Test Your Knowledge of Global Warming

[stiefnu]

The global warming movement has been stunningly unsuccessful in its overarching goal of slowing or reversing global warming. Assuming their track record continues and their most dire predictions come to pass, including rising sea levels, coastal areas will be threatened and evacuation and relocation becomes a very real issue.

But it hasn't been for want of trying to raise awareness of what the great majority of climate scientists have been saying, that our climate is changing.  I think we have found some common ground here, Bob, because I for one believe that we have reached the stage where our emphasis should now be on how to cope with what seems likely to happen (rising sea levels, for example, and the consequent inundation of low lying land already being experienced in Bangladesh, the Maldives and elsewhere), rather than fruitlessly fighting against the inevitable.

I don't recall any public discussion of thorium as a replacement

The development of nuclear power took place through the Cold War.  Depressingly, it seems that the reason thorium was overlooked was because uranium fueled reactors had one major advantage.  They could produce weapons-grade plutonium as a by-product...

Steve

[NIHILIST]

it hasn't been for want of trying to raise awareness

I spent 35 years in the advertising business as a media specialist and account manager. One of the first lessons I learned is that RAISING AWARENESS doesn't accomplish jackshit. The real goal should be raising levels of CONSIDERATION.

I think there's plenty of awareness of the GLOBAL WARMING BRAND. I don't think that there will be much in the way of consideration increase until the charlatans, self-serving shills, fast-buck artists and manipulators of data are weeded out.

On the other subject I certainly agree that weapons grade plutonium was the by-product that has fueled ( pun certainly intended ) the nuclear power industry from day 1.

THIS JUST IN:  Today Duke Power Co. , the owner of the nuke that I referred to, has thrown in the towel and will not restore the plant. It is currently considering replacing it with a natural gas plant at about 40% of the $ 3 billion that was budgeted for the nuke's repair.

Great news for the anti-nuke gang, but the downside is that the small county where the nuke is located will be decimated. Current estimate is 600 lost jobs and a decrease in Duke's property tax bill from $ 30 million to about $ 13 million. This of course will have a disastrous effect on county services.

But, hey, WTF, one less nuke to worry about.

Bob

[stiefnu]

A bridge is a physical structure, made of concrete and steel. You can touch it, drive on it, and engineers can examine it from all aspects with the most current technology.

...an interesting illustration, but it has flaws that render it false and inapplicable...

Let me try rewording the 99 engineers' warning to:  "We are very concerned about the stability of this bridge.  It's not behaving in a predictable way, we believe it's showing signs of unusual stress and we strongly advise you not to cross it."  Happier with that?

Steve

[NIHILIST]

If it was the old Tacoma Narrows Bridge I'd have found an alternate route.

Bob

[stiefnu]

If it was the old Tacoma Narrows Bridge I'd have found an alternate route.

Good decision!   

[Zorba]

How many years did NIHILIST spent on academic education in the natural sciences, and how many years did he work as a scientist?

Just because you spent your life in the advertising business mostly misleading people, does not mean everybody else does. You're projecting your own mindset onto climate scientists.

[Zorba]

Here's what the tens of thousands of highly educated scientists from all over the world, all sorts of religions, all sorts of political backgrounds, have to say about it:

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

    An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

The main conclusions of the IPCC on global warming were the following:

    The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.
    "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.
    If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise. On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

Wow, that's interesting. American petroleum geologists were the longest lasting deniers. Gee I wonder how that happened.

The tobacco industry was also the last to admit that smoking greatly increases the risk of cancer, and back then you had all these (smoking) people tell you they had an uncle that lived until 95 smoking every day. Some still try to tell you smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. Denial is a b#t#h!

[NIHILIST]

Let's suppose I agree with every dire prediction and warning offered up by the global warming industry.

Polar ice and massive inland glaciers will melt raising the ocean's levels to heights that would put major coastal areas underwater. This would wipe out cities like New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Seattle, etc. Maybe even Al Gore's new $ 5 million mansion on the California coast. Since, as I stated earlier, the global warming industry has been stunningly ineffective in getting the nations of the world to either accept their findings, act on them, or both, this scenario now seems likely, especially since this same group has admitted there's no immediate hope of REVERSING global warming, but that the best the world can hope for is to STABILIZE the current warming and hold it to an overall increase of about 2.5 degrees C.

I accept all of it, but..................... I have one troubling concern.

Armed with the certain knowledge of all these acclaimed scientists that this scenario WILL occur, what is their PLAN B ?

Where is the master plan out of the UN, the USA, Germany, Russia, The Netherlands, The Vatican or Albania that deals with evacuation and relocation of these populations soon to be underwater ?

The scenes of New Orleans underwater from Katrina and the ramifications of botched evacuation efforts are still all too fresh in our memories.

Am I the only one who thinks it's irresponsible that no such plan has been offered up in the face of the global warming industry's overwhelming consensus of rising sea levels and the unconscionable inaction of the nations of the world ?

When has the global warming industry ever put forth the OR ELSE scenario ? NEVER.

Why haven't they ? Because, IMHO, they DON'T BELIEVE THEIR OWN BULLSHIT !

The Kyoto protocol was agreed to in 1997, that's 16 effing years ago and basically nothing to show for it, certainly not enough in those  16 years to reverse the warming trend, so, we're all doomed to watery graves.

_{removed unrelated personal attack as per forum guidelines - Zorba}

Bob

[Zorba]

• There is no "global warming industry". There is a huge oil industry in the USA, however, and the USA produces an awful lot of greenhouse gases
• Whether major areas of land will flood depends of course on the actions taken against that. Apparently you are completely unaware that governments all over the world have already started programs for flood control, heightening and strengthening coastal defences, etc.
• The prediction (IPCC 2007)of the ocean level rise for this century is between 18-59cm (7 inches to 2 feet), so your remarks about "wiping out Los Angeles" etc. are just the ramblings of an apparently completely uninformed person.
• The findings in the reports of the IPCC have been generally accepted all over the world, by all sorts of scientists and scientific organizations but also by governments, and actions have been taken and plans are made on all continents. The IPCC reports have been very effective. Once again you seem to be completely uninformed about this, even though you could have learned this from my previous post.
• The predictions in the IPCC reports are indeed very certain that global warming will not be reversed any time soon, this is the first point in your post that you are right about. IPCC 2007 says "Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere."
• Asking climatologists for a "plan B" shows once again that you don't understand science. Climatologists are not politicians. They just study the climate, try to make the best measurements possible, try to understand their findings, create the best climate models possible, and based on that try to make the best predictions. It is up to mankind as a whole to respond to this, and this is where the realm of politics start, which is not science.
• There is no need for the kind of masterplan you ask for, as the populations you mention are not "soon to be underwater". Once again you seem terribly misinformed.
• Hurricanes like Katrina are not new and have always caused mass flooding when they hit low-lying coastal areas. The IPCC 2007 report calls it "likely" that the intensity of hurricanes might increase though, and a sea level rise will also increase chances of this happening, and increase the area that's flooded and the amount of flooding if nothing is done to prevent that.
• There is no "global warming industry"
• There is a lot of action taken, everywhere. Where it is enough action or not, is up for debate, and at least partly a political question, not a scientifical one.
• As pointed out above in various items, the bullshit is coming from you, as you are obviously uninformed and uneducated about this matter.
• The Kyoto protocol, although agreed on in 1997, only entered into force on 16 february 2005.
• Whether the Kyoto protocol has "basically nothing to show for" is debatable, since we can't be sure what would've happened without it. I would say, it is at least encouraging that Russia, the EU and the USA have more or less stabilised their anthropogenic carbon emissions over the last 2 decades.

Interesting reads for people that like to inform themselves:

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2218 The Case Against the Skeptics
Stirring Up the Warming Debate
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/02/u_s_shale_oil_are_we_headed_to_a_new_era_of_oil_abundance.html The Myth of "Saudi America"

and of course there's always wikipedia, a much more valuable source of information than the bubonic plague of extremist right wing american blogs where some  people seem to spend their time.

[NIHILIST]

There is no global warming industry

Jesus, now who's being naïve ?

Billions of dollars in research grants, the UN's own propaganda machine, the potential to make billions of dollars in carbon trading schemes. That, my friend, is an INDUSTRY.

I think your comments about water damage to coastal areas are a bit naïve also also. Did Dutch tv not carry footage of the massive flooding of New York City and the coastal areas of New Jersey ? If Superstorm Sandy is a result of global warming, and similar and even more severe storms are to follow, it only buttresses my point.

But my key point, unanswered by you or the global warming industry, remains WHERE IS THE BACKUP PLAN ? During Sandy those areas most affected were under evacuation orders. At what point does this become more permanent ? If ocean levels continue to rise and water encroachment in Manhattan only increases by an inch or 2 every year, then the writing is on the wall, isn't it ?

There is no need for the kind of masterplan you ask for, as the populations you mention are not "soon to be underwater".

Has the UN begun evacuation and relocation of the peoples of island nations that are even now threatened by rising sea levels ? I believe representatives of these island nations have been asking for just such a plan at the last two unproductive world climate summit meetings.

As for my being uninformed, that's why I rely on you. You were good enough to point out that I lack a formal education in science. Perhaps you can share with the group your curriculum vitae and numerous degrees you have received in science or climate study.

It's one thing to be uneducated in science and question issues based on common sense. It's quite another to be similarly uneducated and blindly accept everything you read like  nodding, drooling sheep. 

Bob

[stog]

it's a pity that people confuse Weather with Climate. The global average temperature is increasing. How else does ice melt? More heat in the atmosphere means more energy, more water bearing capacity, more evaporation and therefore more rain. Stalling jet streams and other large scale oscillations are being disrupted by decreasing ocean salinity, and that is making snow in winter. Basic physics.

this is a reader comment from an interesting bbc article "Are public attitudes to climate change as fickle as the weather?" 7/2/13

[moonshadow]

Let me try rewording the 99 engineers' warning to:  "We are very concerned about the stability of this bridge.  It's not behaving in a predictable way, we believe it's showing signs of unusual stress and we strongly advise you not to cross it."  Happier with that?

Steve

How can I be happier with that when you completely ignored the specific reasons I gave to show your illustration is completely invalid? What part of why your illustration fails do you not understand?

If you had understood why the basis of your illustration was a false equivalency and therefore completely irrelevant, you would have come up with another way of trying to make your point. (And exactly what is your point? How many billions of dollars of tax payer money are you wanting to spend?)

Structural engineering is HIGHLY predictable, climate science is HIGHLY UNPREDICTABLE.

Climate science is not snake oil, but compared to the science of structural engineering, its a lot closer to reading the entrails of a goat in terms of making reliable predictions.

[stiefnu]

moonshadow,

My reworded analogy seems a fair one.  The great majority of climate scientists (I have heard the figure of 99% mentioned) are concerned that the climate is changing and the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere is widely regarded as a major cause of this.  The skeptics are in a very significant minority.  My point is, quite obviously, that we ignore the considered advice of the majority at our peril.  I did not mention money.  However, I for one believe that investment (by individuals, not just by 'Big Government', though that would undoubtedly help) into alternative Green energy systems, transport systems, agriculture and the rest - would be a Good Thing.

As to your contention that structural engineering is highly predictable, this is usually so but, as an architect that worked with various engineers for many years, I can assure you that it is not always the case, especially when working with complex systems, using natural materials; for example, ancient timber structures.  This is why engineers routinely build in (sometimes to the annoyance of my profession) large safety factors into their designs.

For the last century or more humankind has been effectively carrying out a massive experiment on the planet, by incautiously altering its ecological balance, without any regard to its future.  Listening to people whose job it is to study these things seems quite sensible, if only for the sake of our children and their descendants.  Refusing to listen would be simply crass.

Steve