31,000 Scientist Say No To Global Warming

[wildsage]

Originally Posted by This_person

Yet, what is "short term"? Globally, regarding temperature? 1 year? 100 years? 1,000 years?
Show me long term, geologically speaking, man made global warming.

(I wasn't ignoring you, just been busy.) I'm sure that you know the difference between "weather" and "climate." The idea behind the work of the IPCC was to avoid the worst-case scenario -- I know that for free-marketeers "worst case" means slowing consumption of limited resources -- which is increased global warming to the point where it threatens people, other species and our ability to maintain our societies & lifestyles.
The ideal experiment when you don't have a large sample of subjects is non-destructive; it's a bad idea to sit back and say "yep, devastating, just like I thought." We only have the one planet so investigators rely on climate models to predict likelihoods of what may happen. They also test their models with historical data, some of it geologic in scale and some of it (more accurate) from recent history when information is better quantified.
Short term & long term are kind of subjective. The variables being studied to prove or disprove AGW of course focus on the rise of average global temps since the Industrial Age. (Short or long term? Your call.) These data are compared with paleological information with various other factors accounted for ("controlled") so as to isolate the phenomenon of interest. (Definitely long term, not much anthropogenic effect.) Current weather events -- whether last week or last month -- would likely be called short term.

From the IPCC:
"Although natural internal climate processes, such as El Niño, can cause variations in global mean temperature for relatively short periods, analysis indicates that a large portion is due to external factors. Brief periods of global cooling have followed major volcanic eruptions, such as Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. In the early part of the 20th century, global average temperature rose, during which time greenhouse gas concentrations started to rise, solar output was probably increasing and there was little volcanic activity. During the 1950s and 1960s, average global temperatures levelled off, as increases in aerosols from fossil fuels and other sources cooled the planet. The eruption of Mt. Agung in 1963 also put large quantities of reflective dust into the upper atmosphere. The rapid warming observed since the 1970s has occurred in a period when the increase in greenhouse gases has dominated over all other factors.
Numerous experiments have been conducted using climate models to determine the likely causes of the 20th-century climate change. These experiments indicate that models cannot reproduce the rapid warming observed in recent decades when they only take into account variations in solar output and volcanic activity. However [...] models are able to simulate the observed 20th-century changes in temperature when they include all of the most important external factors, including human influences from sources such as greenhouse gases and natural external factors. The model-estimated responses to these external factors are detectable in the 20th-century climate globally and in each individual continent except Antarctica, where there are insufficient observations. The human influence on climate very likely dominates over all other causes of change in global average surface temperature during the past half century."

[cwo_ghwebb]

Oh, the IPCC who ignored the requests of the scientists who didn't want their name attached to their fatuous findings? What a bunch of windbags. We could solve the energy problems of the planet if we could just harness the hot air of the IPCC clowns.

[wildsage]

Originally Posted by cwo_ghwebb

Oh, the IPCC who ignored the requests of the scientists who didn't want their name attached to their fatuous findings?

"The Second Assessment Report was the first and last to include a chapter on the economic impacts of climate change, of which impacts on human mortality are an important part.[...] This chapter is the only instance in which the authors of the chapter officially denounced the policy makers' summary for inaccuracy."
Comments written in response to statements that the IPCC reports do not accurately summarize the state of knowledge accuse of a "systematic effort by some individuals to undermine and discredit the scientific process... Rather than carrying out a legitimate scientific debate... they are waging in the public media a vocal campaign against scientific results with which they disagree."
And don't forget the contributors who thought it was too weak: "Some critics have contended that the IPCC reports tend to underestimate dangers, understate risks, and report only the "lowest common denominator" findings.
"In reporting criticism by some scientists that IPCC's then-impending January 2007 report understates certain risks, particularly sea level rises, an AP story quoted Stefan Ramstorf, professor of physics and oceanography at Potsdam University as saying:"'In a way, it is one of the strengths of the IPCC to be very conservative and cautious and not overstate any climate change risk.'"

Originally Posted by cwo_ghwebb

What a bunch of windbags. We could solve the energy problems of the planet if we could just harness the hot air of the IPCC clowns.

Likewise if they could harness the kinetic energy of unthinking knee-jerk posts.

[wildsage]

Originally Posted by Lugnut

How is it that green house gas's have more effect on global temps than the 1.5X10^17 watts of solar energy that hit the earth every second?

Originally Posted by Lugnut

So uh, how many watts/ergs/joules do those green house gas's produce?

They don't "produce" energy -- you would have to understand the thermal properties: absorption, reflection, long-wave & short-wave IR. A planet with some atmosphere will have moderated temps compared to a bare rock that will bake in daylight and freeze on the dark side.
"Although natural internal climate processes, such as El Niño, can cause variations in global mean temperature for relatively short periods, analysis indicates that a large portion is due to external factors. The rapid warming observed since the 1970s has occurred in a period when the increase in greenhouse gases has dominated over all other factors. Numerous experiments have been conducted using climate models to determine the likely causes of the 20th-century climate change. These experiments indicate that models cannot reproduce the rapid warming observed in recent decades when they only take into account variations in solar output and volcanic activity. However, models are able to simulate the observed 20th-century changes in temperature when they include all of the most important external factors, including human influences from sources such as greenhouse gases and natural external factors. The model-estimated responses to these external factors are detectable in the 20th-century climate globally and in each individual continent except Antarctica, where there are insufficient observations. The human influence on climate very likely dominates over all other causes of change in global average surface temperature during the past half century."

[wildsage]

Originally Posted by greg_the_great

But regardless, the nuclear waste is easy, space is big, toss it out.

a) what do you use for an energy source to get it beyond Earth's gravity?
b) do you want to be downwind if the launch vehicle explodes? (hint: round planet, we're all downwind)

Originally Posted by greg_the_great

As for oil, I see you are up on the talking points of GW, but not finding solutions. Solar and wind will never produce enough energy to continue the world in growth. I personally don't want to go without. I am all for new energy sources, but you offer nothing new. Wind mills were around long before oil. Flat out, does not do it.

It's easy to say the alternatives don't work when they haven't instituted them on a large scale. Again, take those hundreds of thousands of miles of powerlines, put solar panels where there's a lot of sun and put wind turbines where there is a lot of wind -- the wires are already there, mounting towers, too. Any percentage of fossil fuel or nuke power you can displace is a benefit; my guess is 20% would be a pretty easy start. Often overlooked is the reduction in electrical consumption just by efficiency. You can thank the "greens" that your a/c & fridge use less kw than they did years ago. The average US household could reduce energy use 20% and most of them 50% without impeding our affluent lifestyles. Any non-renewable source you don't waste will be there for your kids to waste.
Storage is a concern with solar & wind but batteries work well on the small scale and hydrogen electrolysis is another solution. (And even in your wildest dreams, metals & acid from batteries can never be as bad as nuke waste: you still have the heavy metals, you still have the caustic chemical, plus you add radioactivity to the mix.)

Originally Posted by greg_the_great

Reactor do. And they solve your little problem of carbon footprints, which is theory as well.

Actually, carbon-based energy is used throughout the nuke cycle: mining & refining the ore, transporting fuel & components, the huge amounts of concrete poured.
In addition to the waste problem and aside from any potential accidents, there is also a lifespan issue: critical metals bombarded with neutrons suffer "embrittlement" which is just what it sounds like. Presently virtually all reactors that were licensed for 30 years of operation have been relicensed for another 30 years -- that cuts into their "over-engineered" safety margin. And eventually they will need to be decommissioned, which means more radioactive waste to deal with.
And if the pro-nuke lobby is sucessful, an increased number of generating stations may cause waste heat from cooling requirements to become an issue.

Originally Posted by greg_the_great

... you can possibly say that carbon footprints are real, but it is just theory on if they has anything to do with GW. Also, still waiting for you prove you claim the Gore's movie was accurate.

Carbon dioxide IS a greenhouse gas whether you choose to believe it or not; that is NOT a theory. While there is dispute over some aspects of Gore's movie -- some of it valid -- the science of global warming (the components & interactions, the natural phenomena) is truthful; if you choose to leave aside whether humans are making it worse, it is still a good illustration of earth science.

Originally Posted by greg_the_great

I just like the solar links. Mainly cause they are showing the activity of the Sun, which is the major cause of cooling and warming of the planet.

How does the sun cool the planet?

Originally Posted by greg_the_great

And for all the "big oil" statements, all your arguments are from people that will make large amount off of the hopes that we will kill ourselves.

WTF? Cadaver sales?

Originally Posted by greg_the_great

The issue is profits.

As I've said, if oil prices rise high enough, they will tap more expensive sources for it and you will keep paying more for what you choose not to do without.

Originally Posted by greg_the_great

Offer a reasonable solution that makes sense and the argument stops.

I doubt it, some stupidity is incredibly persistent.

Originally Posted by wildsage

It's easy to say the alternatives don't work when they haven't instituted them on a large scale. Again, take those hundreds of thousands of miles of power lines, put solar panels where there's a lot of sun and put wind turbines where there is a lot of wind -- the wires are already there, mounting towers, too.

I'd be happy to take my house off the grid, but the equipment costs too much, and the Gooberment subsidies are too little ... if the pols were serious the Gooberment assistance would be more ....

[wildsage]

Originally Posted by RadioPatrol

I'd be happy to take my house off the grid, but the equipment costs too much, and the Gooberment subsidies are too little ... if the pols were serious the Gooberment assistance would be more ....

If you had as effective a lobbying arm as coal, oil & nuke (CON) playas maybe your house would be off the grid. If the solar & wind industry got the capital help that CON got over the years there would likely be a stronger industry and cheaper equipment prices due to the economy of scale. But that would require a free-market...
The recent energy bill has higher subsidies for "renewables" and that looks good on the surface but most of it goes to biofuels (still got the carbon footprint). "Clean" coal got the lion's share, followed by the perennial incentives to the oil companies (who report record profits year after year).
Nukes still get subsidies (even though there hasn't been a new one built since 1996) mostly R&D, but also limitation liabilities, cost overrun relief and direct incentives.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by wildsage

Carbon dioxide IS a greenhouse gas whether you choose to believe it or not; that is NOT a theory. While there is dispute over some aspects of Gore's movie -- some of it valid -- the science of global warming (the components & interactions, the natural phenomena) is truthful; if you choose to leave aside whether humans are making it worse, it is still a good illustration of earth science.

...it is and psychotic freaks like Al Gore and his anti capitalism friends and supporters have succeed in making CO2, an essential ingredient in plant life, hence our own, into a bogeyman. It's as though they've convinced people that breast milk is a bad thing.

Imagine, a compound that is essential to life on this planet, not only in plant life which creates the very oxygen we breath, but in absorbing infrared light that would otherwise burn this planet to a crisp is actually seen in the popular mind as a bad thing.

Imagine a compound that holds far more promise in creating more food and ground cover AND more climate moderation than excess on this planet than it does in killing this planet and it is a bad thing.

If you saw the coronation of Gore at the Nobel gig you saw a classic case of a religion, a faith based entity, coming to full maturity. Does he speak of cleaner fuels and better use of resources? No. He speaks of doom. He speaks in the classic nomenclature of faith; believe in this unprovable thing or perish.

he is a frightening person and he has a frightening faith.

[PsyOps]

Did you hear? We are headed for an ice age.

Oh wait... that was the 70s.

[blazinlow89]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Did you hear? We are headed for an ice age.

Oh wait... that was the 70s.

No remember global warming has stopped for the next 10 years. Even though the levels of "GHG" havent changed.

Larry, Gore has always reminded me of a cult leader.