New info on Global Warming

[babe]

Perhaps, but fact nonetheless.



Because the scientists you rely on, which are funded by petroleum and coal industries, are so much more independent?



Of course. What I want is for human life to go on, and even better, human life with the benefits of civilization we now enjoy.

Perhaps, but fact nonetheless.

real scientists don't generally call their results "facts" all that readily. They report results and discuss how they correlate with theory, and await further studies which can either affirm or deny the hypothesis. Science has been known to do some pretty serious about-faces in what is considered bedrock understanding of things. The questions I'm raising have the power to totally transform the whole discussion. Somebody needs some research funding to pursue the questions. Failure to that entitles me to dismiss the present fad as sheer hogwash.

Because the scientists you rely on, which are funded by petroleum and coal industries, are so much more independent?

This is actually funny. I know there are some "hacks" known to be bankrolled by some petroleum folks who've done a little work questioning the science of the UN and other politically-connected research institutions. Duh. Everyone in this game is being paid for the results they promise. How come your "hacks" are any less smelly that anyone else's??? The economic scale of the implications is just too large to believe anyone isn't personally interested in it. hey, I have oil rights. I'll probably never see a dime in royalties in my lifetime because there's too much oil already on tap. But that is small potatos compared to the economic size of the carbon-credits scam Al Gore is interested in and posed to reap billions from. oil rights or not, I think cold fusion research can in my lifetime revolutionize the whole energy game, and actually vastly reduce our rate of consumption of fossil fuels. I'm all for it. I'm setting up a lab to study it. Where's my research funding????

The funniest thing about your position is that the fact is, most large petroleum and coal cartelists actually want to exploit the issue of GW/CC to extend the life and value of their resource holdings. The oil and coal cartelists in fact hold a huge stake in pushing the prices up, reducing the rates of consumption, and increasing their political power in government. The GW/CC alarm is going to force out the "little guys" and strengthen them immensely, and that is why they are actually the driving force behind this push.

Of course. What I want is for human life to go on, and even better, human life with the benefits of civilization we now enjoy.

well, like I think I said, I expect we could melt our ice and survive the sea level rise well enough. Population levels might be displaced from the current maximum, but we could relax a bit on birth control measures and step up with more technology and make up the difference. Life will go on unless we destroy our environment in other ways. I'm actually more concerned about the long-range effects of using plasticizers in our food containers,like the plastic lining inside our steel cans and our plastic beverage bottles. phytoestrogens are having effects on human development of both sexes.

 

[larryselbows]

That's a pretty pic but unreadable in here. Care to discuss the various kinds of points and the correlations being made to geohistoric epochs? I think it's showing the ice sheets are only known back about 30 million years, and that temps have been quite remarkably declining on the "Ice-free Temperature(C) scales??? Isn't that pretty much what I was saying a little while ago???

I also think as long as we're keeping track of the methods and theories behind the determinations, and evaluating uncertainties in the measurements, it's worthwhile doing research. I'd appreciate it if you put the link in a format in your post that I can click on and go look at your source. thank you.

Hey there Babe, thanks for the input. I wasn't sure how much of an audience I would have with the figure I included but I felt compelled to at least clear up some of the things that were asked about or stated earlier so I just did a quick run through. Before I make any statements about the figure I included, I should be clear in saying that most of my knowledge is about the Holocene and am less informed of more ancient earth times. Now with that said, I will do my best to explain the figure I included.

First, here is the source: https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/site/Seminar_files/Zachos.2001.pdf
It's a classic paper, well worth a read if you have the time and patience.

Your earlier statement about the ice sheets being around for only the last 30 million years or so is correct. Here's the figure again for reference:

**All climate interpretations are based on the d18O measurements, so focus on the oxygen isotopes.

-The earth is actually in a relatively cool period compared to the last 66 million years.

-The Cretaceous was a period that was generally warmer than our present period due to increased volcanism. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 during this time period was in excess of 1,000 parts per million. To put this into perspective, our current atmospheric CO2 concentration is approximately 397 ppm https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/.

-The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum occurred approximately 55 million years ago; it was the most radical change in earths climate during the Cenozoic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum (cited wikipedia, terrible, I know.).

-No one knows for certain what triggered the PETM but the favored hypothesis is a release of methane hydrates from the seafloor which would have had a runaway greenhouse effect https://geology.gsapubs.org/content/30/12/1067.short. Furthermore, it was the cause of an extinction event.

-During the Oligocene and Miocene there are some warming and cooling events, but the most important things to occur climatically is that the continents start to take on the geometries that we are familiar with today, so organization of modern oceanic currents begin to take place; and the ice sheets form.

-Finally, as we look at the more modern climate archives, we can see that temperatures are actually some of the coolest of the last several million years, which is encouraging. However, based on the high resolution climate archives that we have, we know that pre-industrial revolution CO2 concentrations of the atmosphere were approximately 280 parts per million - at modern times, it is 397 ppm.

-The last time the world had an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 397 ppm was approximately 20 million years ago. So in a matter of just over 200 years, mankind has changed the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to levels not seen in 20 million years https://www.sciencemag.org/content/305/5682/367.short.

-Moreover, we live in society that was built upon a stable climate that relies heavily upon predictable cycles. Agriculture, commerce, and many of our natural resources are intimately linked to our stable climate. Having said all this, we have not even begun to discuss the effects of sea level rise and ocean acidification which have already begun to take place.

What does this all mean? No one really knows, but my take is that climate change should not be such a heavily politicized issue. Rather facts should be given to the public in a non-biased manner and people should be allowed to make their own conclusions. The debate should be less focused on whether or not climate change is occurring rather, it should be focused on our values. Most of what has occurred are unintended consequences of people attaining a comfortable life, now I'm not advocating that we spew as many chemicals as we can into the atmosphere, but the debate should be more honest than the one we are currently having nationally.

 

[franklin]

Hey there Babe, thanks for the input. I wasn't sure how much of an audience I would have with the figure I included but I felt compelled to at least clear up some of the things that were asked about or stated earlier so I just did a quick run through.

Your input on geologic matters always has an audience. I think a lot of us read and listen instead of commenting and looking like an idiots.

-Moreover, we live in society that was built upon a stable climate that relies heavily upon predictable cycles. Agriculture, commerce, and many of our natural resources are intimately linked to our stable climate. Having said all this, we have not even begun to discuss the effects of sea level rise and ocean acidification which have already begun to take place.

Solid. The issue to me is what the effects will be on modern society. If it's slow and gradual then so what. If it truly will be drastic then we should do something (with a huge caveat that technology is already solving our paranoia -- sensibly speeding that up bureaucratically might be in order.

 

[larryselbows]

Your input on geologic matters always has an audience. I think a lot of us read and listen instead of commenting and looking like an idiots.

Thank you, much appreciated!

Solid. The issue to me is what the effects will be on modern society. If it's slow and gradual then so what. If it truly will be drastic then we should do something (with a huge caveat that technology is already solving our paranoia -- sensibly speeding that up bureaucratically might be in order.

I actually largely agree with you here. The truth is that we as scientists are unsure of what the consequences of climate change are going to be so we create models and extrapolations to best figure out what the future holds, but my take is that this is besides the point. What we should be pondering are our values in the most honest possible way. I believe that most people have good intentions and that climate change is simply a side-effect of a modern society. The truth is that we have become accustomed to the lifestyle that we have and I believe that few people are willing to take drastic steps to abate climate change, and rightfully so, especially if we are unsure of how damaging the consequences will be. We are going to have to continue to burn fossil fuels, deforest to some degree, and use carbon dioxide releasing cement; this is simply unavoidable. But it does not mean that we cannot have a more conscious society and at least take steps to lessen our impact on the environment in sensible ways.

 

[babe]

Thank you, much appreciated!



I actually largely agree with you here. The truth is that we as scientists are unsure of what the consequences of climate change are going to be so we create models and extrapolations to best figure out what the future holds, but my take is that this is besides the point. What we should be pondering are our values in the most honest possible way. I believe that most people have good intentions and that climate change is simply a side-effect of a modern society. The truth is that we have become accustomed to the lifestyle that we have and I believe that few people are willing to take drastic steps to abate climate change, and rightfully so, especially if we are unsure of how damaging the consequences will be. We are going to have to continue to burn fossil fuels, deforest to some degree, and use carbon dioxide releasing cement; this is simply unavoidable. But it does not mean that we cannot have a more conscious society and at least take steps to lessen our impact on the environment in sensible ways.

Just a point of chemistry here. Cement plants indeed do heat carbonate rock and expel the CO2, It is the CaO and MgO remaining that is the reactive chemical in cement mixes or unmixed cement we buy and use in construction. When we add water we start a chemical reaction that is a little slow and allows us to work with it..... mix it with sand and gravel, transport it, and pour or pump it into place. . . . . and it continues to harden for days, and even continues to harden gradually after that. What is going on????? CO2 from the atmosphere is being absorbed and carbonates are being formed. We are getting our rock back, only in some useful forms.

The net gain/loss of CO2 in this entire process is exactly zero. Every single molecule of CO2 released in the first reaction will eventually be matched by one that is bound in the reverse. There is no way we are going to store alkaline or alkaline earth oxides in this world where atmospheric moisture will not eventually bring back the CO2 and reform the carbonate.

 

[b_line]

One thing being forgotten here is the cost of climate change. If, as babe says, we adjust and live past the rise in sea level, the cost will be astronomical. We will have areas on the earth that are unlivable due to lack of water and extreme heat. Major population centers will have to be relocated.

Why not make the transition a little slower by slowing the rate of pollution? Because that costs a lot now, and conservatives don't like to spend money on things other than wars. Libertarians disagree because paying an environmental tax violates their liberty. Democrats want to spend the money now, but only so they can feel good about themselves. The reason we don't have true science is because everything is politicized.

Also, to say the air quality in the wasatch front has improved is disingenuous, and I refuse to believe anyone telling me they believe it is getting better there. I moved away from the wasatch front this year, and have known good air quality for the first time in 29 years. In my anecdotal experience, as well as everything I have read, air quality is worsening steadily, and has been trending that way for a while now.

 

[One Brow]

real scientists don't generally call their results "facts" all that readily. They report results and discuss how they correlate with theory, and await further studies which can either affirm or deny the hypothesis.

Sure they call their results facts. They are careful to distinguish between fact and theory, though. That there is blood splattered on a shirt would be a fact. That the DNA in the blood splatter matches the DNA of a murder victim is a fact. The the shirt belongs to to a specific person is a fact. That said person was there when the murder occurred is a theory. Theories take facts and incorporate, sometimes with other principles, them into explanatory narratives.

That predictions were made about global temperature increases in the early 1980s is a fact. The recently measured temperatures have exceeded those predictions is a fact. That the contributions of human industry have contributed to this is a theory, now an even-better supported theory, and will never be some mere fact. Theories are large, powerful, and predictive; facts are small, observational, and describe only one instance.

Science has been known to do some pretty serious about-faces in what is considered bedrock understanding of things.

Generally, the about-faces tend to get overblown in the media. When discussing theories, scientists will usually describe their predictions is relatively cautious terms.

How come your "hacks" are any less smelly that anyone else's??? The economic scale of the implications is just too large to believe anyone isn't personally interested in it.

Do you see the difference between "I know the petroleum industry has funded this group" and "there is so much money in this, someone must be funding that group, even though I don't know who they are"? Does Gore have money at stake? Sure. He put his money where he thought the science indicated he should. Very few climate scientists get fame or money from it.

Where's my research funding????

Send your proposal to the scientists who control where the research dollars go. Studies currently have an approval rate of circa 25%.

... most large petroleum and coal cartelists actually want to exploit the issue of GW/CC to extend the life and value of their resource holdings.

Yet, they fund the studies trying to discredit GW/CC.

 

[franklin]

One thing being forgotten here is the cost of climate change. If, as babe says, we adjust and live past the rise in sea level, the cost will be astronomical. We will have areas on the earth that are unlivable due to lack of water and extreme heat. Major population centers will have to be relocated.

Why not make the transition a little slower by slowing the rate of pollution? Because that costs a lot now, and conservatives don't like to spend money on things other than wars. Libertarians disagree because paying an environmental tax violates their liberty. Democrats want to spend the money now, but only so they can feel good about themselves. The reason we don't have true science is because everything is politicized.

Also, to say the air quality in the wasatch front has improved is disingenuous, and I refuse to believe anyone telling me they believe it is getting better there. I moved away from the wasatch front this year, and have known good air quality for the first time in 29 years. In my anecdotal experience, as well as everything I have read, air quality is worsening steadily, and has been trending that way for a while now.

There's nothing anyone can do to sway ignorant opinions held by those who hate science.

If you want to call me disingenuous for supporting 50 years of solid data... well, you're a fool living in a cave.

 

[NAOS]

Data doesn't speak for itself, so how exactly are you supporting it? What are your presuppositions?

Gollie, I wish science was value-free..............

 

[franklin]

Data doesn't speak for itself, so how exactly are you supporting it? What are your presuppositions?

Gollie, I wish science was value-free..............

Every state has an air monitoring network. The data is publicly available. Gollie.


But there are those who were raised in the be cool don't pollute era and have been brainwashed to think the earth is in constant degeneration. Even though cars are a gazillion times cleaner. Even though homes a gazillion times more energy efficient. Even though we don't heat homes with wood and coal anymore. Even though we closed the giant hole in the ozone caused by halocarbons. Don't burn coal in power plants in problematic areas. Don't use leaded gasoline. Have added all sorts of control equipment to the dirty plants of the 1950's and 1960's, control equipment that keeps getting better and better. Ship by highly efficient locomotives. All this stuff and there are still those who blindly believe air is getting worse, water dirtier, more deforestation, brownfield sites weren't cleaned up by EPA's Superfund and private businesses making deals with municipalities...

To even suggest our environment hasn't been getting cleaner is insanity.

 

[Gameface]

Every state has an air monitoring network. The data is publicly available. Gollie.


But there are those who were raised in the be cool don't pollute era and have been brainwashed to think the earth is in constant degeneration. Even though cars are a gazillion times cleaner. Even though homes a gazillion times more energy efficient. Even though we don't heat homes with wood and coal anymore. Even though we closed the giant hole in the ozone caused by halocarbons. Don't burn coal in power plants in problematic areas. Don't use leaded gasoline. Have added all sorts of control equipment to the dirty plants of the 1950's and 1960's, control equipment that keeps getting better and better. Ship by highly efficient locomotives. All this stuff and there are still those who blindly believe air is getting worse, water dirtier, more deforestation, brownfield sites weren't cleaned up by EPA's Superfund and private businesses making deals with municipalities...

To even suggest our environment hasn't been getting cleaner is insanity.

This, to me, is much like the notion that our society is getting more violent and dangerous all the time. People will boldly state such as plain fact when in reality the opposite is true.

 

[NAOS]

I was just wondering how scuffed your knees are from sucking off Mr. Data.

I never said anything about the validity of your claims. But saying you were reading scientific data, and therefore were correct, was pretty funny.

 

[b_line]

There's nothing anyone can do to sway ignorant opinions held by those who hate science.

If you want to call me disingenuous for supporting 50 years of solid data... well, you're a fool living in a cave.

lets see your data. You can not find 50 years of air quality data, because the earliest data collected on this kind of stuff was 1977. You are just throwing numbers out of nowhere.

https://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/trendGraph/historicaltrend.htm this website has a lot of the data monitored, and, yes there are things that are improving, but there are trends that are staying the same. That is good, because there are more people in utah now, but the fact remains that the air quality is not vastly better than it was fifty years ago, when there was a fraction of the people.

Cars may be cleaner, houses may use less energy. The fact still remains that there are more people, and more cars, so even though efficiency is improving, the result is still air pollution, just due to the sheer number of polluters.

 

[franklin]

You are just throwing numbers out of nowhere.

Pretty much. When I want or need to learn something I pick a fight on the Internet with someone who refuses to believe otherwise. Makes the learning more entertaining.

All those graphs point downward. Between that and the fact that we use less gasoline in more efficient autos and equal power from way more efficient sources.... Yeah, let's blame population growth. We can never build a sustainable society and the EPA has not done a single thing. Its useless let us give up.

 

[franklin]

This, to me, is much like the notion that our society is getting more violent and dangerous all the time. People will boldly state such as plain fact when in reality the opposite is true.

That one too. I like how immoral we all are even though we don't have brothels on every street corner, don't wed our 13 year old daughters off to grown men, etc.

I've found that the more culturally embedded ideas are the further from the truth they tend to be. "We don't manufacture anything anymore" followed with "China's going to dump our debt" is not only self contradicting in goal but is also total b.s. Yet everyone believes its fact.

 

[b_line]

Pretty much. When I want or need to learn something I pick a fight on the Internet with someone who refuses to believe otherwise. Makes the learning more entertaining.

All those graphs point downward. Between that and the fact that we use less gasoline in more efficient autos and equal power from way more efficient sources.... Yeah, let's blame population growth. We can never build a sustainable society and the EPA has not done a single thing. Its useless let us give up.

Seriously though where are you getting your numbers from that say it is significantly better? The only significant stuff I have seen is the sulfur and nox. Co2 is basically the same( other than a couple of outlier years in the 80s) yeah they are going down, but more change is needed as we get more and more people. The air quality in salt lake has been consistently top five worst in the country for decades. To me, improvement would be something like not on the top ten list for bad towns for your lungs.

 

[b_line]

That one too. I like how immoral we all are even though we don't have brothels on every street corner, don't wed our 13 year old daughters off to grown men, etc.

I've found that the more culturally embedded ideas are the further from the truth they tend to be. "We don't manufacture anything anymore" followed with "China's going to dump our debt" is not only self contradicting in goal but is also total b.s. Yet everyone believes its fact.

I have noticed this one as well. It's odd that they focus on how "good it was I the 50's" when overall, the world is a better, more tolerant safer place now than it was then.

 

[franklin]

Seriously though where are you getting your numbers from that say it is significantly better? The only significant stuff I have seen is the sulfur and nox. Co2 is basically the same( other than a couple of outlier years in the 80s) yeah they are going down, but more change is needed as we get more and more people. The air quality in salt lake has been consistently top five worst in the country for decades. To me, improvement would be something like not on the top ten list for bad towns for your lungs.

When you say "consistently top five worst in the country for decades" are you talking about the list EPA puts out on a daily basis? I'm unaware of an annual list or anything. The reason for getting stuck on the daily list is because of inversions. Utah's air is pretty good outside these events.

As far as doing more goes, we are doing a lot more. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to revisit the regs something like every 7 years and tighten them up. EPA has also lowered the standard several times (Utah wouldn't have any violations based on the old standard). The new regs on business are far and away stricter than the old regs, and we have several state specific regs dealing with our unique geographic areas. We're talking 300-400 page regs replacing the 2-3 page ones put in in the 1970's. The new control technology is also far and away better than the old.

One thing that'll help see the improvements is learning a bit about combustion. High temp = high NOx, low temp/inefficient combustion = high CO and particulates. Presence of sulfur = SOx. As a general rule, engine manufacturers usually give up a little CO for a gain in NOx efficiency, and vice versa. Back in the old days, they shoveled coal in boilers and cranked up the heat as high as possible in effort to increase combustion efficiency. The result was high NOx, and pretty high CO as well as combustion wasn't the greatest. Same thing with cars. Dump fuel through carburetors and watch the tailpipe. Black smoke and you were too rich. No smoke and the spark might be too hot, risking per-detonation (pinging). So we set them somewhere on the spectrum in between the two pollutant inefficiencies.

Since those old days, we've added combustion technology that gets the fuel to the spark more efficiently, so we can burn at lower temps while getting an improved burn. This means lower NOx and lower CO. We've also added vacuum bags, scrubbers, and catalysts to clean stuff from the exhaust streams. We also started capturing waste heat and converting it into energy. This has been a great source of "pollution free" new energy as the heat that was being wasted is now producing energy without any additional fuel consumption.

The next stage was using a better fuel. Natural gas is 10x less polluting in NOx and CO than the old coal, which is probably better than 100x less polluting than the old plants. Burning nat gas also doesn't release particulates (think diesel fuel vs. gasoline engines as a dumbed down equivalent). It's also pre-scrubbed for SO2 so we don't have the SOx problem. The same goes for diesel fuel. The old stuff just a few years back was up to 500ppm sulfur. Then we went to 50. The new rules require 15ppm, and most places can't get anything higher than that in Utah anyway. We've done similar with coal and outlaw burning the high sulfur stuff which caused the Eastern acid rain problems. So we're talking possibly a 1000x+ improvement in efficiency while population has doubled or quadrupled.