Climategate

[Kahgan]

Kahgan,

nobody is denying that CO2 gets absorbed by plants and the water and held there, but we are nowhere near what history says we have had. per ice cores and other methods, they have determined that 100 million years ago we had over 1,000 PPM of CO2. and the highest was either nearly or over 7,000. 380 ( todays global atmospheric average ) is nowhere near what has happened without humans.

figuring for historical average, we should be upwards of 2,000 PPM of CO2 if you want to conform to historical average.

I would ask where your numbers are from. But it's irrelevant. The fossil fuel we are burning now at around 85 million barrels a day has been in the ground for something like 300 million years (unsure number, but a really long time, ok). The last time all that co2 was in the atmosphere, the climate was pretty fucking unbearable, and for all the time humans have existed it has been in the ground, not affecting the climate.

And why you're addressing that post to Kahgan is definitely beyond me.

Because I'm so pretty

 

[TheWesDude]

ok, so 300 million years ago we had approximately 1,500-2,000 PPM of CO2.

versus our 380 of today.

again, not an argument that counters our historical average of 2,000 PPM of CO2.

 

[Kilus]

ok, so 300 million years ago we had approximately 1,500-2,000 PPM of CO2.

versus our 380 of today.

again, not an argument that counters our historical average of 2,000 PPM of CO2.

Define our within the context of what you posted.

 

[Sander]

ok, so 300 million years ago we had approximately 1,500-2,000 PPM of CO2.

versus our 380 of today.

again, not an argument that counters our historical average of 2,000 PPM of CO2.

So what was the climate like, exactly, 300 million years ago?

 

[Verevoof]

Uh, actually, studies show that the atmosphere and climate around 300 million years ago were similar to today's. According to this source, that is.

I've been thinking, the Earth usually balances itself out. If there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, I would suspect that there be an increase in plant life (and other CO2 consuming life), thus an increase in oxygen from the increase in plants, and, one could conclude, an increase in oxygen consuming life. So, if other forces are willing (like, human interference or something), there could be an increase in food crops and crops used for manufacturing, etc.

 

[Ah-Teen]

Uh, actually, studies show that the atmosphere and climate around 300 million years ago are similar to today's. According to this source, that is.

I've been thinking, the Earth usually balances itself out. If there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, I would suspect that there be an increase in plant life (and other CO2 consuming life), thus an increase in oxygen from the increase in plants, and, one could conclude, an increase in oxygen consuming life. So, if other forces are willing (like, human interference or something), there could be an increase in food crops and crops used for manufacturing, etc.

Except that we are destroying the plant life faster than it can replace itself, in particular in the oceans and and rain forests.

Really the planet could sustain the co2 we produce if we stopped fucking up the very thing that consumes it!

 

[UncannyGarlic]

I realize that a hybrid vehicle is not exactly an electric vehicle, but a Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use almost 50 percent less combined energy doing it. "The nickel contained in the Prius' battery is mined and smelted at a plant in Ontario that has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the 'dead zone' around the plant to test moon rovers."

Battery production is dirty business, not going to argue with that but I will point out that it mentions one specific facility (which is likely the most egregious offender) and the expected lifetimes of the vehicles is goofy. One could also point out the worst oil spill in history and it's effect on the oceanic life it came in contact with or the most environmentally damaging drilling operation. For the Prius, it's the expected lifetime of the Battery but I have no clue what the expected lifetime of the Hummer is and what it takes into account. It also fails to take into account that the Prius' batteries are recycled and made into new batteries.

That's not even taking into account that the information you're citing is on a conservative think tank's website and completely fails to cite a reliable source (such as, say, the study they are talking about).

Reading through excerpts from those e-mails gives me the impression they're completely fake. They are as outrageous as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which are, as every sane person knows, a forgery made by Tsarist Ochrana against the Jews.

I like how people who trash the scientists in question are pretty much saying "they're wrong, so I can ruin the envronment as much as I want now".

Pathetic.

I've heard of one fake one that someone made up just to fuck with people but the rest are assumed not to be faked by the hacker. That said, has anyone who is claiming that this is proof of the conspiracy actually read the emails? Can you point out exactly what in those emails disproves or taints the theory?

If the truth was so horrifying, why aren't entire e-mails and documents posted?

Actually they are available on the net, my brother has read through a number of them and been following the complaints which actually cite issues and said that they are blowing smoke like usual. I don't have the time nor the patience to do such so I'll take him at his word.

I also fail to see how a few emails by a few people at a single organization who only deal with some of the scientific data and research on global warming somehow disproves the entire theory which is build upon the research of thousands of scientists. It's like saying that Sarah Palin's statements prove that all Republicans are idiots who don't read and think that you can see Russia from anywhere in Alaska.

EDIT: Just found this page which discusses what the "trick" that was mentioned actually is. Here's the quote:

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

 

[DGT]

The climate is far too complex for us to say with any certainty what effects we will have or have had on it except for the painfully obvious ones (deforestation, poisons, etc.), and a bit of global warming isn't actually that terror-inspiring to me. Sure, it would destabilize/change weather patterns, but that's happened before -- we'd adjust, and move on. Sea levels rise a bit? Flee the coasts -- yeah, millions dead, I'm sure, but we're overpopulated anyway (which has to be part of the problem).

All that said, we do need to quit spoiling our environment. I find it disgusting how badly humans seem to be willing to ruin their immediate environment, often beyond recognition or usefulness -- I can think of no creature that does anything comparable save some insects. Yet another way in which I can only compare us to insects, and yet more faith lost in homo sapiens. Pathetic.

Edit: Also, I find it worth mentioning that supposedly temperatures were notably higher during the Cretaceous (etc.), which I would consider a golden age of life on Earth.

 

[Slaughter Manslaught]

Humans emit 3% of the world's CO2. Do you really think that our ammount changes everything? Fools.

 

[Sander]

Define 3%. Is that including or excluding our animal consumption? Is that including or excluding our burning of resources? Also, where does the other 97% come from, then?

Again: I hate that no one ever cites any sources and just throws out numbers without any context whatsoever in this debate.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Humans emit 3% of the world's CO2. Do you really think that our ammount changes everything? Fools.

Actualy the fear isnt about the CO2 but the chain reactions that might happen.

Its obvious that CO2 isnt the worst in the atmosphere. Even water (vaporised) has a higher reflection.

The question is what happens if worse things are released in the global system which is extremly sensitive to every reaction regardless how small it is. Already a smaller increase in temperature could cause devastating effects. The increase might lead to the disposal of methane and worse methane clathrate in frozen at the ground of the oceans.

I think no one here needs to be a scientist to SEE that we damange this planet what ever if it is now CO2, Methane or other chemicals and material we throw in the enviroment.



There is a example a scientist gave once which I think fitts nicely.

Imagine you are infront of a frozen lake with your family and you have 2 scientists talking with you. One of them tells you that you can cross the lake without anything to worry about the other scientist isnt sure it and doesnt know if the ice will break it might be save for the first few meters just to sundenly break. Now what will you do? Which oppinion will be more important when you measure what you have to loose. You also have the option to just get around the lake which might take more time but when the lake is unfreezing in spring you have to get around it anyway.

So why should we not stop to produce CO2 and find better solutions that are better for the enviroment instead of burning coal, oil and gas NOW when we have to do that at some point ANYWAY cause neither Oil, Gas or what ever else we burn now will be available for ever?

 

[TheWesDude]

So why should we not stop to produce CO2 and find better solutions that are better for the enviroment instead of burning coal, oil and gas NOW when we have to do that at some point ANYWAY cause neither Oil, Gas or what ever else we burn now will be available for ever?

we have no viable alternative right now

 

[Crni Vuk]

Of course we have.

It would be already a alternative to spend recources in removing outdated power plants that are still runing in the US and Europe that do not work efficiently and thus consume way to much resources compared to modern power plants. It would be already a alternative to think about more diversity in energy production. Making systems that are in use more efficient. It would be already a alternative to help nations with no access to advanced technology to find a way to get around pollution. Hell it would be already a huge help if we would stop sending our dump to africa/asia most of the time illegal.


worstpolluted

You cant seriously tell me that there is not alterntive to this:

The question is not to "stop" CO2 production thats not possible. The question is if we are trying anything to stop pollution where ever it is possible. Cause it cant hurt to find solutions how we can at least avoid it. With better technology and modern equipment there can be achieved a lot. Particularly in east european and asian states that sell a lot of gods to Europe and the US but do not care about any safety and standarts hence why some of those most polluted places are located somewhere around those states.

 

[TheWesDude]

outside of nuclear power, the closest alternative to oil/coal has 1/10th the ROI.

now im pretty sure you do not fully understand what that entails.

right now in the US, a gallon of 89 gas is $2.50. moving to the next alternative, that gallon of gas would cost ~$15 to get the same amount of profit to the manufacturers.

oil has a ROI of 30-1.

that means for every $1 you invest in oil currently, you get $30 back.

right now sawgrass/switchgrass(?) biodisel is in the lead for alternative fuels. and that has an amazing 4-1 ROI.


right now the worldwide economy is based on cheap energy. the next closest viable alternative is much much more expensive. ignoring nuclear of course. that has a ROI of somewhere between 230 and 275 to 1 depending on the efficiency of the power plant.


when i said there is no viable alternative, its because there is no viable alternative that would allow people to live as we currently are. moving to the next viable alternative outside of nuclear would cause a worldwide depression that would make the one we just had seem like a golden age.


there is no viable alternative to oil/coal.

 

[Starseeker]

But cheap and efficient IS the point. Before that, people were using horses and burning whale oil.

The horse waste almost killed million due to byproducts, and whales were almost hunted to extinction.

Back, then, oil and gas WERE the cheaper, cleaner and more efficient alternatives.

And 30 yrs ago, the scientists were worried about global cooling instead of global warming. The big elephant in the room that some have already mentioned is the water vapor. The thing is, research already shows that even carbon elimination won't change the earth back. And research already shown that you can't depend on people's altruism to change their behavior for the common good. A lot of people need to lose weight because they are obese. They know the dangers, the health risks, and the pain and suffering caused by obesity to themselves and others, but they still can't do it. Call them lazy? No they are just selfish. The pleasure of food has outweighed any other incentives that may cause them to change their behavior.

The thing that does bother me is similar to the pictures Crni Vuk posted. There are too much plastics floating around. There was an interesting documentary/report about some guys in a boat fishing for trash all over the ocean and what they found is scary. I don't remember the details, but hauling up plastic trash in the middle of nowhere ocean is quite grim in my perspective. Should there be a tax on plastics? Personally, I think plastic recycling needs some improvement. But that's another cake all together.

 

[Crni Vuk]

there is no viable alternative to oil/coal.

Then we should do everything possible to find some. Cause ... well what is the alternative to just continue with everything like we did the last 50 years?

... There was an interesting documentary/report about some guys in a boat fishing for trash all over the ocean and what they found is scary. I don't remember the details, but hauling up plastic trash in the middle of nowhere ocean is quite grim in my perspective. Should there be a tax on plastics? Personally, I think plastic recycling needs some improvement. But that's another cake all together.

This will be a serious problem for us for many years ...

Great Pacific Garbage Patch

 

[TheWesDude]

crni, the problem is all these people detracting from finding a real solution with biodisel and such.

they need to realize that biodisel and hydrogen cells and other things like wont work, they need to go back to the drawing board.

 

[Ah-Teen]

Actually, hydrogen is a mature technology, for almost 20 years now. Consider that we use a compound made of hydrogen attached to carbon. Hydrogen simply removes the carbon. The technology is still the internal combustion engine. The difference is making it withstand temperatures, which we've already done.

If any one company added a hydrogen fuel tank to it's stations we would begin switching.

However, if your a believer in global warming, consider the hydrocarbon for a moment. One carbon and four hydrogen, methane. Produces two water molecules and one carbon dioxide. I'd like to see what amount of water have we added to the atmosphere.

 

[SuAside]

Ah-Teen, hydrogen requires a lot of energy to create. that's the problem. you need a lot of electricity to pull that off. where does that come from? nuclear, oil, gas & coal plants mostly. granted, some wind, sun & tide plants etc, but i doubt that's anywhere near sufficient.

yes, hydrogen can be a byproduct of other production, like chlorine. however, this is in far too small amounts to even think you could fuel 1% of the cars with. besides, chlorine production in itself is very wasteful and bad for the environment.

mature technology? maybe the engines. the production of the fuel mature however? i seriously doubt that...


as for water in the atmosphere? in most layers of the atmosphere, water is a non-issue. it's part of the natural cycles. in some layers it'll get stuck, that's a problem, but that's not going to happen from simple exhaust from groundborne sources. only planes etc can contribute to that problem.

 

[TheWesDude]

teen:

i said:

hydrogen cells

hydrogen itself is just fine given a few caveats.

the biggest is that as without high-grade refrigeration, hydrogen is a gas which would mean either spending a ton of energy keeping it liquid or else having not only an explosive source, but an explosive source under pressure.


and water vapor is worse of a greenhouse gas than CO2... so you would be putting a worse GHG into the atmosphere... how is THAT a solution????