Post #301,376
12/22/08 10:16:06 PM
|
Hansen predicts new global temperature record in next 4 yrs.
http://www.newscient...ns-of-runawa.html
As for the rest of Hansen's lecture, much of it emphasised points he has been making for some time: we should to aim to reduce carbon dioxide levels to 350 parts per million, we cannot afford to built more coal power plants (without carbon capture and storage) and that a carbon tax with a 100% dividend should be introduced.
However, he also made another striking prediction. According to Hansen, human activity is causing greenhouse gas levels to rise so rapidly that his model suggests there is a risk of a runaway greenhouse effect, ultimately resulting in the loss of oceans and of all life on the planet:
"In my opinion, if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale (a.k.a. oil shale), I think it is a dead certainty."
Hansen's 74 page PPT presentation at the AGU meeting is here (23 MB):
http://www.columbia....knes_20081217.ppt
It's quite sobering.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #301,378
12/22/08 10:34:20 PM
|
aw, heck, never you mind
...box'll find some guy at Fox News on a retainer from the Citizens for Responsible Climate Change who'll tell you that this is all a load of codswallop, or that the data ain't in yet, or that responsible scientists disagree, or that it'll cost too much to do anything.
You can bet the climate on it.
cordially,
|
Post #301,398
12/23/08 8:23:14 AM
|
hansen doesnt give a flying fsck about warming
he is all about the money, sure a 100% tax on carbon, meanwhile its the methane natural that will do us in. He is not only a schill, a tool for the man he is also shrill. A girlyman like olbermann. Meanwhile real scientists are doing science, not sideshow bob displays.
thanx,
bill
|
Post #301,381
12/22/08 11:39:45 PM
|
There seem to be several candidates for run-away scenario --
release of the methane beneath oceans, for just one. Which might be enough.
(Haven't seen complete report and, as @#$%^&* .pdfs seem to go all wonky unless completely d/l-ed, likely I won't)
Remember those lakes which mysteriously burped-up oodles of CO2 -- snuffing the animal life within the 'bowl' nearby? Surely an already 'historical' example of what happens with feedback loops you don't even imagine.
Pity.. we don't know shit about the Gaia-OS, but that's the charm of a Final Species in a chain, one guesses. Last Words, predictably:
I Deny This is Happe ...
|
Post #301,387
12/23/08 2:12:12 AM
|
<devil's advocate>Look at it this way
You have a choice (well, you don't, but for the purposes of the exercise, pretend you do)
The planet *will* warm, or it *will* cool. Set aside the cause for a moment.
Stasis is not and never has been what happens.
Would you rather it got markedly warmer, or markedly cooler?
Global warming isn't good (for us - it's probably pretty darned good for the biosphere in general over the longer term; the dinosaurs existed when global temperatures were much higher than they are now) but it's a shitload less disastrous than global cooling.
|
Post #301,397
12/23/08 8:19:18 AM
|
It's the rate of change that's the problem.
Take a look at slide 39. In the Cenozoic, the CO2 concentration changed at 0.0001 ppm/year. Now it's changing at ~ 2 ppm/year mainly due to us burning stuff.
The carbon we're burning now was locked up in the Earth over millions of years. We're burning it and dumping it in the atmosphere in hundreds of years. The environment can't adjust to such large changes and keep things in equilibrium. The forcing is too large.
Yes, you're right that the Earth was much warmer and much colder in the past without man doing anything. But in most cases, those temperature changes took place over much larger periods of time than we're talking about now. E.g. see slide 38 of ocean temperatures. Changes over millions of years versus decades that we're worried about now.
I don't know if Hansen's right about the details, but I think he presents a compelling case of why we should be worried and why continuing to burn stuff is extremely risky. I think we can assume that the oceans aren't going to boil away in our lifetimes, but in 500 years who knows...
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #301,405
12/23/08 9:06:10 AM
|
Hansen can say what he likes.
Assuming for a moment that the climate change doomsayers are correct, then we're fucked.
There's no point beating around the bush.
The developed world cannot and will not sacrifice its current comfortable lifestyle in the way that would be required to fulfil the cuts in carbon dioxide emissions asked by the doomsayers.
The developing world cannot and will not sacrifice what progress it makes, and will continue to use dirty, fossil-fuelled energy.
My own concerns on this subject are that in obsessing over carbon dioxide emissions, the Powers That Be are distracting attention from things we can and will sort out, such as pollution, deforestation, over-fishing and so on.
Also, there's no plan B: there's so much political masturbation and target-setting (behold, we're green: we can't *actually reduce* carbon dioxide emissions, so here's a new tax) that there's no visible activity on the far more likely outcome that "the climate's going to change, and we're not going to like it, so here's what needs to be done".
Deep down, though, the problem is this; very few people in the West *really* care about the climate change issue. As long as their lifestyle doesn't change too much, they're content to buzz around in hybrid cars and recycle a little paper and a few bottles, and to proselytise to others about how they're saving the planet. The worst offenders usually have a generous brood of snotlings, all with their own carbon footprints. (What uses less resources than a child? No child, of course!)
The elephant in the room isn't climate change, it isn't fusion, it isn't anything other than the fact that for our current technological state of development, we're overpopulated.
Given that there will never be a voluntary global winnowing, we must resign ourselves to the fact that Africa is going to sink further into war, and that the first-world industrial-military complex is going to supply and arm that war. And the climate? No-one's going to give a fuck.
|
Post #301,412
12/23/08 1:26:18 PM
|
Good points.
|
Post #301,434
12/23/08 5:34:33 PM
12/23/08 5:37:32 PM
|
Agreed, the 'geo-psycho'-demographic can't be ignored
But, inherently it's fungible, malleable and always: susceptible of rapid (aka panic!) reversal, oft to extremes: whenever a genuine {{SHOCK!!!}} occurs. Powerful enough if a random Shock; intense when it appears to lend credence to any of the perpetually-tuned out Elephants in the shadows.
(My fav brief characterization always is, 'Mankind lacks scale and relativity'. I deem this to be an easily demonstrable truism: pick any century, especially The Twentieth (and this one, so far..))
'Decimation of the population' -- logic and reason would arrive ~there.
Now *who?* shall smother the tykes + the fragile aged who are-Not-Linus Pauling, Bertie Russell and the like. Meanwhile, religio- Shall Do The Job Story & Variations in cgi graphics, nuaseatum perpetuo.)
Alas, I think you're closest to the likely denouement: Denial is the father of intentionally-reduced consciousness of all inconvenience. Sloth + solipsism, that root of our manifest narcissism: do seem unfazeable.
Fortunately -- none of us knows shit about the next acts in the play; the more Shocks -- the Less we can remotely guesstimate.
Embrace the ignorance! it's our most promising chance for Hope, eh?
Pollyanna in Goth threads
oTpy
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-- H.L. Mencken
Edited by Ashton
Dec. 23, 2008, 05:37:32 PM EST
|
Post #301,464
12/24/08 3:45:40 AM
|
Thought experiment, and a question.
The climate will change - we know this. Let's pretend that it will change as violently and unpleasantly as the doomsayers predict. (The reality, of course, will sit somewhere between that predicted by the "no change" and "we're all gonna die" camps)
Suppose for a moment that, from every government in the world, there suddenly springs the political will to Save The Planet by cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 95%.
This turns out to be a return to an agrarian, subsistence way of life for pretty much everyone who's left after the years of riots and wars. This makes us just another animal grazing off the land.
Should we do this?
Should we sacrifice the human race's progression to save the planet?
|
Post #301,467
12/24/08 7:27:02 AM
|
It might be useful to look to history.
Simplified story:
We've been in similar situations before. We started out burning trees for heat and to cook stuff. After a while, wood became scarce in many areas. Then, we stared burning coal for the same purpose.
Coal was also found to be a good source of energy for steam engines for transportation (steam ships and railroads).
Natural gas started being used for lighting and heat, and whale oil started being used for lubrication, make-up, and other things. But soon whale oil started becoming scarce. Cheap petroleum came on stream to help replace it.
As cities grew, people began to realize that the streets would soon be feet-deep in horse crap if some new way to get people and goods in and out for the millions who need them. Machines were needed to replace draft animals.
The point is that we know we've had to change our sources of energy over time for technological and scarcity reasons. We know that cheap petroleum and natural gas and even cheap coal will eventually be gone. We know there are consequences of using these fuels, and we know there are ways to power our societies without burning stuff. The future isn't destined to be cold and dark.
I think the smart thing to do now is invest in efficiency and to fund research and small scale development of a variety potential solutions. Taxing carbon-based fuel consumption, with a increasing bite over time, to help the fuels be priced at their true(r) cost would help. Making the tax refundable (as Hansen proposes) so that the poor and middle classes aren't further impoverished is important - we want people to make different choices, not get poorer. People aren't impoverished by doing 3 things on a car trip instead of two, or by driving a Honda Fit rather than a F-350.
I personally don't think that we have to attack climate change as vigorously as some - will the Earth really turn into Venus if we hit say 380 ppm versus 350 ppm CO2? Is the battle hopeless if we can't hit a particular number? I dunno. I think it's worth fighting the battle even if, at this time, we think that hitting a particular number seems too hard or too painful. What I think is most important is that we get started.
Yes, we should apply similar urgency to fighting malaria and cholera and political conflicts that threaten hundreds of millions right now. It doesn't have to be an either-or choice.
In short, I'm not quite so pessimistic. But I don't know the future either.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #301,471
12/24/08 8:31:53 AM
|
let me guess, history isnt your strong point.
As cities grew, people began to realize that the streets would soon be feet-deep in horse crap if some new way to get people and goods in and out for the millions who need them. Machines were needed to replace draft animals.
******************
bwahahahahaha!!
|
Post #301,476
12/24/08 9:39:55 AM
|
Linky.
|
Post #301,479
12/24/08 9:49:51 AM
|
linky backatcha :-)
http://www.ausbcomp..../cars/carhist.htm
Steam power was widely used in the 1880's and 1890's on the farms of America. Cowley County had its share of these behemoths and had a large group of people with the ability to use, and the skill to fix and repair them. The smaller, less expensive automobile, with an internal combustion engine provided a new avenue of interest that was much more personal than the steam engine with its team of attendants.
as you noticed the distinct lack of the mention of vehicles in your link the equal lack of the mention of horses in my link, your conclusion that cars were planned to eliminate horses in the city doesnt add up. That was a side effect, not a cause.
thanx,
bill
|
Post #301,481
12/24/08 10:06:33 AM
|
You're misreading me.
I simply said that something had to replace horses in large cities. Things that replaced them included trains and subways (powered by steam and later electricity), cable cars, buses, trucks, cars, etc. Yes, there were trains and cable cars and subways before the horses were eliminated.
http://www.apta.com/...tory/mileston.cfm
But it wasn't until electric trains and gasoline and diesel powered vehicles took off that horses became much less popular in cities.
A modern city cannot function with draft animals providing most of the power. Some type of machine had to replace them.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #301,482
12/24/08 10:31:13 AM
|
It appears I did misread you
Draft animals and large cities can work, the horse is not one of them. Machines can help but also hinder. Co-operative mechanical delivery to central depots followed by individual delivery by consumers works best. Think NYC no real nead for a car unless leaving the city. Some people like to live like that. Im not one of them. I think waste recycling should be decentralized. Units that collect the waste in a building use it to generate heat and electricity before taking balance elsewhey for further processing would be useful.
|
Post #301,580
12/26/08 7:07:16 PM
|
A modern city cannot function
with millions of cars providing most of the power.
Ref: one look at Mexico D.F.
|
Post #301,399
12/23/08 8:33:15 AM
|
Nother, why do you trust anything this guy puts out?
Isnt he the same guy who didnt like the october arctic ice numbers so substituted Septembers numbers instead? Then claimed he doesnt check stuff given to him after getting caught at it?
your old mechanic must have loved you
thanx,
bill
|
Post #301,411
12/23/08 1:25:28 PM
|
Why? Because he knows what he's talking about.
It's a combination of things - his experience, his publication record, etc. Look at "gcnp58"'s reply at http://answers.yahoo...1205125459AAystmD
Hansen's "h-index" is 32. That's a high number and shows substantial contributions to his field over time. He's not a kook or a crank.
Isnt he the same guy who didnt like the october arctic ice numbers so substituted Septembers numbers instead?
Hardly. Numbers get revised over time - it's the nature of imperfect estimation.
For example, http://en.wikipedia....e_record_database
Correcting climate record database
In August 2007 Stephen McIntyre noticed that many U.S. temperature records from the Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) displayed a discontinuity around the year 2000. NASA corrected the data and reported that "data for 2000 and later years were inadvertently appended to USHCN data for prior years without including the adjustments at these stations that had been defined by the NOAA National Climate Data Center."[31] The correction resulted in a slight (0.15 degree C) decrease in U.S. average temperatures post-2000, and 1934 replaced 1998 as the warmest year in the U.S. The years have changed rankings before: in a 2001 paper 1934 was marginally warmer than 1998. Hansen argues that using yearly rankings in this way is bad because it magnifies tiny differences, and that addition of new data to an analysis always causes values to fluctuate slightly. He further states that the difference between the 1934 and 1998 temperatures is insignificant and that the adjustment effect on the global temperature record is invisible.[32][33]
(Emphasis added.)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #301,416
12/23/08 1:41:56 PM
|
Re: Why? Because he knows what he's talking about.
yeah, he always adjusts the data in his favor. In other fields like medical research that is called skewing and suppressing. Drugmakers get sued for that
thanx,
bill
|
Post #301,430
12/23/08 5:02:12 PM
|
Got a problem with decimals?
'Insignificant' == insignificant == 'in the noise between accuracy and precision' ==
aka: 'false precision', like:
when the weatherman-doll says, '49.87% likely rain'
Absurd on the face; correct notation: "it's about 50/50."
Remember always: Muricans Are {mostly} innumerate.
The 'number of significant figures' in a conclusion: implies a related degree of precision throughout the calcualtion.
That is a metric which requires that a (summarizing) numerical value does not falsely imply an overall precision greater than: the (statistically-weighted) precision(s) of all measurements from which that 'value' is derived.
In case at hand:
Hit don' mattah ayTall. RTFM.
|
Post #301,449
12/23/08 8:44:11 PM
|
insignificant lot less than< 20%
which is the amount the october ice melt was off
your bank account is off by 1 penny that is significant in the overall condition of your bank. When you lose a penny a month and the banker assures you it is an anomaly the fucker is stealin huge. This guy? Like I said the sideshow bob of the global climate change
you RTFM its called history, yesteryear when giraffes and wildebeastes inhabited the sahara. When grapes were cultivated in Labrador and patagonia resembled italy in cultural and agricultural attributes. This shit has happened before and will happen again. Look at what peter is saying, mitigate the changes or watch reruns of waterworld and pray yer gills develop in time. Either way it will happen or not. This guy is a just schill lookin for your buck.
|
Post #301,456
12/23/08 9:22:25 PM
|
If Hansen were looking to get rich, he wouldn't be at NASA.
Hansen feels passionately about his life's work. Most people do when they're able to work on things they really care about. Some people are motivated by more than money.
http://seedmagazine....new_scientist.php
Really, Box, you can disagree with him without impugning his motives.
And it would be good if you applied as much skepticism to the critics of anthropomorphic climate change as you do to the experts. I'll get you started:
http://www.sourcewat...e_change_skeptics
:-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #301,470
12/24/08 8:29:35 AM
|
If hansen wasnt at nasa he would find it hard to get a job
I have met scientific types that work in government because they are too fucking blind and stupid about their wrong obsessions to get a job elsewhere. Biologists are not much different.
thanx,
bill
|
Post #301,474
12/24/08 9:27:22 AM
|
Hansen's CV
http://www.columbia....hansen_200702.pdf
Idiots don't get elected to the NAS.
Anecdotes aren't evidence, Box.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #301,475
12/24/08 9:35:03 AM
|
does he believe than c02 belched from a volcano
is bigger than the same element farted from a car? If so he moves from scientist to priest, CV aside
thanx,
bill
|
Post #301,478
12/24/08 9:45:10 AM
|
We've been through volcanoes multiple times, Box.
http://gristmill.gri...6/12/17/223957/72
The fact of the matter is, the sum total of all CO2 out-gassed by active volcanoes amounts to about 1/150th of anthropogenic emissions.
HTH!
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #301,480
12/24/08 9:50:18 AM
|
nice duck there,
|
Post #301,525
12/25/08 1:13:45 AM
|
.. if you think a duck resembles a coffin-nail, perhaps.
|
Post #301,529
12/25/08 8:52:31 AM
|
point==missed
the postulation that the c02 element itself is larger, as in size of a single element when emitted from a volcano than the physical size of a single c02 element when emitted from a car exhaust, as proclaimed by some, leaves the realm of science for religion. I was inquiring if the high priest under discussion also held that tenet.
|
Post #301,534
12/25/08 9:40:41 AM
|
You, and they, apparently misunderstand the argument.
1) Volcanoes are not a major source of CO2. (They are a major source of SO2, but that's a completely different compound. http://www.temis.nl/aviation/so2.php)
2) CO2 is made of carbon and oxygen. They both have isotopes - atoms with the same number of protons (6 for Carbon, 8 for Oxygen) but different numbers of neutrons. These isotopes have different properties and their ratios in a sample of gas can give lots of information - like whether the carbon was recently part of the atmosphere or whether it was locked up in the Earth for millions of years. The ratio changes because one of the carbon isotopes is radioactive, so the ratio of C14 to C12 changes over time.
http://en.wikipedia....sotopes_of_carbon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen-16
http://www.physicsfo....php/t-29375.html
All of this is known and accepted science. There is no controversy about the physics.
Where it gets complicated is in the details. How are the samples taken? How are they protected from contamination? How are they analyzed? What are the error bars (how accurately are the numbers known, and what is the real precision of the value)?
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #301,556
12/26/08 2:44:16 AM
|
re all the ad hominems: prend moi tel que je suis
(I won't attribute simple-malice to you for the frequent baseless calumniation of parties unknown; I believe there is another cause.)
Here's someone else who slogs to a different drummer, trusting that her certainty-of-a-negative (correlation) supersedes the (surely-mistaken) assessments of those legions of plodders, not remotely as ept in diagnosis or treatment.
(It is unclear if solipsism per se, is yet a punishable offense, or merely actions which ensue from such an expressed mindset.)
The unnecessary death of a little girl
http://open.salon.co...source=newsletter
Now, as to whether denial of say, 'ongoing planetary disease' may also be conflated within the precedent of Prince v Massachusetts -?- that clearly limns a problem which might stump the USSC, Focus on the Farmily Valuez and other ad hoc institutions of fact or neurasthenia.
I am confident however, that a superior arbiter exists:
the IGM shall be able to conduct this official comparison in exemplary manner (given the many self-attributed virtues of its humbly-brilliant members.)
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-- H.L. Mencken
|
Post #301,562
12/26/08 10:25:33 AM
|
so lets pretend shall we?
the broad goes into the hospital with the kid trumpeting to all and sundry that she and the kid has HIV so explain in detail the different medications and steps taken to treat pneumonia in that case that does not apply to a child with pneumonia without aids, anxiously awaiting your reply.
Somehow I imagine the answer is nuffink different
|
Post #301,573
12/26/08 4:57:46 PM
|
Is it that you don't read for comprehension
or, that you Can't?
Pneumocystis is an otherwise harmless bacteria that causes pneumonia only in people who are severely compromised by AIDS or other immunologic failures.
Why did Christine Maggiore withhold this critical information?
She did it because she is an activist who believes that HIV does not cause AIDS.
Sheesh ... get thee to a comprehensive Comprehension analyst before you
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-- H.L. Mencken
|
Post #301,576
12/26/08 5:44:10 PM
|
my bad, just saw the pnemonia, HIV causes aids?
I thought having unprotected sex with someone who has aids caused aids. Learn something new every day
thanx,
bill
|
