind....
I thought about the poison air in the cities, the pollution that blows away as it's created and lands in the oceans, and how they are becoming terribly acidic, and how 2/3rd of the worlds population gets it's protein from the fish of the sea, and those are almost extinct, and the very find animals that they all feed off, are dissolving in the acidic waters....
And I thought, "As the soon to be very starving large populations of people start to emigrate from areas of non food to areas of food... there will be real issues of space, food and everything else."
As the food chains of the world collapse - and extinction goes into supercharge mode, how can the discovery and tapping of enormous amounts of oil, be called "A great boon"?
And then you went away to read about bases, avids and relative ph levels and realised you were fantasizing a great steaming pile of bunk.
The oceans are basic. They have shown a very slight shift towards neutral, but there is a greater difference in ph between the arctic and equator. They are not acidifying in the slightest.
acidification is the drop in surface ocean pH and the current drop in pH from all the CO2 humans are emitting is very rapid indeed.
Oh4FS is right to be alarmed.
Not this one again. A shift towards neutral from basic is acidifying.
Just like -2 is more positive than -3. It's a fairly simple concept.
"As the oceans acidify, we know it becomes harder to stuff even more CO2 into the oceans,"
"Accounting for effects of de-oxygenation and ocean acidification, however, some regions may see a 20-35 per cent reduction in maximum catch potential by 2050 (relative to 2005) -- depending on the individual species' sensitivity to ocean acidification."
Oh4FS; overall I concur with all your points. I have some concern with your statement that "fish of the sea, and those are almost extinct". I do not disagree with the tendency and I do believe that we may reach a tipping point to where there may be a "crash" in fish, krill and other ocean animals population that will have a catastrophic impact on human populations. I guess my concern is with the word "almost" and I am unsure as to how close we are. However I do not think there is any doubt that a number of fish types around the world are very overfished.
Are you as alarmed by the idea of climate remediation?
And yet they're still both negative. This isn't a semantic argument, it's the scientific meaning of the words. Acids are acids, bases are bases. If you are reducing your basic content you aren't "acidifying", you are debasing or neutralising. You only acidify something when you pass neutral.
besides it's all moot anyway. If the oceans warm they can't hold as much CO2 even with a higher partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere. This "acidification" of the oceans and global warming are mutually exclusive events.
Obviously the higher partial pressure overwhelms the warming of the oceans, because the oceans are both warming and absorbing more CO2 and acidifying.
"Ocean acidification refers to the process of lowering the oceans’ pH (that is, increasing the concentration of hydrogen ions) by dissolving additional carbon dioxide in seawater from the atmosphere, or by other chemical additions either caused by natural processes or human activity. The word “acidification” refers to lowering pH from any starting point to any end point on the pH scale. This term is used in many other scientific areas (including medicine and food science) to refer to the addition of an acid to a solution, regardless of the solution's pH value. For example, even though seawater's pH is greater than 7.0 (and therefore considered “basic” in terms of the pH scale), increasing atmospheric CO2 levels are still raising the ocean's acidity and lowering its pH. In comparison, this language is similar to the words we use when we talk about temperature. If the air temperature moves from -20°C to -0°C (-4°F to 32°F), it is still cold, but we call it “warming.” — J. Orr, C.L. Sabine, R. Key"
By Lewis Page • Get more from this author
Climate shocker: Carry on as we are until 2050, planet will be FINE
Greenland ice SIMPLY WOULD NOT MELT in baking +8°C era 120k years ago
Climate watch: 2012 figures confirm global warming still stalled
Global warming still stalled since 1998, WMO Doha figures show
New science upsets calculations on sea level rise, climate change
Climate NON-change: No increase in droughts since 1950, say boffins
Steady Antarctic ice growth 'limits confidence in climate predictions'
Swedish boffins: An ICE AGE is coming, only CO2 can save us
Ice sheets may stabilise for centuries, regardless of warming
New science: SEAS WILL RISE due to CO2 ... but not for centuries
Salt marshes will suck CO2 from air faster and faster as seas rise
Axe to grind, much?
Probably not from Lewis, who likes to highlight results that don't easily fit the AGW litany. But if you look for science articles from Brid-Aine Parnell and Richard Chirgwin, you will find a greater diversity of approach.