In a normal field of science, if a researcher does not send his data up for peer review, it doesn't get published or accepted.
The field of climate change is however, more politics than science.
Printable View
In a normal field of science, if a researcher does not send his data up for peer review, it doesn't get published or accepted.
The field of climate change is however, more politics than science.
Yes, I've just finished Crichton's State Of Fear which more or less says the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
I read it too, not one of his better books, but a good argument.
I did feel he was being somewhat contratian for the sake of being contrarion, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Moeur, what kind of a scientist are you? You have stated that that is your career, but only talked about what you are not.
I'm a fish biologist, myself.
As for the debate, I think the important thing is not that we ratify Kyoto, but that we are having the debate. I can think of no instance in human history that the population made a major change without the majority feeling that it was a good idea.
Now people are talking, and as Xanith says, nobody is pro-pollution. We need to shift the public consciousness, which will shift public demand. It isn't quick, but it IS effective. We were in far worse shape in the 70's, but people became concerned about it, and we are at least moving in the right direction (though Reagan did his level best to end this).
Frankly, I think Hydrogen is not quite as nice as people think. Generating the electicity is a significant issue. However, I don't really feel that nuclear is the best answer for that. I feel that there is a better market-driven solution to that problem.
We have always had central power supplies in this country. During the late 70's, there was federal funding for alternative energy. Reagan killed it off, and I have read several sources in the early 90's where people said that the things they were doing then were basically what they were working on in the early 80's, but research stalled for a decade. However, one interesting line of research was in flexible amorphous silica solar cells. You can find some of these now, but the increases in efficiency that were being reported in the early 80's stopped for a long time.
Solar is not cost effective with fossil fuels right now, but it is close. A few percent improvent in efficiency might make all the difference (cost per watt is the measure I am talking about). If the cost dropped, it would be interesting to create a solar shingle. My roof is doing.....well, no work. What would be the generating capacity of shingling a housing division with solar shingles? In solar only houses that I have been in, the power was generated using only a small fraction of the total roof area. If generation was expanded to the entire roof area, a surplus of electricity could be generated. Few power companies allow upstream transmission of electricity and two-direction meters, but the number is increasing.
Would it be possible to decentralize power generation? Not at current prices, but that could be changed.
Experimental physicist, but I'm working in the biotech area now.Quote:
Moeur, what kind of a scientist are you?
Cool.Quote:
I'm a fish biologist, myself
Why not?Quote:
However, I don't really feel that nuclear is the best answer for that. I feel that there is a better market-driven solution to that problem.
Right now I think that is our best option. Cheap clean power. The waste is a lot less than you would imagine and we can contain it, unlike the waste from most of the current sources. Before I went to graduate school I was a Nuclear Reactor engineer on a Navy submarine. I know a lot about nuclear power generation.
Solar energy generation is just not even close to being viable, and may never be. Wind power, on the other hand, has come a long way despite the supposed killing of the alternative enrgey field. We have some pretty major wind farms in the bay area, but now people are complaining that they are killing too many birds and want to shut them down.
Yea, a personal nuclear generating in every back yard! :)Quote:
Would it be possible to decentralize power generation?
One thing that bugs me about all this news coverage is:
Here we are a basically uniformed public looking for information on global warming. So who do the news organizations go to for quotes on the new proposal? The WWF. Why do I care what they think? Why not get us some real input from some real researchers doing real investigations on the matter?
This is trashy journalism.
I agree.
One example is the hockey stick graph. First it was the real deal, then some geezer showed that the 17th century data was flawed, then someone said it wasn't.
So which is it? Why can't the methods and the data be published so we can make our own minds up?
I suspect because the journalists covering it are erm *cough* not up to the job of scientific reporting :eek:
If you look at the letters to the editor for the most recent Scientific American, this particular issue came up, and the writers added what appears to be a compelling argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
I didn't know those wrestlers (the WWF) had any opinions......oh wait, that changed, didn't it. Actually, I don't know much about the WWF, but some such organizations (like Audubon) have actual scientists doing some good work (I worked for them for 5 years, and actually did look at sea-level rise, which is a very real phenomenon, though it has also been a natural one in the past).
Nuclear does have its good sides, but I feel that we are going about it ass-backwards. Yes, you can deal with the waste, but you have to do more than TALK about it as we are doing now. There isn't anybody who wants that waste. Nevada is fighting Yucca mountain with every tool they have, and might well win. We here in ID, are fighting over INEEL, and WA is constantly dealing with Hanford. Meanwhile, a recent report showed that waste is currently being stored in cooling ponds at Nuke plant sites. The waste was supposed to be moved to final disposal, but there is no final disposal site at this time, so many ponds are well over capacity. In most cases, this is no big deal, because the ponds are set into the ground. However, in some cases the ponds are elevated. This presents a clear and present danger. A deliberate breach of the ponds could start a catastrophic fire.
If all steps were in existence, I think nuclear energy would be a good immediate source. All steps are not in existence, some are just talk. No final repository exists for nuclear waste, and none is likely to exist in the forseeable future if Yucca mountain is successfully blocked by NV.
I do like wind, and it is growing like crazy out here, too. However, I don't believe that solar is not viable. It isn't cost effective at this time, and I don't believe it could replace the entire existing electrical grid....ever. However, I do believe that it could be a significant factor in a larger plan to decentralize power production and reduce demand on conventional sources. Currently, initial cost is prohibitive for most homes, but that could be fixed if we wanted to. There are already existing subsidies in place for such things, but they don't amount to much.
Furthermore, there is precedent for this. The Rural Electrification.....uh, I forget the last part of that name, but it was a government sub-agency that subsidized the cost of getting electricity into communities that were too small to be otherwise cost effective, was a highly effective and efficient program. The result of it is that virtually all Americans now have electricity and phone service unless they don't want them. A similar thing could be done again with the objective being to reduce our reliance on centralized power generation. I suspect that something like that would have to be done to free up the generating capacity needed to produce the Hydrogen for a Hydrogen economy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4724877.stm
The plot thickens
Global warming . . .
I heard last night on the radio (whilst driving home) that Scotland has, for first time since 1880, retained a snow patch (around 80x20x4m) for the full year round on the Cairngorm mountains at an altitude of only 1100m.
Further to this the process of nevation has begun. For those who don't know this is the first part of glaciation.
Given the trends on the British uplands, Britain could well have their own glacier to play with within 40 years.
We are losing glaciers and snowpack at a faster rate. Now I know who's taking them. GIVE THEM BACK YOU WASCALLY WABBIT!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
The New Scientist (this month) has published an article saying that most of glacial reduction happened before the CO2 levels rose. Some sort of throw back from the ice age.
Global cooling:
The picture is of the expected anomaly of winter temperatures world wide. Doesn't look too hot to me!
Could it be something to do with the 10yr winter cycle, the 11yr sun-spot cycle. Who knows.
But this is going to hurt global warming activists.
The Sunday Times - Britain
CLIMATE change researchers have detected the first signs of a slowdown in the Gulf Stream — the mighty ocean current that keeps Britain and Europe from freezing.
They have found that one of the “engines” driving the Gulf Stream — the sinking of supercooled water in the Greenland Sea — has weakened to less than a quarter of its former strength.
The weakening, apparently caused by global warming, could herald big changes in the current over the next few years or decades. Paradoxically, it could lead to Britain and northwestern and Europe undergoing a sharp drop in temperatures.
Such a change has long been predicted by scientists but the new research is among the first to show clear experimental evidence of the phenomenon.
Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, hitched rides under the Arctic ice cap in Royal Navy submarines and used ships to take measurements across the Greenland Sea.
“Until recently we would find giant ‘chimneys’ in the sea where columns of cold, dense water were sinking from the surface to the seabed 3,000 metres below, but now they have almost disappeared,” he said.
“As the water sank it was replaced by warm water flowing in from the south, which kept the circulation going. If that mechanism is slowing, it will mean less heat reaching Europe.”
Such a change could have a severe impact on Britain, which lies on the same latitude as Siberia and ought to be much colder. The Gulf Stream transports 27,000 times more heat to British shores than all the nation’s power supplies could provide, warming Britain by 5-8C.
Wadhams and his colleagues believe, however, that just such changes could be well under way. They predict that the slowing of the Gulf Stream is likely to be accompanied by other effects, such as the complete summer melting of the Arctic ice cap by as early as 2020 and almost certainly by 2080. This would spell disaster for Arctic wildlife such as the polar bear, which could face extinction.
Wadhams’s submarine journeys took him under the North Polar ice cap, using sonar to survey the ice from underneath. He has measured how the ice has become 46% thinner over the past 20 years. The results from these surveys prompted him to focus on a feature called the Odden ice shelf, which should grow out into the Greenland Sea every winter and recede in summer.
The growth of this shelf should trigger the annual formation of the sinking water columns. As sea water freezes to form the shelf, the ice crystals expel their salt into the surrounding water, making it heavier than the water below.
However, the Odden ice shelf has stopped forming. It last appeared in full in 1997. “In the past we could see nine to 12 giant columns forming under the shelf each year. In our latest cruise, we found only two and they were so weak that the sinking water could not reach the seabed,” said Wadhams, who disclosed the findings at a meeting of the European Geosciences Union in Vienna.
The exact effect of such changes is hard to predict because currents and weather systems take years to respond and because there are two other areas around the north Atlantic where water sinks, helping to maintain circulation. Less is known about how climate change is affecting these.
However, Wadhams suggests the effect could be dramatic. “One of the frightening things in the film The Day After Tomorrow showed how the circulation in the Atlantic Ocean is upset because the sinking of cold water in the north Atlantic suddenly stops,” he said.
“The sinking is stopping, albeit much more slowly than in the film — over years rather than a few days. If it continues, the effect will be to cool the climate of northern Europe.”
One possibility is that Europe will freeze; another is that the slowing of the Gulf Stream may keep Europe cool as global warming heats the rest of the world — but with more extremes of weather.
Science News reports that images from the Mars Global Surveyor provide evidence that the south polar ice cap is shrinking by about 1.5 meters every Earth year. This indicates that Mars is undergoing a global warming of its own.
I guess that Martians also drive SUVs.
Yeah it's a good point. I wonder if they are capable of accelerating beyond the speed of light?Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
An interesting perspective:
http://www.etherzone.com/2005/bren101205.shtml
Basically, Greenhouse gases are a reality but all we can do is guess as to the consequences, but needless to say whatever they may be, they are not going to be good.
This is a belief not a fact.Quote:
all we can do is guess as to the consequences, but needless to say whatever they may be, they are not going to be good.
Yup.
Even worse what is 'good' for some might be 'bad' for others.
okay, explain how greenhouse gases can be good? We're either going to enter a new ice age (due to cooling gulf streams) or a heat wave. Perhaps the two will happen and a balance will occur? :confused:
Well, for a start the greenhouse gases have been keeping us fairly warm over the last billion or so years :lol:
Again a belief and not a fact.Quote:
We're either going to enter a new ice age (due to cooling gulf streams) or a heat wave
. . . or so you believe . . . ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Okay, between you genius's you surely can come up with a consequence of the build up of greenhouse gases? Yes yrywddfa, greenhouse gases have kept us toasty, but they haven't reached these levels due to artifical tampering, neither has the ozone layer disapeared
Well, OK. But there are a lot of issues to consider:
(i) The earth is warming.
(ii) The concentration of CO2 is increasing at a somewhat correllated rate to temperature
(iii) There is no proven link between (i) and (ii)
If you consider that the earth warming for a given reason. If the earth is warming the oceans will give up more of their CO2. This would account for the apparent correlation between the graphs.
What is not known, and it needs to be studied, is the concentration levels of CO2 required in order to initiate a runaway global warming catastrophe.
ie Is there sufficient CO2 (whether anthropogenic in origin, or otherwise) to, with all other things considered, initiate an upward trend in temperature.
There is a general scientific consensus (you can read my thoughts on 'scientific consensus' in other threads) that the CO2 levels are indeed concentrated enough.
However . . .
A correlation is not causation, and observation does not necessarily lead to evidence.
Even worse the models used to measure this stuff are all proprietary and of commerical benefit so are never published. The source data used is sometimes suspect. Journals swerve round things like a peer-review.
And politics has got involved.
If I'm honest, I would hold my hands up and say "I don't know" but I'm highly suspicious of the whole area.
I too am sometimes suspicious that we are not told everything. However, what concerns me is that we spend so long studying what's going on that by the time we may have found out it IS a problem, it's too late to do anything about it.
Well I think that there is widespread agreement that continuing to pollute our home is a bad idea.
We should clean up our act regardless of the facts and fictions regarding anthropological climate change.
Indeed, and the problem is that the two largest polluters (US and China) seem to just want to close their eyes and pretend nothing is wrong. Shameful
The alternative would be to take steps to alter our environment anytime someone simply speculates that there might be a problem with it. The problem with this, besides the fact that it is economically unfeasible, is that we may cause secondary problems in our attempt to fix the perceived primary problem. It’s never a good idea to jump into something without enough information about the problem.Quote:
what concerns me is that we spend so long studying what's going on that by the time we may have found out it IS a problem, it's too late to do anything about it.
Except that CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a necessary part of our ecosystem.Quote:
Well I think that there is widespread agreement that continuing to pollute our home is a bad idea.
We should clean up our act regardless of the facts and fictions regarding anthropological climate change.
I thought we just established here that we’re not sure if there is a problem or not. What is so shameful about taking deliberate measures to determine what the proper remedy to the situation is (if any) rather than taking knee-jerk reactionary actions that may not help anything?Quote:
the problem is that the two largest polluters (US and China) seem to just want to close their eyes and pretend nothing is wrong. Shameful
A truly US reply. There IS a problem (general pollution), that has been agreed, what hasn't been agreed is what the resulting consequences are (warming, cooling, etc.)Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Yes, CO2 is part of an ecosystem but like anything, too much of it can kill, and too much is what we will have in a few decades. What is currently at question is what effect the continuing pollution will have on the planet.
Yes, secondary problems may occur but it is better than standing here sucking our thumbs and doing nothing. Pollution is bad, and has to be reduced as much as possible, something the US and China will not agree to because of the financial cost. The Kyoto agreement is simply a way of reducing general pollution, not just greenhouse gases, to as low as viably possible
Let’s separate two things:
General Air pollution
Greenhouse Gasses.
I don’t know what the Kyoto treaty says about general air pollutants but I would suspect that you’ll find the US is much more in-line with other countries when it comes to this area.
Carbon emissions in the United States are now projected to be 43 percent above the Kyoto Treaty cap by 2010. In practical terms, that means the US would be faced with trying to cut energy consumption by a third to meet treaty requirements. High taxes and rationing are the tools the government would most likely use. This would kill the US economy and negatively effect the world economy as well. This result is actually one of the reasons for the Kyoto treaty. Many around the world do not want the US using more than “their share” of the world’s energy supply. Others begrudge the US its prosperity and want to take it down (economically). No US politician in his right mind would acquiesce to these demands based solely on unsubstantiated claims.
:lol:
The world against you huh? So much for allies, as the world is against you perhaps you think the UK (your greatest ally in these past few years) is also against you?
The kyoto agreement deals with ALL types of pollution and it has hit every country financially, even the UK. However, I would happily add a few pounds to my taxes if it meant a huge reduction in pollution so that my children can live in safety
There is a big difference between saying the “world is against us” and “many around the world” oppose our energy policies and economic prosperity.Quote:
The world against you huh? So much for allies, as the world is against you perhaps you think the UK (your greatest ally in these past few years) is also against you?
Everything I’ve read about the treaty says it only deals with the six so called greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs. A couple of these are also in the general air pollution category also. Of course carbon dioxide is the main sticking point.Quote:
The kyoto agreement deals with ALL types of pollution
Unfortunately, adding a few pounds to everyone’s taxes is going to do nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissionsQuote:
I would happily add a few pounds to my taxes if it meant a huge reduction in pollution
I do have a suggestion for a solution that would reduce US carbon emmisions without crippling the economy.
Replace our coal-burning power plants with nuclear power plants. Oh.. but we can't do that because the same airheads in the US who are complaining about greenhouse gasses are preventing us from building any new nuclear facilities.
Actually, it is unlikely that the cost of cleaning this up will be measurable.
It is mostly the people who have a vested intererst in NOT fixing the problem who are saying that. The reality is that any attempt to alter the business as usual will create a new business as usual. This will mean that some current businesses will change, while others will be wiped out. However, new ones will replace the ones that are lost. This has happened again and again in the last few hundred years (technology changed MUCH more slowly before that point). Anxious people fearing change, and fearing a loss of their personal revenue streams will proclaim all sorts of doom over any perceived change.
As far as I am concerned, they can go cry on the shoulders of all those thousands of blacksmiths in every town that shoe the horses we all use for transportation.
Society changes its values and desires, and whole industries are wiped away in a matter of years or even less. Does this ruin us? No, it only ruins a few people who cannot adapt. Those are the ones doing the crying now, just as they were the ones who squalled when the Japanese provided real competition for in computers, cars, etc. They don't care about what is good for the world, they fear that any change will cause their comfortable streams of revenue to dry up.
The cost of cleaning up the stacks will not be met be companies burning massive piles of money. Instead the cost will be met by the purchase of items. This won't ruin the economy, it will only change it.
What's wrong with my suggestion of building nuclear power plants to replace the fossil-fuel burning plants?
I toured Seabrook plant (the last nuke plant to be built in the US). It was pretty impressive, and I am generally in favor of technology. However, there were a few issues that were disturbing. The expected lifespan of one of those plants is only a couple of decades. At that time, the plan is to break the reactor building down, entomb it in concrete, and keep anybody from going onto that patch of earth for a few tens of thousands of years.
I realize that no airborne waste is produced, and no polluted water need be created (as long as the design is sound), but the result will be a bunch of highly radioactive material with what amounts to an infiinite lifespan (infinite in that it will not become safe in a length of time greater than man has been on the earth). This means that we are creating a contamination which we cannot ever be rid of. Civilization could fall, and another could rise and fall again, and still this ground will be harmful to anybody or anything that lives on it.
Of course, there is natural radioactivity in granite. Supposedly, there are highway cuts in NH that have enough natural radioactivity that it is inadvisable to park in the road cut.
I know a lot about these things since I used to be a reactor technician aboard a US Navy Nuclear Submarine.
There are two sources of radioactive waste from a power plant.
1. spent fuel
2. reactor component corrosion
Regarding spent fuel, we could dramatically reduce the amount of waste in this area if we were allowed to reprocess the fuel. When a reactor’s fuel stops producing it is not because there is no more fissionable material to “burn” it is because the fission byproducts (i.e. Xenon) are competing for neutrons with the fuel. The reprocessing would remove these poisons from the remaining fuel to make it productive again. Currently, in the U.S. we are not allowed to reprocess fuel for reasons I don’t understand. It’s either a political thing or an environmental complaint.
Regarding reactor corrosion; there are many ways to reduce corrosion and prevent it from becoming radioactive. I’m surprised that they told you the plant is only going to last a couple of decades. All the plants I’ve worked at last much longer than that because they were built with these ideas in mind.
I'd rather be storing this waste underground than spewing the toxic waste of coal-fired plants into the air as we're doing today. That waste even contains radioactive elements itself.
I agree with hiker on thepoint that I think it is that the oil companies could lose an absolute fortune if the technology changed. Imgaine everyone using electric cars instead of petrol/gas. It also doesn't help that your president is from Texas, a state who's main wealth comes from oil production.
As for nuclear, although it is probably cleaner in the short term, it is not in the long term. Other sources need to be found, as to where who knows? We certainly need to start looking at alternatives now before the oil/coal reserves run out
SSPS's,
Gulf Stream Turbines,
Zero Point Energy Generators...
Yeah I don't understand why the breeder reactor design hasn't really taken off.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
We could always ship our waste into outer-space every decade or so (and I'm not joking)
Technologies that have been blocked/slowed due to the oil corporations' powers of persuasion with those in power :mad:
Yeah, but it makes no sense.
If someone 'invents' the next clean technology, gains the patents, they will 4e4 rich!
The problem is getting it built. The car manufacturer's probably have multiple contracts with the oil producers. Developing these clean technologies would also stop us relying on the Middle East so much
For those who love the C02/temp anomaly hockey stick chart here's another chart that has a line that follows temperature pretty close; and it has nothing at all to do with anthropological activity . . .
Article
That graph is nonsense, by the way. The editors of the journal ended up resigning stating (paraphrased) that they 'couldn't believe how such rubbish got published'Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Putin obviously watched Al Gore's documentary. Good going Al!Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Gore 2008!
The only reason why Russia signed that agreement is because under the treaty Russia is allowed to pollute at a level when they were still a superpower. Russia’s current emissions fall short of those allowed under the treaty (because they are no longer a superpower) so they will be able to sell those extra pollution credits to other countries at a profit. In other words Russia doesn’t have to do anything to curb their current pollution levels and can make a nice bit of money selling their extra pollution credits to other countries. I would sign an agreement like that too.Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
X
That's pretty stupid. Who the hell is making up these proposals? He needs to be fired.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
The US could cut their Co2 emissions dramatically, just by deporting any foreign tourist that exhales.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5109188.stm
not an opinion, just a link.
I've played around with the NOAA's interactive climate graphs.
The funny thing is if you stop at 1980 (1958-1980), you actually see a cooling trend of (-.75 degrees) for Chicago.
Now, I am beginning to wonder how many of these weather stations are subject to urban heating. Obviously a weather station on a tar roof of a commercial building is going to report higher temperatures than one sitting in the the middle of a forest.
The problem is almost all weather stations that are used to collect temperatures are subject to urban heating since most are located in urban areas. Perhaps the world is NOT getting hotter, but the city is.
An official NOAA temperature gauge has very strict guidelines as to where it can be, and the container it must be in. The box the gauge is in can be seen at any official weather site. It will be painted white, have baffles all around to enable air flow, and will be located a set height above grass in an area where no shadow falls on it during the course of the day. If you don't have grass, you don't have a valid gauge, or at least that's how it was. This doesn't remove the heating in urban areas, but it makes them more comparable.
I question your assertion that most stations are in urban areas. Frankly, I've never seen one in an urban area, but I've encountered plenty in VERY remote areas around the country. Of course, that's sampling bias because I'm rarely in urban areas, and often in very remote areas.
Indeed. Global warming is not called global because it measures the UHI effect. In fact even with this effect correlated and corrected the warming is quite marked. The time for scepticism, I'm afraid, has now passed. There is now sufficient evidence to support a warming planet; we no longer have any need of consensus, because the data now speaks for itself. There is still some degree of argument left on whether it is human beings causing climate change; but with recent carbon isotope measurements, I suspect that that point will be mute soon, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Let's be honest. The weather is certainly getting more erratic. Last month we had the hottest heat wave on record, now the UK is cold, wet and miserable and it's AUGUST!?!
Currently Northern Greece is suffering from the worst forest fires in centuries, another "random" effect? Maybe.
Unfortunately localised events are normally serialised and sensationalised by the media for maximum effect. The weather as it is today is not exceptional, nor was July's; breaking no climate records whatsoever. Global warming is a term used for the climate of the Earth and not of localised weather events.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978