99.99% of all glaciers are shrinking

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Oct 13 2006, 05:17 PM) [snapback]332505[/snapback]</div>

What he said.

-------------

A long time ago, there was lots of carbon in the atmosphere, and it was unbreatheable. As time passed, most of the carbon was buried, and because of its absence, the atmosphere could support life.

Now we're unburying all that carbon, and putting it back into the atmosphere. Any guesses what might happen?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Oct 13 2006, 09:07 PM) [snapback]332544[/snapback]</div>

BINGO with a capital "B"!

Large corporations such as Exxon, Shell, Ford, GM, or most Fortune 500 companies for that matter stand to lose quite a bit of money if schemes such as GW can be sold to the populace as truisms. Stock prices will sink in these corporations and have a negative effect our economy. Any CEO of such a corporation would be nuts not to try to refute theories and schemes which have yet to be proven.

The economy won't collapse overnight but slow by double digits if Kyoto is implemented in the US. Much manufacturing will have to be outsourced to other countries that will not abide by Kyoto (But I'm sure China and India will sign on to Kyoto first thing tomorrow...). Workweeks will shorten due to fuel rationing and discretionary spending will be a thing of the past. And even the most strident Kyoto supporters admit full implementation of Kyoto will have a negligible effect on their predictions regarding GW.

Of course, many Priuschatters, dare I say, lean perhaps just a smidge to the left and disdain the capitalist model of making a profit in business. "The little guy does not get his fair share" when profits are realized. So we have "windfall taxes" which is merely a government intervention into how much you can make no matter how your success. So it goes without saying that anything such a successful corporation would support would be lies and deception. One political party in this country is "fighting for the little guy" and take back America! (from what though???). GW is one way to stomp out those big and evil corporations once and for all.

The CEI paper is very informative and I have yet to hear anyone on this board refute any of the hundreds of points presented on the CEI paper. Al Gore was the poster boy of GW. Seems his AIT movie is, well, "out of gas".

You're spot on. It IS all about the money. That's what I have said in the past and I'll say it again in the future if need be.

Rick
#4 2006 cheap Prius (comes with the bonus anti Global Warming George Bush $3,150 tax incentive too!)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 13 2006, 08:34 PM) [snapback]332579[/snapback]</div>

Oh, you mean companies like GE? Funny how that is. I suppose you're unaware of their activities in Renewable energy and emissions reduction.

A stable environment contributes an enormous amount to the global economy. We certainly can't control the climate, but by exascerbating warming trends by dumping huge amounts of GHG could be costing us a huge sum of money.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Your argument for these companies is that they can't afford to let these "truisms", as you call them, be accepted by joe six pack. They have an avested interest in a certain interpretation of the data. Meanwhile, you demonize climate scientist who are suggesting that our activities may have severe consequences down the road. And because they are making serious bank in the lucrative "grant industry"?

None the less, it was an interesting read (no, I didn't read the whole bleedin' thing). Not being familiar with the papers that were referenced in the first bit I've passed it on to some climate buddies of mine. It'll be interesting to see what they say about the CEI rebuttal.

I do think that Albert is fear mongering. This is being trumped up to counter the terrorist threat that the republicans like to use when their back is against the wall. It's all the same rubbish. Scare people and they turn their brains off. Bloody amygdala. They should be cut out at birth.




<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Oct 13 2006, 10:10 PM) [snapback]332618[/snapback]</div>

Well that certainly casts an interesting light on things. I seem to remember seeing something about this elsewhere. Can't remember where. Maybe GCC.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 13 2006, 09:34 PM) [snapback]332579[/snapback]</div>

By preserving the present environment, we're trying to protect the following generations, and give them the same opportunities and standard of living we've enjoyed. (And yes, that most definitely includes the capitalist model of making a profit in business.) To use up all the resources now and leave the world in a climatically-unstable place, with shifting areas of productive farmland and coastal cities that get flooded on every little storm is not very responsible of us. This is all about personal responsibility versus short-sighted gain that will overload our children's generation.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 13 2006, 09:34 PM) [snapback]332579[/snapback]</div>

I've just started reading it. It is, as you said, rather long. I enjoy reading contrarian arguments because I keep hoping that they might be right, maybe this is a bad dream and there's really nothing to worry about. So far I haven't found that to be the case when you look closely at the scientific evidence, altho there is certainly much rhetoric thrown about by both sides.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Oct 13 2006, 10:51 PM) [snapback]332629[/snapback]</div>

That pretty much sums up my outlook. It would be so easy to go on as we are. Hell, I'd love to Fischer-Tropshe our way out of our energy security problems. Sure it might be a little more expensive but it would be really easy, really. On the other hand, I think that an energy paradigm shift is a tremendous opportunity economically and would make for a better world to boot. Nobody said anything about living in caves (but it would be cheaper than a mortgage, just no easier ) and destroying the economy in an effort to reduce our carbon footprint. Hell, if the economy is trash we'll be buring wood and coal like nobodies business. There won't be any investment in alternatives. People on the edge think with their stomach and their planning horizon is the next meal. We don't need or want that. Shafting future generations for short-term gains is pretty repulsive too.

That said, topping it the Ostrich is no good. Neither is Chicken Little. We need balance and a long-term outlook.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Oct 14 2006, 12:27 AM) [snapback]332621[/snapback]</div>

You could not have picked a better company. GE is one of the world's largest producers of turbines for power plant generation (China is their most rapidly growing market due to its explosive growth) and also one of the top producers of commercial jet engines. Tremendous profits (and also as in the most profitable section of GE) are gained from their turbine division. If politicians try to force the reduction of electrical usage and curtail air travel and you get less orders for turbines. No higher level of math needed here. Were talking about billions of dollars that could be lost due to GW scares and schemes in the turbine arm of GE alone.

Of course they have a department that concentrates on renewable energies and emissions reduction. Shell has one and so do many other large corporations. For GE and the others it's good for public relations and helps power companies and airline carriers take off some of the sting when buying such equipment; "See we're buying these turbines from a manufacturer who really cares about the environment". GE has even produced commercials stating such.

I will note that Exxon does not concentrate their efforts on renewables as do Shell and BP. I think they should although that is a business decision they have decided to take. They have however spent 100 million dollars on research to store CO2 underground and make fuel burning more efficient. Not a lot for a company their size, but it is still a significant amount. There main focus to try adopt technologies that developing countries such as China and India will find affordable and doable. So far their bottom line is still healthy which, despite the groans of many Priuschatters, is how a business survives.

Back to GE, just how do you suppose a jet engine, a coal, or oil fired power plant turbine (which is what the Chinese are building at breakneck pace) removes CO2, that dastardly evil gas of the GW pundits? Do GE turbines (or any other for that matter in mass production) come with "CO2 scrubbers"? Even our beloved Prii do nothing when it comes to CO2 removal.

Look, I'm for a clean environment just as anyone else is and I think overall the world has made great strides in doing so since the 1960's. Renewable power is great. But currently it still costs more than conventional methods. Wind does not work when the wind ain't blowin', and solar does not work when the sun ain't shinin' (try using solar in a Chicago winter). But when the GW pundits try to constantly bombard the general public with scenarios of cities underwater, falsehoods such a polar bears drowning and baby seals dying because of manmade induced GW, it does sweep up some guillable people but most of the public sees through it. It's a drag to hear day in and day out the world is coming to an end.

You and I know how the public works and votes. If you want to push a GW adgenda that's great. But when you tell people it's going to take monetary sacrifice and jobs could be lost and outsourced to countries that don't participate in the high cost of so called carbon trading schemes, well your going to have a problem as a politician no matter how sincere your beliefs. We could go back and forth on this forever. But in the end, we all know it's the politicians who make the laws and the money trails that will guide our future.

You want Joe six pack to embrace GW? Tell him it will create jobs, prove to him his taxes won't be affected, and his quality of life now (not 100 years from now) will improve. You, as a politician do this, well, you might even see him driving a hybrid.

But you'll have a tough road to hoe. No hurricanes this year. Cooler Atlantic temps. The earliest snows and some of the coldest weather ever on record for the Midwest and NE, glaciers growing because of GW. Don't bother me with all your explanations for the preceeding. I've seen them all. Sand from the Sahara, El Nino, different jet streams, steering currents, you might be right or wrong.... Sit down with him while watching the Michigan and Ohio game today drinking a beer and tell him it's all due to GW... I'm sure he'll politely agree and it will probably be the last time you'll be invited over for football and an evening of Poker.


Rick
#4 2006 CO2 spewer (but no GE turbine)

 

I'll offer my final two cents regarding that CEI paper.

So, let's first review the facts. That paper is the lead article on a right-wing think tank organization to which Exxon contributes substantially. One poster brought it up, another has used it as a generic rebuttal of global warming. But the funny thing is, except from yet a third poster who correctly characterized the work as a critique of Al Gore's movie, and the original poster who cited information on glaciers, we actually haven't heard one argument or fact cited from that paper.

So, how about somebody who's pushing this giving us a cogent five-paragraph executive summary of the work?

In the meantime, here's my review.

In my line of work, we have a catch phrase: When you are the target, it's your job to fuzzy up the bullseye. That's what this paper is. It's a classic exercise in fuzzying up the bullseye. It's foremost a point-by-point attack on Gores' movie, more broad it's an attempt to "fuzzy up the bullseye" on global warming. What it specifically is not is any sort of refutation of C02-caused global warming, as I explain in some detail below. In fact, one entire section of the paper, discussed below, accepts C02-caused global warming, but quibbles about the projected rate of growth.

Nominally, the author of this is Marlo Lewis, an ex-Hill staffer with all the right wing card punches (been on Limbaugh's show, the whole drill.) He has a Ph.D. in government and a BA in Poli Sci. Plus a couple of staffers at CEI worked on it.

But, boy, you read it, and ... except for the kind of dippy introduction and conclusion, I would not have guessed that the author was a Poli Sci major. But anyway, if you were wondering, no the author has no scientific credentials and apparently no formal scientific background whatsoever (at least none was mentioned in his bio.)

As a preious poster mentioned, the paper is in fact a screed against Al Gore's movie. It is literally written in a he-said, she-said, quote-from-Gore, here's-why-that's-wrong style. So if you want a reasoned or even-handed or coherent analysis, look elsewhere.

I read it anyway.

You get the drift of this from the very first first bullet point in the paper, the leadoff issue, so to speak, as to why Gore's movie is all wrong. It is because, among other things, Gore:"

"Never acknowledges the indispensable role of fossil fuels in ending serfdom and
slavery, alleviating hunger and poverty, extending human life spans, and
democratizing consumer goods, literacy, leisure, and personal mobility."

Now that, I'd believe was written by the Poli Sci major. But why that's the first bullet in the paper, I don't know. I mean, that we benefit from fossil fuel is kind of obvious, I think, given that we use it.

Then, a couple of paragraphs into the paper itself we find:

"Carbon dioxide is a climate “forcing†agent, but so is water vapor—the atmosphere’s
main greenhouse gas.2 Anybody who called water vapor “pollution†would be laughed
out of court, yet CO2 is equally innocent of adverse effects on air quality. That is why a
central goal of the Clean Air Act for more than 30 years has been to make cars so clean
burning that, ultimately, nothing comes out of the tailpipe except water vapor and CO2.
The phrase “global warming pollution†has no scientific meaning. It is designed to
prejudice people against fossil energy use by conflating CO2 with substances that
degrade air quality."

The paper does get better from there, but that's pretty much the tone and substance of it right there. Among Gore's failures was neglecting to mention the the role of fossil fuel in end of serfdom? And the paragraph confounding air quality with global warming issues is a classic straw man argument. Nobody says that C02 is a (local) air pollution issue, like smog. (Of course, nobody says that only C02 and water come out of your car exhaust, either.) That paragraph is simple misdirection.

Then:

Roughly the first 20 pages boil down to "glaciers are not stable, but will grow and shrink independent of man's activity". That's pretty much it. With numerous references. That's not news, that's not interesting, and it's not very smart. Anybody who deals with observational (non-experimental) data understands that the world is not an experimental design. Further, that much of the difficulty of climatological science (as in economic science) is in separting out the causal model from the background, ongoing variation.

So view the first 20 pages as basically a classic straw-man rhetorical device. "You said nothing happened to glaciers before global warming. Well stuff did happen, so you're wrong." That's rhetoric. The scientific question that started this thread was far deeper than that -- can we say that the concurrent rapid melting of all of the earth's glaciers at once is a consequence of man-made global warming. This section does not address that intelligent question. It just gives example after example of prior natural variation. Classic way to "fuzzy up the bullseye".

So, you've got statements like this:

"This remarkable 3,500-year history of West Central European glaciers raises an obvious
question. If the Great Aletsch glacier was shorter in the Bronze Age Optimum and the
Roman Warm Period than it is today, how can we be sure that anthropogenic global
warming rather than natural climate variability is the principal cause of Alpine glacier
retreat today?"

So, that's the first 20 pages. Glaciers changed before global warming. Got it. Straw man. Well known already. Does not go on to discuss whether or not we can reasonably infer that the current universal glacial melting is or is not caused by global warming. Just fuzzies up the issue and moves on. Specifically, it is not a refutation of the current scientific debate on the issue, which I believe boils down to "a whole lot of glaciers all over the world are melting really fast, as a consequence of global warming." It does not in fact address the current scientific debate. It just gives examples of glacial changes predating the modern era.

I breezed through the rest of it, and it was much the same. Some of the statements appeared incorrect to me, for example:

"There has been no increase in the rate of warming since the mid-1970s, when
the second 20th century warming period began. For the past 30 years, the planet has
warmed at a remarkably constant rate of 0.17°C (or 0.31°F) per decade.69"

That's not what I've heard, but I can't claim to be an expert.

Pages 23-28 appear to alternate between "We often don't accurately know what the temperature was in the past" and "The historical reconstructions of climate show it has been hotter than this before". Both of which seem plausible. But again, that's not a refutation of current scientific consensus. I think scientists in this area would agree with one or both of those statements.

OK, PAGE 30, an interesting point. I have no idea whether the facts are correct, but the assertion is that 30 year and longer projections of global warming depend on atmospheric C02 increases that are faster than recent historical norms. Given the 10%/year growth rate in the Chinese economy, and no slowing elsewhere, I'd have said that was not unreasonable. That's possible. But total projected global warming would be lower if we picked a lower baseline for C02 accumulation.

Once again, this is true, but not a refutation of the science. At issue is what projection of C02 accumulation is your maximum likelihood estimate, and secondary, what does a sensitivity analysis say about small changes around that projected rate. In particular, the paper offers no explanation of why virtually everyone who models climate has chosen to model based on an increasing rate of accumulation, nor from what I can see, any balanced discussion of the details behind the assumption of constant or increasing C02 accumulation. Just, as before, the paper boils down to: here's a fact that's different. What it specifically is not is a reasoned discussion of alternative scenarios, followed by selection of the most likely one. What does do (SURPRISE) is pick the lowest remotely plausible C02 growth baseline as the basis for the projection, which appears contrary to what all (or nearly) all modelers have chosen to do.

Worth nothing here is that this section, the paper, as I read it, agrees that C02-forced global warming will occur. It merely argues about the rate of growth. So, if someone touts that is a refutation of global warming, they actually ought to read the paper, specifically the section on the growth of C02 concentration in the air, and see that, at least in that section, only the rate of C02-caused global warming is challenged, not the fact of it.

The rest of the paper is literally a point-counterpoint rebuttal to Gore's move. He said she said. Quote from Gore, some evidence from somewhere that disagrees with what Gore said. Quote, rebuttal, and so on.

Pages 30 to 50, the point there is that there have been absolutely no changes in the weather. Those of you who think there has been some change in the weather are simply mistaken. No increase in hurricanes, hurricane intensity, storms, tornadoes, floods, droughts, and so on. There has been no increase in extreme weather phenomoena, period. It's all due to (fill-in-the-blank-here), better instruments, better observations, incorrect interpretion of the data, and so on.

Possibly true. But no way to tell by reading this .

Because, of course, the telling thing here is that not a shred of dissenting evidence is shown here. That's a pretty good indication that the evidence was cherrypicked. On a topic as complex as this, where at least some people with scientific credentials say the opposite, you'd kind of think there might be arguments to the contrary. But nothing is shown here. When I scan these pages I see not one contrary fact.

So, once again, cherry-picking the contrary studies is not the same as refutation of a scientific argument. If you think it is, then you don't understand what it means to refute a scientific argument. It means to present both sides, and by dint of reason or preponderance of evidence, present an overwhelming case that one side or the other of an issue is in fact correct. That isn't that. This is simply a good try at "fuzzying up the bullseye" with a substantial volume of carefully selected, disjointed facts. I don't know the scientific literature in depth, but I do know the difficulties of inferring changes from noisy observational data, and you never get complete agreement. This piece would have to be matched to the a summary of the rest of the literature (from which individuals have inferred changes in weather due to global warming) in order to form a balanced judgement, and then, based on the preponderance of studies, either accept or reject the hypothesis of a change in the weather.

Then it moves into the Arctic. I guess you can figure the gist. Yes, the polar ice is melting and permafrost is melting, but you can' t be sure why. Fuzzy up the target.

Well, that's as far as I'm willing to go on this. It is literally a blow-by-blow attack on everything Gore said int he movie. In some sections, the evidence is obviously cherry-picked. Like a decree from the Politburo, no dissenting facts are shown. So, if you're looking for a fair and balanced analysis of the issues, this ain't it.

Anybody who'd care to do a precis of the rest of the paper, from the Arctic melting on, that might be useful. I've read enough to recognize this for what it is and what it isn't. In particular, it's not a refutation of global warming or any of the components thereof, it's not an even-handed and sober discussion of the topic. It's a hatchet job on Gore's movie, and more broadly, a classic attempt to "fuzzy up the bullseye" on global warming. It's better than I expected to see, really, but it's neither thoughtful nor useful.

 

chogan

Thank you for your well constructed analysis of the CEI paper. You have documented well what the paper is, and I just don't have time to be bothered with thinking that long about something that is clearly biased and cherry picked. And yes, I did read much of it but quickly saw it for what it is....

viking31, what are trying to say? And just what do you base your (lack of) GW belief on? Surely not that paper you posted. And what about the basic "facts" that I posted before, namely that CO2 is "greenhouse gas " that causes the atmosphere to warm, humans are releasing a lot of stored CO2 by burning fossil fuels, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising, and the global average temperatures are rising with it, and that these things are happening at potentially an unprecedented rate? What about that? You really haven't contributed anything to support your position except a movie critique.

Yes, global climate is a very complex issue, but there are really only 2 postions to take:

1. Ignore the possiblity of GW and carry on with the status quo and whatever it may bring.
2. Consider the possibility of GW, consider the possible implications, and factor them in to your planning.

All I ever ask for is 2, but all we get is 1. 1 is completely unacceptable to me, and should be to you as well. It is foolish and stupid. Do you have insurance on your house or your car? Insurance is representative of the #2 approach. And yes, it costs a little now with the POSSIBILITY of saving you a lot in the fuiture.

Should we join Kyoto ? No one ever in this forum suggested that. Should we cease using fossil fuels. Of course not. Should we consider that they may be a problem for the long term health of the planet, and that the costs of fixing the damage could destroy our economy and way of life for our children and grandchildren. Absolutely we should consider that. And our policymaking should reflect doable short term steps that mitigate long term risks, and try to balance those just like we do with insurance policies.

But we can't even get to the point of agreeing that there is a problem, which given an objective view of the facts, is completely reprehensible to me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Oct 12 2006, 11:17 AM) [snapback]331745[/snapback]</div>

Your a bush supporter and a person who thinks global warming is not real, but drives a hybrid. Weird, man. Oh yeah, also my uncle works for NASA and their studies have proven that global warming is real and is caused mostly by human activity. NOAA and NWS drilled into the ice cores in Antarctica that were over 600,000 years old like in the movie, "The Day After Tomorrow" and could clearly see where CO2 levels were their highest ever and where their temperatures were the highest ever. So, who are you going to go with, Bush or NOAA, NASA, and NWS? Duh. I'll go with the scientific and the smart ones, which is NOAA, NASA, and the NWS.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 14 2006, 02:13 PM) [snapback]332812[/snapback]</div>

Actually, GE has made improvements to the turbines that result in small but measureable emissions improvements. This is true of their aircraft turbines as well as their IGCC turbines. They are also making a commentment to freeze their emissions and reduce their environmental impact. They're growing their wind turbine and solar divisions and they're working with walmart to market the CF light bulb. Why, because they can make scads of cash doing and as of the spokespeople said, "If we don't do it, somebody else will."

GE is clearly acknowledging that GHG are a problem and are pledging to do something about it and make a handsome profit ($20G a year by 2010, in fact).

This is actually a remarkably easy question to answer. First, with the jet engine you simply combust a fuel that is either carbon neutral (bio-JP8) or one that doesn't involve carbon in the first place (hydrogen). And you do it in engines that are more efficient.

In the second case it's a trick question. The turbines emit steam because that's what passes over/through them. They don't need CO2 scrubbers because they don't emit any. Seriously though, there are two ways you can think about this. Efficiency or treatment (or both). Simply making more efficient systems would help a lot. Getting rid of ancient/inefficient plants and simply replacing them with more efficient, cleaner new ones would be a big start. You could also sequest carbon by injection or via algea columns. Both of these are (theoretically) feasible. The algea approach has actually been tested and there is at least one company with schemes to turn the algae into biofuels. Those same turbines could, of course, also be employed by concentrated solar power stations, nuclear reactors, biomass, biogas or municipal waste gas. The turbines are powered by steam and there are a lot of ways to produce that steam (at varying costs, of course).

I'm with you on this. Doom and gloom makes people think "If we're screwed anyways then we might as well enjoy the ride." The world isn't going to end and humanity will adapt. The number of humans on the planet will probably drop a bit and the quality of life for many could be considerable worse. There could be a lot less land available. It may well be difficult to grow crops in large quantities because of extreme weather and a lack of good land to grow it on. The details are unclear but from what we know it's unlikely that things will be better or even as good as they are now.

See, that's sort of an odd one. It makes sense in one way (see this as an opportunity) and it's a bit odd in another. It's odd because if Joe embraces GW (that's a funny mental image) then you'd think he'd be motivated to make some changes. They may or may not be sacrifices. Hell, Joe made plenty of sacrifices, some the ultimate one, during WWII.

If first one gets us past the paralysis of the latter. There's a tremendous opportunity to radically change the way we do a lot of things. Efficiency is the first obvious thing. Personal ownership of energy (the production of it, that is) will radically affect (I think, anyways) the way people relate to energy use. There is a tremendous amount of money to be made in those two aspects alone. I'm sure that there are many, many more.

You're still trying to equate weather with climate. I can give plenty of weather phenomena that contradict what you're saying (kinda like the CEI article). All of it is really irrelevant to the issue.

None the less, Pat Roberston took the opposite tack this summer (see the other thread here about the evangelical green movement) based on pretty spurious "data". It would appear that some record high temps across the country had some measureable effect. I wouldn't be surprised if it was forgotten, as you suggest, but if we continue to see miseable weather (yes, I'm choosing to use that word here) then peoples perception may start to change.

Of course, if the scientists are right, and there's a fair bit of data to support their claims, then the costs to us will be huge financially and otherwise. The effects on the economy could be catastrophic and far, far worse then the minor "pain" and "sacrifice" that you're envisioning.

 

you guys all know why bush is doing all this doncha ya??

he is melting all the glaciers to raise the sea level to make his ranch oceanfront property which he will sell for billions and then run off to Alaska to sunbathe on the beach on his fat retirement nestegg

 

I think you've just uncovered it! There isn't another plausible explanation. That dog. Perhaps we should start buying up property in middle Alabama and east Texas.

 

viking31,

You have never given substance for the reasons you do not believe GW is a problem, and the paper you posted has been soundly trashed. You have never responded to my questions regarding the simple "facts" regarding GW that make in highly plausible and even logical to believe in. Why not? Afraid to admit you are wrong?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct, 02:11 PM) [snapback]332412[/snapback]</div>

Who is Marlo Lewis, and what makes him qualified to be taken seriously in a scientific rebuttal on global warming?