Climate Change - Bad News

[metis]

A bit more money? Do you mean that in a "get a bit pregnant" sense?

No, it's really a matter of what needs to be done that will work and how long it will take. Energy conservative overall saves money, and that is one helpful solution. So is converting oil to natural gas, although there is some money involved in the conversion process.

We already have made some good progress, such as with more efficient air conditioners, and furnaces, which cost somewhat more when installed, but same money in the long run. Same with more efficient cars and trucks. BTW, I'm not real crazy on the all electric cars, but hybrids are proving to be helpful in reducing consumption and costs in the long run.

Nor does everything have to be done now, as we slowly got into this mess, so we should look at this as a long-range approach.

 

[Avi1001]

Nor does everything have to be done now, as we slowly got into this mess, so we should look at this as a long-range approach.

Energy conservation is a short term approach. In order to provide food and resources for the world we need more energy, not less. And all of our energy starts with the sun and is converted to other forms from there.

Natural gas is being discovered in large quantities with shale and will be a major resource in the coming years.

Electric vehicles are the vehicles of the future. They shift CO2 emissions back to the source, which will be reduced as we move toward solar fuels. Hybrids are also temporary solutions.

Not everything can done now. That's why we have the future.

 

[YmirGF]

No, it's really a matter of what needs to be done that will work and how long it will take. Energy conservative overall saves money, and that is one helpful solution. So is converting oil to natural gas, although there is some money involved in the conversion process.

We already have made some good progress, such as with more efficient air conditioners, and furnaces, which cost somewhat more when installed, but same money in the long run. Same with more efficient cars and trucks. BTW, I'm not real crazy on the all electric cars, but hybrids are proving to be helpful in reducing consumption and costs in the long run.

Nor does everything have to be done now, as we slowly got into this mess, so we should look at this as a long-range approach.

That is all well and good, if one has the resources - no pun intended. If one is caught in the current economic quagmire, getting a new energy efficient 'whatever' is not especially high on the priority list of things to acquire.

Further to this is the idea that we have generations to enact these changes. If that is so then there is no imminent threat - ergo - the whole "climate change" hysteria is pretty much self-serving hyper-inflammatory rhetoric used in order to drive the so-called "progressive" agenda. It's almost like "progressives" have stolen the script from the documentary film "Scared Straight".

 

[Godobeyer]

we in Algeria we felt the climate change to hot , so it's suppose the weather is cool , it's still hot right until now !!!!

 

[Falvlun]

That is all well and good, if one has the resources - no pun intended. If one is caught in the current economic quagmire, getting a new energy efficient 'whatever' is not especially high on the priority list of things to acquire.

You know a good way to get out of an economic quagmire? Becoming a world leader in technology and techniques for which the rest of the world will pay out the nose.

Energy independence is the future. Either the U.S. needs to start getting it's butt into gear, or it needs to be content in becoming an irrelevant and poor backwater.

 

[YmirGF]

You know a good way to get out of an economic quagmire? Becoming a world leader in technology and techniques for which the rest of the world will pay out the nose.

Ah, the good old "fleece 'em" dry approach. How terribly altruistic. Nothing like making a fortune off of other people's plight, eh.

Energy independence is the future. Either the U.S. needs to start getting it's butt into gear, or it needs to be content in becoming an irrelevant and poor backwater.

Maybe they are trying to lead this one from behind too?

 

[Avi1001]

we in Algeria we felt the climate change to hot , so it's suppose the weather is cool , it's still hot right until now !!!!

You need evaporative cooling. Are you familiar with "swamp coolers" ? All you need is air and water. It takes advantage of the cooling effect of water evaporation.

You have access to a computer, so you have access to technology. Why not build evaporative cooling systems for your fellow country folks ?

By the way, you can also create solar ponds and stills to provide clean water.

 

[Falvlun]

Ah, the good old "fleece 'em" dry approach. How terribly altruistic. Nothing like making a fortune off of other people's plight, eh.

Maybe they are trying to lead this one from behind too?

Ah, so capitalism is only good when it benefits your policies?

America has always been a forerunner in technological advancements. We are majorly losing that ground to China and India, in recent decades.

A big way to make up for that is to become the premier exporter of clean energy technology. We are already pretty far behind. But I believe in American entrepreneurship and inventiveness; if we put our backs into it, we can catch up and far outpace our competitors.

Your lack of ambition and vision, unfortunately, is a hallmark of our current state.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"Though she be but little, she is fierce."

These numbers mean nothing without context.

A small number doesn't inherently mean small effect no more than a large number inherently means large effect. A small number could produce a large effect.

Despite the low concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere-- human caused or not-- it has a big role. It is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases soak up rays from the sun and emit them as thermal (infrared) radiation-- back towards the earth. This isn't bad in and of itself-- it's what helps keep us at a nice comfortable temperature (without greenhouse gases, it is estimated that the earth would be ~33 C colder on average than we currently are.) CO2 is the second largest greenhouse gas, after water vapor.



It is interesting to note that the rate of change in the amount of C02 is highly accelerated:
from WIKI

That's a 40% increase. According to the same Wiki, the ocean has absorbed 57% of that, with the rest going into the atmosphere. This has caused the acidification of the ocean.

Ok, so you want to have some context to the numbers, below is a ESR1 (Mauna Loa) graph of the growth of atmospheric CO2 from 1997 to now,..2013 (I've used red colour for 1998 onwards to mark the point where global temperature ceased increasing). Note the linear growth rate of CO2 over the 33 year period.

Below that is the CRU HADCRUT4 mean global temperature for 1979 - 2013. Note the cessation of increase in warming since 1998, over that period, air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have not warmed while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Q.P. is in its relative infancy

It's been around longer than most scientific fields, including climate sciences.

Therefore, I doubt one will contradict the other in the final analysis

If there is a "final analysis", it won't be QM or GR, but "physics".

Not only does it post peer-reviewed articles, the following issue after an article is published allows other scientists to throw in their two cents, and that's what "peer-review" means.

That isn't at all what "peer-review" means. Didn't you experience an actual peer-review that you could contrast the above with?

But we farm that out!

Not entirely. I used to tutor anthropology majors and grad students in quantitative methods. See e.g.,
Bernard, H. R., & Bernard, H. R. (2012). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage.

The same problems that exist in social & behavioral sciences in general exist for anthropology.

That only is that way if they don't "farm out" to others that which they may not know.

That would be all of the sciences.

Making people aware.

That's ridiculous. Nobody was aware because of what didn't happen.

So, spending a bit more money is more of a problem than actually dealing with something that could devastating for millions or even billions of people over the following decades and centuries?

So, spending billions for an ineffective plan is? It's happened before (and killed millions before). This idea of "DO SOMETHING" is great until something is actually done that has no positive effects but does cripple economies or end up making the problem worse (that's an inclusive "or").

 

[YmirGF]

So, spending billions for an ineffective plan is? It's happened before (and killed millions before). This idea of "DO SOMETHING" is great until something is actually done that has no positive effects but does cripple economies or end up making the problem worse (that's an inclusive "or").

What I find amusing is that the threat of asteroid impact IS real and yet not too much is being done about it on a global scale. No one is suggesting we change our way of life or spend trillions of dollars we don't have on half baked ideas that may or may not make things any better.

 

[YmirGF]

Ah, so capitalism is only good when it benefits your policies?

Oh, don't be silly.

America has always been a forerunner in technological advancements. We are majorly losing that ground to China and India, in recent decades.

A big way to make up for that is to become the premier exporter of clean energy technology. We are already pretty far behind. But I believe in American entrepreneurship and inventiveness; if we put our backs into it, we can catch up and far outpace our competitors.

So the big evil corporations will pave the path to prosperity in the future. Nice. Given the current climate against big business your idea, though commendable, isn't likely to get much traction.

Your lack of ambition and vision, unfortunately, is a hallmark of our current state.

This type of comment is beneath you, Favlun. If it makes you feel any better, I think you are largely correct about entrepreneurial visionaries leading the way into a bright future. Whether or not America is at the helm of that movement remains to be seen - but I wouldn't limit that inventiveness to alternate energy sources. Rule #1 is never put all your eggs into one basket.

 

[metis]

Energy conservation is a short term approach. In order to provide food and resources for the world we need more energy, not less. And all of our energy starts with the sun and is converted to other forms from there.

Natural gas is being discovered in large quantities with shale and will be a major resource in the coming years.

Electric vehicles are the vehicles of the future. They shift CO2 emissions back to the source, which will be reduced as we move toward solar fuels. Hybrids are also temporary solutions.

Not everything can done now. That's why we have the future.

I do believe energy conservation needs to be both short term and long term, but it can't do the job by itself. Your point of using solar is on target, imo. I do agree electric vehicles might well help in the future, but right now there's a problem in that so much of the electrical energy in our grid is still produced by coal. Hopefully, as you mention, when we shift to other forms, then I do agree that electric might well be the wave in the not too distant future.

As far as "the future" is concerned, that'll more affect you younguns than this old fart.

 

[metis]

That is all well and good, if one has the resources - no pun intended. If one is caught in the current economic quagmire, getting a new energy efficient 'whatever' is not especially high on the priority list of things to acquire.

Further to this is the idea that we have generations to enact these changes. If that is so then there is no imminent threat - ergo - the whole "climate change" hysteria is pretty much self-serving hyper-inflammatory rhetoric used in order to drive the so-called "progressive" agenda. It's almost like "progressives" have stolen the script from the documentary film "Scared Straight".

I don't think it's hysteria at all, although some no doubt have hit the panic button maybe a bit too hard. Frankly, I am not at all optimistic. I do believe many of us in the west will continue on making wise adjustments but I'm afraid that so many in the developing countries are simply going to take whatever actions necessary to them to keep expanding energy production. We can't exactly blame them as we did the same thing ourselves.

 

[metis]

That isn't at all what "peer-review" means. Didn't you experience an actual peer-review that you could contrast the above with?

"Peer-review" simply means that any study must be open for cross-examination, and that can be done at different levels. Even though this is not a scientific site, of course, it does at the least give some variations of the process: Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not entirely. I used to tutor anthropology majors and grad students in quantitative methods. See e.g.,
Bernard, H. R., & Bernard, H. R. (2012). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage.

The same problems that exist in social & behavioral sciences in general exist for anthropology.

Of course we need to know something about the techniques used, and that's part of our training. But I could not even know how to begin using potassium-argon dating as an anthropologist even though I was taught what it generally is about and when it's used.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

"Peer-review" simply means that any study must be open for cross-examination, and that can be done at different levels.

1) Scientific American doesn't publish studies. It's a magazine.
2) Peer-review doesn't mean that a study must be open for cross-examination. Anything published is open for "cross-examination" in the same way that a peer-reviewed study is. The difference is that peer-reviewed studies are reviewed by leaders in the field prior to publication. The studies that are reported in Scientific American are peer-reviewed by journals (the ones they were published in).

But I could not even know how to begin using potassium-argon dating as an anthropologist even though I was taught what it generally is about and when it's used.

What about statistics and mathematical analyses? Linguistics? Sociology? Psychology? Evolutionary sciences? Anthropology, like all modern sciences, doesn't exist in a vacuum but differs rather in the level of focus directed towards particular topics. Same with climate sciences. They involve complex statistical analyses, physics, biology, chemistry, etc. But they are focused on particular aspects and applications of these fields.

 

[metis]

What about statistics and mathematical analyses? Linguistics? Sociology? Psychology? Evolutionary sciences? Anthropology, like all modern sciences, doesn't exist in a vacuum but differs rather in the level of focus directed towards particular topics. Same with climate sciences. They involve complex statistical analyses, physics, biology, chemistry, etc. But they are focused on particular aspects and applications of these fields.

So, you don't think that we don't consult with experts in these other areas? And climate scientists don't either? Really?

I give up.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So, you don't think that we don't consult with experts in these other areas?

I have no idea what you do (and as you haven't published any reviewed research, apparently, I don't know what kind of anthropologist you were).

And climate scientists don't either? Really?

This I do know: they don't. It's actually an even more serious problem in climate sciences thanks to the politics, as the work done on e.g., paleoclimate reconstructions involves advanced statistics and is done by a rather small community of climate scientists. I've worked on a number of neuroscience studies which have had, as lead authors, people who performed analyses which would require a background in various multivariate mathematics and who hadn't taken a single linear algebra or calculus course. I've read code written for climate studies in R that was written neither by programmers nor statisticians. I've taught anthropology students mathematics so that they could use SPSS, MATLAB, etc.

 

[dust1n]

To make this accusation, you are clearly a disgusting example of a human being.

Speaking of disgusting examples...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Speaking of disgusting examples...

Troll...that matter has been resolved amicably if you bothered to read.. the thread is about climate so stay on topic!