True cause of global warming

[Everskyward]

Do you see a large expenditure in the Navy's FY12 budget entitled "Combat Global Warming?"

I didn't look through the whole document to see if it was a line item, but I wouldn't expect it to be anyway, just like other mission statements.

 

[dmccormack]

I didn't look through the whole document to see if it was a line item, but I wouldn't expect it to be anyway, just like other mission statements.

The Navy's Mission Statement is linked to the overall Defense Strategy. The NMETL (Navy Mission Essential Task List) is supposed to break down each mission statement sub-paragraph.

Look through that -- you won't see any commitment to combating Global Warming there, either. Though you will see some commitments to energy use/ reduction/ etc.

 

[Everskyward]

The Navy's Mission Statement is linked to the overall Defense Strategy. The NMETL (Navy Mission Essential Task List) is supposed to break down each mission statement sub-paragraph.

Look through that -- you won't see any commitment to combating Global Warming there, either. Though you will see some commitments to energy use/ reduction/ etc.

The wheels of government move slowly. The report is only a little over a year old.

“We're going to have to fold these challenges into a tight fiscal budget,” acknowledged Navy Rear Adm. David W. Titley, who also serves as director of the Navy's Task Force Climate Change. He explained that it is important not only to know what investments are right to meet future requirements, but also to know when to make them.

[snip]

Titley said the assessments were timed to coincide with the Navy's program objective memorandum for fiscal 2014. POMs are annual events in which critical decisions on the budget and investment spending are made. Titley said he believes the 2014 budget is where the first climate-change investments may potentially be made.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59713

 

[EdFred]

"
And, again, your claims all encourage an answer of "I don't know", but they're used to rationalize an answer of "it isn't".
-harry

No, I am saying that YOU (all those saying man is going to flood the entire earth by the year 2030 - hyperbole) don't know. I'm not the one making any claims whatsoever.

 

[mantakos]

No, I am saying that YOU (all those saying man is going to flood the entire earth by the year 2030 - hyperbole) don't know. I'm not the one making any claims whatsoever.

So if the basis of the greenhouse effect can be demonstrated in a lab environment (which it can), and if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can be measured and shown to be increasing (which it can), and if the amount of CO2 that we produce can be counted and shown to be more than sufficient to account for the rise in CO2 (which it can), and if other measurements can confirm that this rise in CO2 has been a very recent spike (since Industrial Revolution) and is higher than it has been for 800k years (which it can) ... then you'd be inclined to say "it's clear that greenhouse gases encourage warming, that our actions are resulting in an increase in greenhouse gases, but there's insufficient evidence to tell me by how much?"
-harry

 

[dmccormack]

My other issue with AGW advocates is their clear lack of historical perspective.

They like to trot out the "Industrial revolution" as the beginning of all the trouble.



When was that, exactly? 1680? 1700? 1760? 1800? 1860?

Or, maybe one factory producing 1,000 pins a day belches less fumes than 1,000 cottages producing one pin each?

Cutting down thousands of acres of forested land happened already -- between 1650 and 1750 all along the east coast of North America.



I like the industrial Revolution -- it's eliminated typhus, polio, scarlet fever and a few hundred other maladies as an everyday concern for millions, provides an abundance and variety of food stuffs unimaginable by anyone more than 100 years ago, makes airplanes I can fly, heats my house, and gives me the ability to read after dark.

Benefits of the industrial Revolution = >1,000,000
Actual, measurable, identifiable threat posed by "Climate Change" = 0

 

[EdFred]

So if the basis of the greenhouse effect can be demonstrated in a lab environment (which it can), and if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can be measured and shown to be increasing (which it can), and if the amount of CO2 that we produce can be counted and shown to be more than sufficient to account for the rise in CO2 (which it can), and if other measurements can confirm that this rise in CO2 has been a very recent spike (since Industrial Revolution) and is higher than it has been for 800k years (which it can) ... then you'd be inclined to say "it's clear that greenhouse gases encourage warming, that our actions are resulting in an increase in greenhouse gases, but there's insufficient evidence to tell me by how much?"
-harry

And it can also be shown that CO2 concentrations were higher in the past along with temperatures and the world (and its species) survived just fine. So what's with the chicken little-ing from your side?

 

[mantakos]

And it can also be shown that CO2 concentrations were higher in the past...

Yes, if you go in for that kind of "no control set" science, which, as we've already determined, is just religion...

... the world (and its species) survived just fine...

Note that we didn't exist as a species that long ago.

But is "earth continues to exist, humans continue to exist as a species" where we want to set the bar? Any threat that takes us to that level but not below it is not worthy of effort?

So what's with the chicken little-ing from your side?

Have you heard somebody suggest that global warming will result in the Earth ceasing to exist or the extinction of the species?

Or is the threat that since we're invested very heavily in the current climate, that a sudden shift to a new one will be expensive?
-harry

 

[EdFred]

Yes, if you go in for that kind of "no control set" science, which, as we've already determined, is just religion...

Note that we didn't exist as a species that long ago.

But is "earth continues to exist, humans continue to exist as a species" where we want to set the bar? Any threat that takes us to that level but not below it is not worthy of effort?

Have you heard somebody suggest that global warming will result in the Earth ceasing to exist or the extinction of the species?

Or is the threat that since we're invested very heavily in the current climate, that a sudden shift to a new one will be expensive?
-harry

We may not have existed, but a bunch of other species did, and survived it. I've hear a few AGW loudmouths claiming disaster of untold proportions. Yawn. Besides, I have no kids, and I'll be dead in 30 years, so why should I give a crap if NYC floods and have all this we must do something (by taxing you more - directly or indirectly) crap shoved down my throat? I don't see anyone doing anything for me.

 

[mantakos]

... I've hear a few AGW loudmouths claiming disaster of untold proportions....

Okay, so ignore those few loudmouths. You can't discredit a premise by finding somebody who misstates it.

... Besides, I have no kids, and I'll be dead in 30 years...

Ok, well, that's an ethical question, and "what should we do about it?" has nothing to do with "is this how the climate works?", though people do tend to confuse the two.

Note that not everybody has an "F you future people! Better you than me!" attitude, but there's a good chance that this is what's going to actually determine the actions that people take. I find it unlikely that people will really step up and do anything substantive voluntarily if it involves significant sacrifice.

But eventually renewable energy sources will be cheaper than digging stuff up and burning it, and the problem will resolve itself, regardless of the consequences sustained until then.
-harry

 

[dmccormack]

Or is the threat that since we're invested very heavily in the current climate, that a sudden shift to a new one will be expensive?
-harry

What "sudden shift"?

What actual impacts has the IPCC been reduced to lately?

(And don't pretend there haven't been changes with each issuance of the latest "report")

 

[mantakos]

What "sudden shift"?

In this context, sudden is not on a human time scale (e.g. in a few years), it's relative to the usual climate time scale. Ten thousand years ago Manhattan was under a mile of ice. Humans progress so quickly relative to this slow time-scale that we've built a whole city there. If 10,000 years from now Manhattan is under liquid water, that's no problem, as that's a slow progression that humans can react to. Shrink that timescale down to hundreds of years, and it becomes expensive and disruptive.

What actual impacts has the IPCC been reduced to lately?

By "actual impacts" are you talking about impacts already seen or those forecast?

(And don't pretend there haven't been changes with each issuance of the latest "report")

Did you have reason to believe that somebody was going to "pretend" something that wasn't true?
-harry

 

[dmccormack]

In this context, sudden is not on a human time scale (e.g. in a few years), it's relative to the usual climate time scale. Ten thousand years ago Manhattan was under a mile of ice. Humans progress so quickly relative to this slow time-scale that we've built a whole city there. If 10,000 years from now Manhattan is under liquid water, that's no problem, as that's a slow progression that humans can react to. Shrink that timescale down to hundreds of years, and it becomes expensive and disruptive.

By "actual impacts" are you talking about impacts already seen or those forecast?

Did you have reason to believe that somebody was going to "pretend" something that wasn't true?
-harry

There have been no -- none -- zero -- nil -- deleterious impacts from the supposed wholesale destruction of the climate.

Even the vaunted sea level rise has had no impact -- none.

 

[mantakos]

There have been no -- none -- zero -- nil -- deleterious impacts from the supposed wholesale destruction of the climate.

Even the vaunted sea level rise has had no impact -- none.

There's an old joke about an optimist who fell out of a 87th floor window. As he passed the 30th floor he was heard to say "so far, so good!"

The premise of global warming is that the significant effects are in the future. I'd say over 100 years in the future. The temperature rise so far has been small, and the CO2 concentration rise limited to about 1/3. But the CO2 concentration will certainly hit a doubling and tripling of prior levels, and the warming will continue, and eventually things will start looking significantly different.

There are certainly those who like to point to individual current events, like hurricanes or droughts, and ascribe them to global warming, but it's not possible to attribute an isolated event to a very slight increase in probability.
-harry

 

[dmccormack]

There's an old joke about an optimist who fell out of a 87th floor window. As he passed the 30th floor he was heard to say "so far, so good!"

The premise of global warming is that the significant effects are in the future. I'd say over 100 years in the future. The temperature rise so far has been small, and the CO2 concentration rise limited to about 1/3. But the CO2 concentration will certainly hit a doubling and tripling of prior levels, and the warming will continue, and eventually things will start looking significantly different.

There are certainly those who like to point to individual current events, like hurricanes or droughts, and ascribe them to global warming, but it's not possible to attribute an isolated event to a very slight increase in probability.
-harry

So let me get this straight:

We're to make massive shifts in our economic, political, and consumption habits, enforced by law, under penalty of same, controlled by a centralized, trans-national bureaucracy, because there may be some alteration of a climate? The same climate which has changed in the past and has been adapted to in the past due to the slow rate of change?

Oh yeah -- sign me up.

 

[mantakos]

... We're to make massive shifts in our economic, political, and consumption habits, enforced by law, under penalty of same, controlled by a centralized, trans-national bureaucracy, because there may be some alteration of a climate?...

Perhaps you're confused by my use of the word "probability".

Some elements of climate are persistent, albeit with continual variation, e.g. things like temperature, sea level, ice cover. Some elements of climate are episodic, individual discrete events, like storms, hurricanes, droughts, and floods. Changes in the climate affect the rate at which these episodic events occur, the probability of an event rises or declines. If the probability of a hurricane increases slightly, you can't point to a single incident and attribute that to the rise in probability, any more than you can attribute a win of a single hand in blackjack to card-counting.

That's what "probability" means in that sentence. It doesn't mean "there's a slight chance that the climate might change if we triple the concentration of CO2". No, there's a certainty that the climate will change if that happens, though there isn't certainty in exactly how much it will change or how.

The same climate which has changed in the past and has been adapted to in the past due to the slow rate of change?

What should we conclude from the fact that there is natural slow variation in climate?
-harry

 

[dmccormack]

I understand "probability."

What should we conclude from the fact that there is natural slow variation in climate?
-harry

That humans -- a symbiotic component of the environment, BTW, -- have proven adaptable and therefore can be reasonably assumed to adapt IF such change should occur -- which is uncertain.

 

[mantakos]

... That humans -- a symbiotic component of the environment, BTW, -- have proven adaptable and therefore can be reasonably assumed to adapt IF such change should occur -- which is uncertain.

Nobody is arguing that the human species will disappear. The argument is simply that the cost of the transition exceeds the cost of the measures needed to prevent it.
-harry

 

[EdFred]

Then I suggest you lead the way, by not flying, not driving, not using any electricity...

You want the change, you go first.

 

[p1l0t]

The truth (however dangerus or not) nuclear energy is the only green energy plentiful enough for our needs at the moment. But no these same people that want all electric cars and planes don't understand that without more nukes we are going to be poweringthem off of coal and oil (still emissions and less efficent). Hydro plants, solar plants, and wind farms are great I hope everyone gets some but it won't cover our needs. Solve cold fusion? We could also use Ethanol which is 90% cleaner than gas and the tech is here. Still people (backed by big oil) are against that too because its not 100% green just 90% green so let's wait while we continue to burn gas for someone to invent something 'perfectly clean'

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

 

[Anthony]

Then I suggest you lead the way, by not flying, not driving, not using any electricity...

You want the change, you go first.

X2. Bitching about the use of fossil fuels on an aviation web board, while continuing to burn 100LL, auto fuel, and accepting electricity from coal, gas, and oil fired power plants just smacks a bit of hypocricy, doesn't it?

 

[jesse]

The truth (however dangerus or not) nuclear energy is the only green energy plentiful enough for our needs at the moment. But no these same people that want all electric cars and planes don't understand that without more nukes we are going to be poweringthem off of coal and oil (still emissions and less efficent). Hydro plants, solar plants, and wind farms are great I hope everyone gets some but it won't cover our needs. Solve cold fusion? We could also use Ethanol which is 90% cleaner than gas and the tech is here. Still people (backed by big oil) are against that too because its not 100% green just 90% green so let's wait while we continue to burn gas for someone to invent something 'perfectly clean'

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

Ethanol is full of problems. It's not exactly the most efficient thing to produce. I'm not sure if they've improved this yet, but there have been plenty of reports indicating it takes more to produce then it yields. Plus it's not like we're sitting on a bunch of excess corn or places to plant corn. We're pretty much maxed out already. About all ethanol does is drive up the cost of corn and hurt my fuel efficiency. It certainly can not reduce our oil dependency.

I just haven't seen a model yet that makes ethanol in an efficient manner and has a chance at producing enough to actually make an impact on our oil usage.

 

[jsstevens]

Ethanol is full of problems. It's not exactly the most efficient thing to produce. I'm not sure if they've improved this yet, but there have been plenty of reports indicating it takes more to produce then it yields. Plus it's not like we're sitting on a bunch of excess corn or places to plant corn. We're pretty much maxed out already. About all ethanol does is drive up the cost of corn and hurt my fuel efficiency. It certainly can not reduce our oil dependency.

I just haven't seen a model yet that makes ethanol in an efficient manner and has a chance at producing enough to actually make an impact on our oil usage.

And ethanol production from corn impacts food prices to many of the folks who can afford it least: the 3rd world.

 

[Henning]

And it can also be shown that CO2 concentrations were higher in the past along with temperatures and the world (and its species) survived just fine. So what's with the chicken little-ing from your side?

Seriously? Name me some species that are still around from then, preferably more complex than an insect and not waterborne.

 

[EdFred]

Seriously? Name me some species that are still around from then, preferably more complex than an insect and not waterborne.

The fact they aren't around today has nothing to do with that. They survived the higher temperatures and CO2 levels at the time. Had they not, there wouldn't be complex organisms today.

 

[mantakos]

... these same people that want all electric cars and planes don't understand that without more nukes we are going to be powering them off of coal and oil (still emissions and less efficent)...

No, not "these same people". There are plenty who understand that nuclear is the most likely source of large-scale carbon-free energy.
-harry

 

[mantakos]

The fact they aren't around today has nothing to do with that. They survived the higher temperatures and CO2 levels at the time. Had they not, there wouldn't be complex organisms today.

Why are you shooting down the argument of "increasing CO2 concentration will end all life on planet Earth"? Is somebody making this claim?
-harry

 

[EdFred]

Why are you shooting down the argument of "increasing CO2 concentration will end all life on planet Earth"? Is somebody making this claim?
-harry

Lots of people on your side of the fence make that claim.

 

[mantakos]

Lots of people on your side of the fence make that claim.

Nobody prominent, nobody authoritative, nobody who knows what they're talking about, and nobody who is involved in this conversation here.
-harry

 

[p1l0t]

Cellulosic ethanol (my spelling maybe off) is like 35:1 not 1.3:1. It works off the green waste part of the plant, the edible part can still be eaten by humans. No starving Ethopians were harmed in the making of this post.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

 

[steingar]

The effects of rising CO2 have not been postulated to end all life on Earth, bacteria are really hard to kill. They could end what we call civilization pretty easily, though.

 

[EdFred]

The effects of rising CO2 have not been postulated to end all life on Earth, bacteria are really hard to kill. They could end what we call civilization pretty easily, though.

Not really. It might wipe out certain population centers (which would be beneficial to the overall ecosystem anyway) but it won't get to a point to kill off man.

 

[steingar]

Not really. It might wipe out certain population centers (which would be beneficial to the overall ecosystem anyway) but it won't get to a point to kill off man.

Didn't say it would kill of humans, they're almost as hard to kill as bacteria. I said end civilization, something far easier to do.

 

[dmccormack]

There is no GW scenario postulated by any IPCC or other boards that threatens civilization.

Unless we're talking about a bit more surf spray along Coney Island. Then Nathan's might be threatened.

Oh, the humanity.

 

[EdFred]

Didn't say it would kill of humans, they're almost as hard to kill as bacteria. I said end civilization, something far easier to do.

I guess that's going to depend on what you define civilization as. We'll still know how to read, write, communicate, educate, and construct. Which is pretty much all I consider needed to be a civilization.

 

[Geico266]

Nobody prominent, nobody authoritative, nobody who knows what they're talking about, and nobody who is involved in this conversation here.
-harry

Back peddling Harry? You and the whole MM global warming conscientious is that we are all going to die unless we stop it now.


At least you are now coming around to reality.

 

[Geico266]

And ethanol production from corn impacts food prices to many of the folks who can afford it least: the 3rd world.

Myth.

 

[steingar]

There is no GW scenario postulated by any IPCC or other boards that threatens civilization.

Unless we're talking about a bit more surf spray along Coney Island. Then Nathan's might be threatened.

Oh, the humanity.

Get a clue. If seas levels rise according to some of more conservative predictions, it will destroy most of the Earth's coastal areas, where 90% of the world's population lives. Coupled with more energetic weather and collapse of most fisheries (from pH changes in the oceans) this could easily be a civilization destroying event. Civilizations are wonderfully fragile things. The Roman civilization lasted for centuries, only to be undone by climate change.

 

[jsstevens]

[snip] The Roman civilization lasted for centuries, only to be undone by climate change.

What? First time I've heard that attribution. I thought it was external pressure from the Goths/Huns.

Can you please elaborate?

John

 

[EdFred]

Get a clue. If seas levels rise according to some of more conservative predictions, it will destroy most of the Earth's coastal areas, where 90% of the world's population lives. Coupled with more energetic weather and collapse of most fisheries (from pH changes in the oceans) this could easily be a civilization destroying event. Civilizations are wonderfully fragile things. The Roman civilization lasted for centuries, only to be undone by climate change.

Good. This planet is over populated by about 90% anyway.