Climategate

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Zeal, Dec 12, 2009.

  1. aronsearle

    aronsearle Still Mildly Glowing

    233
    Oct 14, 2005
    We do have fossil records of periods showing times where Co2 was much higher than now, and that although the climate was different, it was perfectly viable for human life.

    we DO know for a fact that we could as a species handle significantly higher amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, it's whether individual regions could that is the issue, a question that we simply don't know the answer to. Something that is not helped when the stats are being deliberately fiddled to show disasters in every scenario by the IPCC and co.

    Climate change will not, absolutely will not kill us as a species, but it could devastate entire economies, or it could not. I would rather not devastate our economy to avoid a situation that might devastate our economy.

    fuck scientific principles then?

    Welcome to the de-enlightenment.

    you forgot to say - think of the childreeeeen!

    Nothing wrong with trying to make more efficient technology.

    The problem is that the whole point of increasing efficiency is to drive costs down, do more, with less.

    This is not what we are getting. Inefficient, non-viable energy sources are being subsidised because they are "greener", this increases our energy cost. New technology's are being put on the market that are apparently "greener" but actually use more toxic materials. The reality is that our money is being taken away, our business is being destroyed, and so far not 1 gram of Co2 has been "saved.


    the whole problem with climate change propaganda, is that it is "causing" people to ignore real pollution problems that exist today, that ARE killing and maiming people in the hundreds of thousands every year.

    Real quantifiable problems, with current day solutions, are basically being sidelined.
     
  2. Zeal

    Zeal Still Mildly Glowing

    221
    Apr 20, 2003
    Thank you.
     
  3. Arr0nax

    Arr0nax A Smooth-Skin

    624
    Oct 30, 2009
    I can't help but believe you just pulled this out of your ... hat. Could you substantiate your claims, with actual research, please ?

    Because fossil ice core records seem to tell exactly the contrary : the last time CO2 levels have been this high was... 15 millions years ago.
    Human life, let alone human civilisation, didn't exist at the time.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

    Don't be ridiculous. In what aspect does reducing our CO2 emissions "devastate our economy" ?

    Oh yes, I you're right :
    -Clearly France has been totally devastated economically by switching to nuclear power.
    -I guess Toyota is so far behind others car manufacturers because it was the first to develop a hybrid car.
    -I'm also sure all the Wind and Solar power stations being built in America, Australia and Europe have been devastating blows to our respective economies...
    -When you think about it, Nord-European countries are also in pretty bad economic shape, probably because of their low-emission low-consuming houses.

    Wait, I'm starting to see a trend here... Might it be that reducing our emissions has in fact been beneficial and not at all devastating to the economy ?

    I wonder what "non-viable" energy sources you are talking about, and compared to which other more viable energy sources ? Are you like, comparing them to... coal ? gas ? oil ? Be more precise please ?

    Also, oil/gas/coal are limited fossil resources. If we didn't research renewable energies, what do you think we would do the day our fossil resources would be depleted ?

    As far as I know, Nuclear, Solar and Wind are absolutely viable.The last two are one-time investments with pretty low upkeep costs. The initial sum is high but the energy cost itself is pretty low, since ou don't have to buy any combustible.
    Also, these are new technologies, so there is a lot of room for improvement in terms of efficiency, which isn't the case for gas/coal energy production.
     
  4. aronsearle

    aronsearle Still Mildly Glowing

    233
    Oct 14, 2005
    cough.

    I did not say humans where about 15 million years ago, you did.

    I said that we knew what the conditions where like during many phases of higher C02, and during most of those phases the conditions where suitable for human habitation.

    It's pretty simple, even the "worst case" scenarios shown by MMGW supporters are not a threat to the species, but just countries.

    Rather than address this point you argue pedantic's.



    Sorry, what rock are you living under. Billions of pounds are being siphoned of on carbon credit schemes, in a few years this will go up to trillions. Businesses are being closed down because of C02 scares, (and just opening up in other more polluting countries) I could name many examples, but they are quite easily found on the net, please don't claim ignorance on something that is in fact happening right now, and is quite easy to read up on.

    High taxes always hurt economies.


    the French nuclear power strategy has nothing to do with MMGW, they didnt "switch to" nuclear because of it.

    Never mind the fact that such cars actually have a higher embodied energy, and longer payback compared to older cars, and use up more toxic materials, causing more pollution.


    Such technology are not suitable for all climates, and are being pushed in some areas where they are not suitable. For instance wind power needs almost 100% backup, this is currently provided by quick firing gas turbine generators, which are inefficient, expensive, and we all know about the potential security issues facing future gas supplies, particularity in Europe. Energy bills are already rising because of the decision to push for such technology.


    Not even sure what point you are trying to make here.

    Nordic countries have colder climates and so traditionally have much better housing standards than the UK, our building regs for U-value requirements are now where they were 30 years ago, this doesn't really have anything to do with MMGW.

    Though currently the code for sustainable homes being pushed through is going to mean a big increase in the cost of new homes, (not a good thing when alot of people are already priced out of the market) and there are alot of question marks about the kind of technology's the government is insisting upon in the new standards. There are examples where certain technology is being specified that is actually less efficient than old technology.

    Go read up on the subject, you clearly know jack all.


    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/money-for-old-carbon.html



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...no-electricity-during-Britains-cold-snap.html

    Go read up on the Iter project, or it's American counterpart, thats the kind of shit we should be throwing money at.

    Wind and solar both need 100% backup for when they don't work. This is a known fact, provable by the fact that they do just that, build extra power plants to keep ready to take up the slack.

    Nuclear is not renewable, so stop calling it such. It's just that we have enough fuel to last for hundreds of years.

    And if you think it's clean, then go read up about how they mine the stuff in 3rd world countries.


    That's debatable, and the figures are twisted by both sides of the camp. I'm also assuming that you pretty much just stated this, without actually know what the cost per KW is.

    Fact is though is that neither can be relied upon.
     
  5. TheWesDude

    TheWesDude Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 25, 2005
    ugh, cant find it right now but there was a news article about how senior citizens in the UK had turned to burning books for heat rather than paying for electricity because...

    books were cheaper.
     
  6. Zeal

    Zeal Still Mildly Glowing

    221
    Apr 20, 2003
    Oh, i have that link in a reply on this post(climategate)! :) dunno where now...
     
  7. DGT

    DGT It Wandered In From the Wastes

    148
    Apr 7, 2006
    And the large-scale, long-term projections are exempt from this kind of snowballing inaccuracy why, exactly...? Your post seemed to either dance around the subject or declare it irrelevant, I'm not sure which. If small initial errors throw off short-term, small-scale predictions such that flipping a coin can be as or more accurate, it stands to reason that large-scale, long-term predictions would be more affected, not less.

    The only thing I'm agreeing with the warming supporters on so far is that we should be trying to reduce our impact on the environment, an effort which right now is mostly non-existent, half-hearted, or idiotic, depending on what country/treaty/etc. you're talking about.

    Arr0nax... are you even being serious? Like, trying to make sense, or are you just pulling arguments out of your... hat and throwing them on the board? I didn't notice anyone saying humans have been around in these periods of warmth and/or high CO2 levels; I have seen them say that evidence shows these periods both existed and had climates quite suitable for human life in general.

    The point about some countries and economies being devastated is, of course, entirely valid -- especially coastal or low-lying areas. No telling how rain patterns would be effected, even inland... but people would survive, and recover.
     
  8. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    Because long-term predictions don't depend on short-term movements but on long-term trends.

    For instance, we don't need to know the exact cloud pattern in january 100 years from now to be able to say something on general trends with regard to rainfall, temperature and the like. Currently inaccurate short-term weather predictions are irrelevant, because long-term predictions don't rely on those things. They rely more on what we know in general terms of the weather, eg what factors influence temperature or rainfall on a global scale.

    Basically, short-term weather forecasts are created by simulating the weather in detail, and in simulating small variations can produce large errors. Long-term (so, years or decades) forecasts don't try to predict the weather to that detail, and don't rely on detailed simulations but on grand-scale movements.

    I've yet to see evidence of either there being these periods, or these periods being suited for human life, or more importantly these periods also featuring the sea levels we currently have. All I've seen is people saying it is so.

    No one seems to be making the point that humankind would be exterminated because of this shit. The point is that the earth would become a significantly less pleasant place to live.
     
  9. DGT

    DGT It Wandered In From the Wastes

    148
    Apr 7, 2006
    I think I'm just going to settle for agreeing to disagree, here, because small details can have large effects over time -- and, of course, my doubts of the accuracy of some of the older temperature records. Moving on to something more productive...

    Google is win. First result for "Cretaceous CO2 levels," for example (since I believe I mentioned that period earlier in the thread) is: http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/inforsch/greenhse/grnhouse.htm
    An interesting passage:

    I.e., some/many species die off, others are created. With modern technology and skills, it seems like it would be easy for mankind to adjust and, indeed, even prosper as a result of such change. As far as sea levels are concerned, I'm freely admitting that they would logically rise -- in fact, they may rise considerably. However, the flooding of coastal and low-lying areas (while highly inconvenient for those therein or nearby) is a small concern when you're talking about the human race as a whole. As I said, some economies would be ruined, and untold millions would quite possibly die -- from such varied causes as drowning, starvation, dehydration (assuming rainfall patterns change, which is a safe assumption), etc. But this is all assuming the worst, which I am admittedly prone to doing.
     
  10. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    Yes, small details have large effects over time. That is why short-term forecasts are inaccurate.

    But those small details are largely irrelevant in long-term movements. For instance, we don't need to have detailed week-to-week predictions to predict that greenhouse gases = warmer earth (whether or not you agree with the science behind that, that science isn't based in any way on detailed weather forecasts), or that solar activity correlates with earth surface temperature. The exact cloud patterns are completely irrelevant there.

    Okay, cool. I don't disagree with any of this in particular, yet I don't see large parts of the world flooding as a minor problem either. Especially not with a constantly growing global population.
     
  11. Arr0nax

    Arr0nax A Smooth-Skin

    624
    Oct 30, 2009
    What you say is funny because it's the whole point of studying global warming...
    I don't know on what continent you live in, but here in Europe efforts to reduce our impact on the environment ARE happening...

    This is a fallacious argument at best. Yes, we know for sure there were locations with climate that allowed other species to live.

    However :
    -First, we don't know much about the geographical repartition and proportion of these climates, and this is precisely the problem.
    -Second, CO2 is not the only factor of temperature repartition. The whole repartition of continents and oceans was different at the time, so the temperature currents, both aerial and oceanic, were totally different.
    It's quite fallacious from a scientifical point of view to compare these two climates and say "So, you see, climate would be pretty okay" because, well the two systems are too different to be correlated so easily.
    -Third, what concerns us is not whether the climate was survivable, but whether it is suitable for our economy and way of life. A tropical climate, which is perfectly fine for a wide range of other species, is not exactly best suited for human economy.

    That's why the argument dinosaurs enjoyed a really sunny and lovely climate during the cretaceous is laughable.

    Yet as I said before global warming is just a small part of our environmental preoccupations, and it at least have the merit of bringing these preoccupations forward.

    I'm still claiming ignorance and would like you to enlighten me, really about the precise devastation.
    Numerical large-scale analysis would be better, of course.


    The point was more whether it is a a) devastating or b) economically viable strategy.


    The big solar facilities being built in America, Spain and Australia are being built in areas 1) pretty suitable and 2) with pretty regular climates.
    Also, statistical theory suggests that with a good energy mix and if developped on a sufficiently large scale, energy output is quite stable.
    And as far as Wind energy goes, yes, it needs backup, yet as I said with a good mix the period in which you would need backup would be pretty small. I fail to see how it discredit these renewables energies.

    Do you really, seriously prefer we continue to rely on fossil energies and not try to research and enhance renewables energies ?

    Yet it's pretty obvious. Depending on the studies, construction related emissions account for a good quarter of the total of our emissions. So enhancing our building standards is in fact one of the most easiest and technologically feasible ways to reduce our CO2 footprint.


    Hum, thank you, I'm actually a student in architecture.
    The price for good isolation and solar heating actually accounts for a pretty low percentage of the overall cost of a building, and the reduction in heating needs pays the additional costs in a few years, then it's profit. A photovoltaic installation is also rentabilized whithin a few years.
    The fact the standards are being applied in a fucked up way in your country doesn't mean you can generalize it to discredit the whole "let's reduce our emissions" movement.


    We are actually throwing money at such projects...

    I didn't say nuclear was renewable. Yet it's cleaner than coal or gas, and resources are plenty.
    With the current growth rate in developping countries, a gas or coal based will see emissions sky-rocket and reserves will suddenly seem a lot more limited. So what do you suggest, that we stick to it and just wait the end of the reserves to START searching for solutions ?

    Also speaking about gas and coal, you happen to have ressources in England and that's fine.
    Yet the case of the other european countries is way different. Europe as a whole depend heavily on importations and it seems it will tend to depend more and more in the future. That's not what I call a sustainaible situation. I'm all for developping an energy mix that makes us independent energetically.
    (http://www.theoildrum.com/files/imports_scenarios.png)
     
  12. Arr0nax

    Arr0nax A Smooth-Skin

    624
    Oct 30, 2009
    ** Double-post **
     
  13. Zeal

    Zeal Still Mildly Glowing

    221
    Apr 20, 2003
    What we had were bad weather/climate predictions, bad science, politics... Basically we had "arranged" models, which by itself doesnt destroyes the possibility of a scientifical approach or the ability to get accurate ones in the future.

    Plus like Sander said the methods are diferent, and while one tries to be precise another is used to have a general ideia of the future.


    "I'm still claiming ignorance and would like you to enlighten me, really about the precise devastation.
    Numerical large-scale analysis would be better, of course."

    http://www.europol.europa.eu/index.asp?page=news&news=pr091209.htm

    just the tip of the iceberg, if you want i will have the trouble to post what "is not seen", but you should try to "iluminate" yourself... Corruption looovvves controled markets ^^


    Oh and dont make me start talking about "alternative" energy sources. In Portugal we already wasted millions with wind turbines and ocean force...

    Anyway, nothing is going to get flooded, can you guys give it a rest? Empirical data wins...
     
  14. DGT

    DGT It Wandered In From the Wastes

    148
    Apr 7, 2006
    The constantly growing global population is a notable part of the problem, so while a large die-off would be a tragedy, it would also not be so bad for the environment as a whole or the survivors afterward.

    And, while I don't know all the details, I feel sure they aren't enough to offset the increasing emissions from, for example, China, who are bringing coal plants online at an astounding rate.

    Humans are not the dominant species on the planet because of our lack of adaptability -- quite the opposite, in fact. Yes, assuming a worst-case scenario, individual regions would be devastated, economies would either crumble or change rapidly, and it would in short be a time of great unheaval, chaos, and change. This is not necessarily a bad thing, with the clear problems in our current society.

    As far as other environmental concerns go, I agree; the Pacific trash spot, for example, is fucking pathetic, and people everywhere should be ashamed of it. I'm just disputing the scientific mindset of many/most of the global warming researchers, as well as the opinion that global warming is "OMFG TEH ENDZ OF TEH WURLD," or somesuch.

    Well, if you want to be as alarmist as some of the global warming theorists, it's horrible: untold quantities of nuclear waste that we have no safe way to store or dispose of! But really, I like nuclear as a viable alternative power source... more than wind, actually.

    Speaking of fallacious arguments...

    That's a large part of the problem; China, for example, is dramatically unlikely to care what environmental concerns are raised. In fact, it's already fairly obvious they don't, considering what I mentioned in this post about them and coal plants.

    I'm not from Europe, but I agree as a general idea. Sustainability is important, and I think it's either attainable now or, more likely, with near-future technology. For example, I would love to see more fusion research, since we don't exactly have a shortage of hydrogen.

    I don't think it's going to occur, either, but I'm discussing it as a hypothetical result of the data/processes I don't really agree with.

    P.S.: Arr0nax, with you throwing around "fallacy," btw, you should maybe check out Wikipedia; you could probably have a lot of fun dissecting your own posts looking for logical ones that seem like someone was trying to make an example of a given type. Not trying to be insulting, just saying that dismissing arguments like that could very easily be turned around on you.

    P.P.S.: This is probably the most entertaining global warming discussion I've ever taken part in. It generally devolves to impotent rage or "is too," "is not" garbage, in my experience.
     
  15. aronsearle

    aronsearle Still Mildly Glowing

    233
    Oct 14, 2005
    There is pollution, and there is C02.

    We are taking steps to reduce our pollution (whilst ignoring that alot of the time all we actually achieve is to outsource our pollution).

    But we are not reducing our C02, but again just outsourcing it (whilst pissing alot of money down the drain).


    You really are just missing the point, the point is about what does man made climate change mean, if it is true, and for that we can look at past data, and use current models with adjustments.

    Climate models that assume warming show that the temperate zone will move further north/south, and combined with previous temperature records it's pretty elementary that this may be disastrous for particular countries, but not for the species.

    Even if climate change as it is presented is true, it seems cheaper to adapt than prevent.



    We do not yet posses the technology to reduce our carbon significantly, without significantly affecting our economy. In other words, lets not ruin our economy, to stop our economy "possibly" being ruined.






    That's why the argument dinosaurs enjoyed a really sunny and lovely climate during the cretaceous is laughable.

    Yet as I said before global warming is just a small part of our environmental preoccupations, and it at least have the merit of bringing these preoccupations forward.

    The carbon credit market is worth about 140 billion iirc for 2009 alone.

    Do you think that the fairies produce this money, and that it doesn't affect the economy?

    You won't find an economic breakdown for such, because it would be relativity impossible to do, and further impossible to separate the effects of the crash and it's affects.

    Though, unless I missed it, you didst comment on this link I posted earlier http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/money-for-old-carbon.html

    Also

    http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/12/the-cost-of-gordon-browns-42-copenhagen-pledge/


    http://scitizen.com/future-energies...ference-is-really-not-sensible-_a-14-818.html

    And the point that I was making was that it inst actually a solution, not that it wasn't economically viable or not.

    Firstly the process for making the fuel is energy intensive and a plant takes 18 years to make back the c02, the mining of the ore is dirty, and we still do not have a coherent strategy for long time disposal of the waste.

    And it's not renewable.

    but apart from that....


    But they are also being pushed and built where they are not suitable, using taxpayers money.

    Because it makes them more expensive, higher energy costs hurt the economy. It doesn't rubbish them as an energy source, or as part of an energy strategy, but you seem to not want to acknowledged that the trade-off is higher energy costs.

    I am all for better housing standards, I work in such a business.

    But the actual impact on C02 with current technology is minimal, but the cost is high, there are many building forums that you can look up on the subject so I won't debate it here.


    http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...rs-to-pay-back-installation-costs-917202.html

    "Given that the devices have a maximum lifetime of 30 years, they are never likely to recoup the £3,000 to £20,000 cost of their installation, according to Rics' building cost information service."


    ITER total budget estimate 5-8 billion (sources vary)

    Carbon credit market 2009 alone - 140 billion approx

    Approximately 2 billion is spent each year on climate research.

    As for that latter figure, I'm not commenting on whether we should be spending it, I just threw it out there to put things into perspective.
     
  16. aronsearle

    aronsearle Still Mildly Glowing

    233
    Oct 14, 2005
    There is pollution, and there is C02.

    We are taking steps to reduce our pollution (whilst ignoring that alot of the time all we actually achieve is to outsource our pollution).

    But we are not reducing our C02, but again just outsourcing it (whilst pissing alot of money down the drain).


    You really are just missing the point, the point is about what does man made climate change mean, if it is true, and for that we can look at past data, and use current models with adjustments.

    Climate models that assume warming show that the temperate zone will move further north/south, and combined with previous temperature records it's pretty elementary that this may be disastrous for particular countries, but not for the species.

    Even if climate change as it is presented is true, it seems cheaper to adapt than prevent.



    We do not yet posses the technology to reduce our carbon significantly, without significantly affecting our economy. In other words, lets not ruin our economy, to stop our economy "possibly" being ruined.


    The carbon credit market is worth about 140 billion iirc for 2009 alone.

    Do you think that the fairies produce this money, and that it doesn't affect the economy?

    You won't find an economic breakdown for such, because it would be relativity impossible to do, and further impossible to separate the effects of the crash and it's affects.

    Though, unless I missed it, you didst comment on this link I posted earlier http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/money-for-old-carbon.html

    Also

    http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/12/the-cost-of-gordon-browns-42-copenhagen-pledge/


    http://scitizen.com/future-energies...ference-is-really-not-sensible-_a-14-818.html

    And the point that I was making was that it inst actually a solution, not that it wasn't economically viable or not.

    Firstly the process for making the fuel is energy intensive and a plant takes 18 years to make back the c02, the mining of the ore is dirty, and we still do not have a coherent strategy for long time disposal of the waste.

    And it's not renewable.

    but apart from that....


    But they are also being pushed and built where they are not suitable, using taxpayers money.

    Because it makes them more expensive, higher energy costs hurt the economy. It doesn't rubbish them as an energy source, or as part of an energy strategy, but you seem to not want to acknowledged that the trade-off is higher energy costs.

    I am all for better housing standards, I work in such a business.

    But the actual impact on C02 with current technology is minimal, but the cost is high, there are many building forums that you can look up on the subject so I won't debate it here.


    http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...rs-to-pay-back-installation-costs-917202.html

    "Given that the devices have a maximum lifetime of 30 years, they are never likely to recoup the £3,000 to £20,000 cost of their installation, according to Rics' building cost information service."


    ITER total budget estimate 5-8 billion (sources vary)

    Carbon credit market 2009 alone - 140 billion approx

    Approximately 2 billion is spent each year on climate research.

    As for that latter figure, I'm not commenting on whether we should be spending it, I just threw it out there to put things into perspective.[/quote]
     
  17. toyboat

    toyboat First time out of the vault

    14
    Apr 20, 2009
    Come again?
    Climate change is happening; there is no preventing it. Adaption, that is finding ways to stop polluting, has to come some time.
    So, Adaption will cost money and it only gets more expensive the longer it's put off.

    On ClimateGate:
    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
    Their mission statement:
    "We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding."

    Pretty much blown out of proportion.
     
  18. Zeal

    Zeal Still Mildly Glowing

    221
    Apr 20, 2003
    "Despite the debacle of the failed Copenhagen climate change conference last December, the United Nations is pressing full speed ahead with a plan for a greatly expanded system of global environmental governance and for a multitrillion-dollar economic transfer scheme to ignite the creation of a "global green economy.""

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587426,00.html


    Wha.. what? Wait... really? well its fox news but... !!.... what?

    Mommy.. im afraid :/