(07-21-2015 03:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  This is a perfect example of what I find completely disingenuous about you in this discussion, and what you've obviously been tiptoeing around this entire thread despite me bringing it up multiple times as a direct response to issues you've raised.
You're so easy to blame some vague concept of bureaucracy or academia, yet you seemingly refuse to even give any lip service to any other root cause; namely the political and social machine which outright refuses to admit the existence of climate change.

I'm going to take exception to the "disingenuous" comment. You are way out of line there. I want a retraction. What you are missing is that my experience in the area gives me insights that you don't understand or appreciate. See my larger discussion of how the system works above.

Let's try a hypothetical. Say we want Exxon to do something. The current approach is for EPA to issue some sort of mandate. Now, Exxon doesn't want to do it, because it is going to cost them money with no expectation of any return. So it is in their best interests to fight it, and to fight all elements of it--the propriety of the process that generated the rule, the accuracy of the data, the reasonableness of the methodology used to support the rule, whether AGW even exists. As long as we have an adversarial process, questioning all of those things is what they have to do, and in fact it's their proper role in such a system.

Now shift things a bit. Come up with a way for Exxon to make money off the deal. Instead of dragging their heels, they do it in a heartbeat. What I'm talking about is that difference right there. And it's real.

Now just for fun, let's change the hypothetical a bit. Let's say Exxon is in competition with three smaller refineries and the rue applies to all of them. And let's say Exxon doesn't really want to spend the money, but at least they can afford to if they have to, where they know the smaller refiners can't. Now Exxon supports the rule, no more competition, monopoly. That's the kind of fact situation, and it occurs frequently, where the truly incestuous nature of the relationships kicks in. That's not really relevant here, except as an insight into how the system works to create unintended adverse consequences.

My experience may have made me a bit skeptical. But skepticism is a good thing.

Quote:I'm going to take exception to the "disingenuous" comment. You are way out of line there. I want a retraction. What you are missing is that my experience in the area gives me insights that you don't understand or appreciate. See my larger discussion of how the system works above.

I am not at all out line here, and quite frankly, I seriously question most of the things you post here about your real life experience. You're a poster on a messageboard, defend your statements like anyone else.

Quote:Let's try a hypothetical. Say we want Exxon to do something. The current approach is for EPA to issue some sort of mandate. Now, Exxon doesn't want to do it, because it is going to cost them money with no expectation of any return. So it is in their best interests to fight it, and to fight all elements of it--the propriety of the process that generated the rule, the accuracy of the data, the reasonableness of the methodology used to support the rule, whether AGW even exists. Now shift things a bit. Come up with a way for Exxon to make money off the deal. Instead of dragging their heels, they do it in a heartbeat. What I'm talking about is that difference right there. And it's real.

Sure, but quick question, how exactly do you make something like that profitable? Seems it would require some sort of incentive from a government body, meaning funds going to climate change, and we're right back where we started. Furthermore, you're vastly simplifying the motivations of corporations of this sort, even if it is profitable in the short term, there isn't an incentive to hurt their own business long term by removing the demand on the resource they've pumped billions of capital into controlling. Please don't take this as a typical 'evil corporations', I'm saying this from a rational perspective; there is a lot of internal pressure to keep the status quo the way it is because they already have all of the advantages in that scenario. What you're describing is tantamount to them hurting their own product. I agree we need to focus on making these policies profitable to spur their growth, but the reality is we need profitable policies which are enforced through government regulations.

This of course doesn't begin to mention the momentum that denying a settled science for decades can have, or the way it's been intrinsically entwined with a specific political ideology.

Quote: My experience may have made me a bit skeptical. But skepticism is a good thing.

You don't come off as particularly skeptical, at all.

(07-21-2015 04:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I am not at all out line here, and quite frankly, I seriously question most of the things you post here about your real life experience. You're a poster on a messageboard, defend your statements like anyone else.

If I thought you were a trustworthy individual, I would share my resume with you and blow you away. But I don't, so I will stick to the anonymity of a message board.

I guess when you don't have much real world experience, it may be hard to comprehend that some people actually do things and gain experience and learn from that.

One thing for certain, not buying your BS does not make anyone disingenuous.

(07-21-2015 04:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 04:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I am not at all out line here, and quite frankly, I seriously question most of the things you post here about your real life experience. You're a poster on a messageboard, defend your statements like anyone else.

If I thought you were a trustworthy individual, I would share my resume with you and blow you away. But I don't, so I will stick to the anonymity of a message board.

I guess when you don't have much real world experience, it may be hard to comprehend that some people actually do things and gain experience and learn from that.

One thing for certain, not buying your BS does not make anyone disingenuous.

Knowing you and your resume as I do, Owl... I find attacks upon it pretty amusing. In another thread, someone wants to measure CVs as well.

Yeah, let's ignore the obvious logic of your statements and the obvious illogic of the others and focus on the ability to 'out' your resume.

Hilarious.


That's the thing about this message board. I comment on lots of things that I'm informed on, and on a few that I'm not... but even when I'm not particularly informed, I'm logical in my approach. Logic doesn't always result in correct results, but it's a good place to start a conversation. LOTS of people on here are almost entirely reactionary in their approach.... which is entirely based on emotion and 'feelings', and it's perhaps the WORST place to start a conversation.

(07-21-2015 05:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 04:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 04:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I am not at all out line here, and quite frankly, I seriously question most of the things you post here about your real life experience. You're a poster on a messageboard, defend your statements like anyone else.

If I thought you were a trustworthy individual, I would share my resume with you and blow you away. But I don't, so I will stick to the anonymity of a message board.

I guess when you don't have much real world experience, it may be hard to comprehend that some people actually do things and gain experience and learn from that.

One thing for certain, not buying your BS does not make anyone disingenuous.

Knowing you and your resume as I do, Owl... I find attacks upon it pretty amusing. In another thread, someone wants to measure CVs as well.

Yeah, let's ignore the obvious logic of your statements and the obvious illogic of the others and focus on the ability to 'out' your resume.

Hilarious.


That's the thing about this message board. I comment on lots of things that I'm informed on, and on a few that I'm not... but even when I'm not particularly informed, I'm logical in my approach. Logic doesn't always result in correct results, but it's a good place to start a conversation. LOTS of people on here are almost entirely reactionary in their approach.... which is entirely based on emotion and 'feelings', and it's perhaps the WORST place to start a conversation.

I think this thread was hijacked by emotion...

(07-21-2015 05:26 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  I think this thread was hijacked by emotion...

Could be. I'd still actually like to have a serious conversation about the substantive issues.

(07-21-2015 05:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 05:26 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  I think this thread was hijacked by emotion...

Could be. I'd still actually like to have a serious conversation about the substantive issues.

Okay, let's start one:

Assuming for a second that AGW is undeniably occurring, what kind of policy would you enact to curb emissions without destroying vital industry?

(07-21-2015 05:41 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 05:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 05:26 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  I think this thread was hijacked by emotion...

Could be. I'd still actually like to have a serious conversation about the substantive issues.

Okay, let's start one:
Assuming for a second that AGW is undeniably occurring, what kind of policy would you enact to curb emissions without destroying vital industry?

Post #84, this thread, for starters.

Though one caveat, other than for the sake of discussion, I'm not conceding that AGW is undeniably occurring, or at least not to the extent that the worst gloom and doom forecasts are accurate. But that's immaterial to the discussion from my point of view, because I'd stick with those steps regardless.

(07-21-2015 04:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:I'm going to take exception to the "disingenuous" comment. You are way out of line there. I want a retraction. What you are missing is that my experience in the area gives me insights that you don't understand or appreciate. See my larger discussion of how the system works above.

I am not at all out line here, and quite frankly, I seriously question most of the things you post here about your real life experience. You're a poster on a messageboard, defend your statements like anyone else.

Or he can do like you and just say it's a "nuanced position". I mean if you feel like it works for you when you are asked to defend your statements then it's fair game for everybody right?

(07-21-2015 05:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 05:41 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 05:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 05:26 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  I think this thread was hijacked by emotion...

Could be. I'd still actually like to have a serious conversation about the substantive issues.

Okay, let's start one:
Assuming for a second that AGW is undeniably occurring, what kind of policy would you enact to curb emissions without destroying vital industry?

Post #84, this thread, for starters.

Though one caveat, other than for the sake of discussion, I'm not conceding that AGW is undeniably occurring, or at least not to the extent that the worst gloom and doom forecasts are accurate. But that's immaterial to the discussion from my point of view, because I'd stick with those steps regardless.

It's just an assumption for the sake of argument.

The problem with warming models is that there are dozens of them, all based on different assumptions. People ignore the more conservative models because they're less shocking and less absurd. Alarmists appeal to peoples' fear and skeptics use them as examples of failed predictions.

(07-21-2015 06:15 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  It's just an assumption for the sake of argument.

Understand, just that there are some posters on here (not you) who are disingenuous enough that if you concede a point for argument, they try to hold you to it later. Just want to stay out of that trap.

Plus I just want to prove that there's enough substantive issues here to have a useful discussion without having to concede the most extreme AGW positions.

Quote:The problem with warming models is that there are dozens of them, all based on different assumptions. People ignore the more conservative models because they're less shocking and less absurd. Alarmists appeal to peoples' fear and skeptics use them as examples of failed predictions.

I'll save some comments on this for later, don't want to sidetrack the discussion. ETA: Actually, I'll go ahead and stick it in here. The skeptic in me says that the AGW alarmists realize we don't really have a viable alternative to oil at this point, so no rational decision could be taken to abandon oil. But they want to abandon oil with a passion. So the idea is to create as much hype and frenzy as possible with outlandish projections, in the hope of creating so much frenzy that people will adopt irrational solutions.

Most of my points make sense with or without AGW, and my argument is instead of continuing to argue, let's go ahead and do things that make sense regardless of how the argument shakes out. The good news is that there are several things that make sense for a variety of reasons that also help reduce CO2.

My points 1 (nukes), 2 (electric trains), and 3 (NGL powered local fleets) save about 3 million barrels of oil per day. That's a huge decrease in CO2 (NGL puts out much less CO2 than oil). With XL (#7) that also means we don't depend on a drop of oil from outside NAFTA.

Sugar cane ethanol from Latin America and West Africa could replace another 2 million (3 million with Cuba). That doesn't necessarily help much with emissions, but it further insulates us from the Middle East. Because oil is essentially fungible, we will always have some exposure to world pricing, but this gives us more flexibility to deal.

Nukes (point 1) also replace a bunch of coal. That plus wind and solar (points 5 and 6) could provide another significant decrease in CO2. Transmission and storage improvements would enable even greater savings.

The carbon tax (point 4) is one I like because it is a huge step toward my ideal of a free market with the externalities priced in. It would obviously reduce consumption and carbon emissions.

(07-21-2015 03:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 02:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 02:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Man contributes to climate change... So do lots of other things. NUMEROUS things have the potential to cause the cataclysmic projections people make, yet I don't see wholesale picketing to end ranching (producing methane) or ending housing construction (deforestation) or lots of other things, only driving cars/burning oil. Going after the 'deep pockets' of oil and gas seems a bit obvious. Picketing ranchers and home builders wouldn't be politically palatable.

If you don't see that, then you're being intentionally obtuse because both of those issues are raised often and vocally. I honestly don't know how you can seriously say that statement.

How much money has the government spent developing alternative sources of protein or forcing tofu into public schools and all government catered events (state dinners etc.) compared to how much we've spent to develop solar and wind power and cars, including incentives for using such things and even mandates for their use, especially for government projects? How much money have we spent to reduce global populations?

(07-21-2015 02:28 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Those don't balance out. They're saying that a reduction in solar activity (which is more than just flares) is a fraction of AGW - which itself is admittedly probably only part of any change in global climate. Meanwhile the second sentence says that the change in UV light from the sun can cause regional effects on the Earth. Like during the Maunder Minimum, Europe got a lot colder, but from everything I've read, it wasn't a global effect even then, and that was several decades in a row of dramatically reduced solar activity.

two different conversations...

Here is exactly what they said, and they did so in 1995, not related to the question at hand, but independent of it...

"Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects.'

Now, in English, the use of the word However is meaningful.... and BOTH issues are differentiating between impacts on surface temperature.... one is a global mean and the other is regional. Further, the study I linked specifically says that 'about half of the observed 0.55 degree Celsius warming from 1860 to present warming may be attributable to this.' (modulation of the Oscillations due to ultraviolet solar irradiance). It says it accounted for 74% of it between 1800 and present and 'perhaps a third' of it since 1970. 'Our conclusion is that solar variability may have played a larger role in recent global temperature change than has hitherto been acknowledged.

Again, I'm not trying to argue with their conclusions as best I know we ALL lack the scientific wherewithal to do so... but they are certainly suggesting that there is a 'mix' between various factors and not merely that 'man is causing it'.

Quote:If AGW is real, its effects could very well be temporarily masked by a reduction in solar irradiance, if you're looking at average temperatures over the entire Earth.

or it could also exacerbate it.... which is precisely what the article suggested.

Quote:Their article implies that it wouldn't be enough for that, I don't know. I would not look to something like that as evidence that AGW is not happening. And certainly I wouldn't draw the conclusion (that seems popular on this board) that because the sun impacts the Earth's climate (which is totally obvious to the most casual observer) that humans are therefore not affecting it.

1) That isn't what their article implies at all... since they're talking about half of the move being attributed to it... exacerbating the 'other' inputs.... but I never claimed it was evidence that AGW is not happening.

2) your synopsis of what people are saying isn't really what many people are saying either.... and certainly not what I have said or have EVER said.

The study seems to be saying that AGW, especially that portion under the control of man is some fraction of 'less than half' (since slightly more than half is attributed to solar activity and irradiation). Now it may be 99.9% of that half or it may be 0.1% of that half... and that is what I mean by we are arguing over 'degrees', which is a bit pointless... but that it is 'something less than half'....

but of that (let's assume 99.9% of 50% which is the 'worst case') there is SOME portion of it that it is unrealistic to expect to eliminate... Man still needs to breathe, eat and live/have shelter.... and we're talking GLOBALLY, not just in the US. Try talking to the Indians about reducing the cow population.

So whether we can impact 1/10th (or 90%) of that 01% (or 99.9%) of the 'something less than half (or is it 74% or 36%?) it seems that there are more things that we can't impact/control than there are that we can. Honestly, you have to take a 'Goldilocks' scenario for man to be able to truly 'stop' global climate change.

Compound that with the idea that during a mini-ice age, AGW would actually work in man's favor, it seems that being as clean as possible and ADAPTING to climate change seems far more prudent a use of our time, resources and energies than trying to eliminate something that we know very well that we can't.

1) There have been repeated occurrences of people saying that it's the sun changing the climate, as if that's the only factor. Not you, but it's happened many times on this board.

2) You couldn't find a newer article than one from 1995? My original comments had to do with the previously linked article, so I had to go back and look at yours.

3) The article from 1995 only talks about Northern Hemisphere temperatures.

4) The 75% was before the industrial revolution. The whole point of the AGW theory is that the industrial revolution and the CO2 output since then has caused the warming. Most of the warming occurred after 1970, and less than a third of that could be attributed to solar forcing, according to that article. Also, if you really think about that, it's even worse. Solar forcing supposedly responsible for 75% of the warming before the industrial revolution, about 50% since then, and less than a third over the previous 25 years (up to the time of that article). That would imply that the % not attributable to solar forcing is increasing, if those numbers are accurate.

5) At the time of that article, we only had 15 years of satellite observations.

6) The more recent article also refers only to specifically northern Europe and the eastern U.S., which is a pretty small area of the globe.

(07-21-2015 07:53 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  1) There have been repeated occurrences of people saying that it's the sun changing the climate, as if that's the only factor. Not you, but it's happened many times on this board.

Fair enough. I honestly haven't seen them or simply ignored them. Anyone who doesn't admit that man impacts the environment, generally (though not always) in 'bad' ways is not worth debating. That's actually a big part of my argument... that man does this even without burning oil.... thus unless we're talking about population control and foodstocks, we're not really addressing all the major causes of man-made impact on the earth.

Quote:2) You couldn't find a newer article than one from 1995? My original comments had to do with the previously linked article, so I had to go back and look at yours.

As I said, I merely took the first link when I searched for the term. It was never an attempt to 'counter' a scientific argument, merely an attempt to quantify the impacts alluded to in your study. Your study talked about 'less than' and 'greater than'... so I wanted a reference point for 'less than or greater than what'

Quote:3) The article from 1995 only talks about Northern Hemisphere temperatures.

Isn't that specifically the sort of 'larger regional surface temperature effects' that your study alludes to?

I think you're trying to read too much into my link. I've said from the start that I'm not making scientific claims... I'm merely trying to quantify and identify the ones your article talks about.

Quote:4) The 75% was before the industrial revolution.

You see, this is precisely why these arguments happen. I said 'about half' numerous times because their article focused on that. I mentioned the 75% number once, and I also mentioned 'perhaps a third' since 1970.

You picked the 'best' case for my argument and act a bit as if I am claiming that it is 74%.

That is a direct quote from the article.... (now paraphrasing) 74% from 1800 to present and 'about a third' since 1970. The also said 'about half since 1860', so that is the number I focused on, only mentioning the others (and I mentioned both)

Quote:The whole point of the AGW theory is that the industrial revolution and the CO2 output since then has caused the warming. Most of the warming occurred after 1970, and less than a third of that could be attributed to solar forcing, according to that article. Also, if you really think about that, it's even worse. Solar forcing supposedly responsible for 75% of the warming before the industrial revolution, about 50% since then, and less than a third over the previous 25 years (up to the time of that article). That would imply that the % not attributable to solar forcing is increasing, if those numbers are accurate.

actually I believe it's 75% from 1610-1800 and 56% from 1800-present... about half from 1860 to present and about a third from 1970 to present.

A statistician would argue that if you went from 56% to 50% by eliminating the first 60 out of 215 years, those first few years were HORRENDOUS.... eyeballing it, that would be 70% during the first 60 years. If we've gone from 70% to 50% in the first 60 years and 50% to 33% in the last 45, despite the massive increase in industrialization since 1860, we've actually 'tempered' our impact pretty dramatically.... especially when you consider that this is a global number.

That is purely a statistical review... but it certainly makes sense logically. While we certainly burn more today than ever before, pictures of the industrial skyline in the 1900's were FILLED with dirty smoke.

Quote:5) At the time of that article, we only had 15 years of satellite observations.

What does that have to do with any measurement taken prior to that point, which makes up the vast majority of the data and is precisely the point of 'deniers'.

Yes we have better data today, but you're comparing it to the same old data and claiming that the old data is 'just as reliable' as the new. It has to be, since we're talking about (according to the article) a fraction of 1 degree over 200 years. Don't you imagine that at least a PART of that fraction of one degree could simply be the fact that we can now measure global temperatures to fractions of degrees while 200 years ago we not only couldn't measure fractions, but could only measure a small portion of the globe? Of course it could make it even worse... but we don't talk about that because that open the door to it also being better/being unreliable (to the degree claimed).

What do the charts show for the last 45 years or so when we've had this very reliable data and aren't relying on models and projections from limited sources?

(07-22-2015 10:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 07:53 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  1) There have been repeated occurrences of people saying that it's the sun changing the climate, as if that's the only factor. Not you, but it's happened many times on this board.

Fair enough. I honestly haven't seen them or simply ignored them. Anyone who doesn't admit that man impacts the environment, generally (though not always) in 'bad' ways is not worth debating. That's actually a big part of my argument... that man does this even without burning oil.... thus unless we're talking about population control and foodstocks, we're not really addressing all the major causes of man-made impact on the earth.

Quote:2) You couldn't find a newer article than one from 1995? My original comments had to do with the previously linked article, so I had to go back and look at yours.

As I said, I merely took the first link when I searched for the term. It was never an attempt to 'counter' a scientific argument, merely an attempt to quantify the impacts alluded to in your study. Your study talked about 'less than' and 'greater than'... so I wanted a reference point for 'less than or greater than what'

Quote:3) The article from 1995 only talks about Northern Hemisphere temperatures.

Isn't that specifically the sort of 'larger regional surface temperature effects' that your study alludes to?

I think you're trying to read too much into my link. I've said from the start that I'm not making scientific claims... I'm merely trying to quantify and identify the ones your article talks about.

Quote:4) The 75% was before the industrial revolution.

You see, this is precisely why these arguments happen. I said 'about half' numerous times because their article focused on that. I mentioned the 75% number once, and I also mentioned 'perhaps a third' since 1970.

You picked the 'best' case for my argument and act a bit as if I am claiming that it is 74%.

That is a direct quote from the article.... (now paraphrasing) 74% from 1800 to present and 'about a third' since 1970. The also said 'about half since 1860', so that is the number I focused on, only mentioning the others (and I mentioned both)

Quote:The whole point of the AGW theory is that the industrial revolution and the CO2 output since then has caused the warming. Most of the warming occurred after 1970, and less than a third of that could be attributed to solar forcing, according to that article. Also, if you really think about that, it's even worse. Solar forcing supposedly responsible for 75% of the warming before the industrial revolution, about 50% since then, and less than a third over the previous 25 years (up to the time of that article). That would imply that the % not attributable to solar forcing is increasing, if those numbers are accurate.

actually I believe it's 75% from 1610-1800 and 56% from 1800-present... about half from 1860 to present and about a third from 1970 to present.

A statistician would argue that if you went from 56% to 50% by eliminating the first 60 out of 215 years, those first few years were HORRENDOUS.... eyeballing it, that would be 70% during the first 60 years. If we've gone from 70% to 50% in the first 60 years and 50% to 33% in the last 45, despite the massive increase in industrialization since 1860, we've actually 'tempered' our impact pretty dramatically.... especially when you consider that this is a global number.

That is purely a statistical review... but it certainly makes sense logically. While we certainly burn more today than ever before, pictures of the industrial skyline in the 1900's were FILLED with dirty smoke.

Quote:5) At the time of that article, we only had 15 years of satellite observations.

What does that have to do with any measurement taken prior to that point, which makes up the vast majority of the data and is precisely the point of 'deniers'.

Yes we have better data today, but you're comparing it to the same old data and claiming that the old data is 'just as reliable' as the new. It has to be, since we're talking about (according to the article) a fraction of 1 degree over 200 years. Don't you imagine that at least a PART of that fraction of one degree could simply be the fact that we can now measure global temperatures to fractions of degrees while 200 years ago we not only couldn't measure fractions, but could only measure a small portion of the globe? Of course it could make it even worse... but we don't talk about that because that open the door to it also being better/being unreliable (to the degree claimed).

What do the charts show for the last 45 years or so when we've had this very reliable data and aren't relying on models and projections from limited sources?

Actually the article you said was my study was posted by someone else, and I thought at first that it was the one you were referring to. So I'm not really trying to make scientific claims either.

Neither study refers to the impact on overall global temperatures. That's what I would really want to know. If we can't tell from the data, then at least I don't want to hear that the article rebuts anything. The Earth is much bigger than Northern Europe and Eastern US.

I don't think the statistics you mention are that logical unless I'm not understanding what you're saying. The 1600-1800 timeframe included the Maunder Minimum so it makes a huge difference which year you choose to start from. There hasn't been anywhere near that big a difference in solar activity during the Industrial Revolution.

It doesn't matter how smoky the skyline was then. Many of those particulates, if anything, probably had a cooling effect, like SO2 e.g.. The CO2 output then was not as much as more recently, we just have better environmental controls on pollution.

It's possible that the data from earlier on could be less accurate. But that's the data used in the 1995 study as well, so obviously they thought it was accurate enough to use fractions of a percent.

Here's my point summarized.

If we can significantly reduce CO2 emissions through steps that make sense regardless of whether AGW is a problem, why don't we go ahead and do those steps instead of continuing to argue about AGW? When we get those steps accomplished (probably 10-30 years) we will be a whole lot better off than we are today and presumably we will have a better handle on AGW and will have made some progress on the technology front. Then we can make sensible decisions about where to go from there. The steps I outlined above make sense regardless of whether AGW is real or not, they can be accomplished with existing technology, and they will bring about a significant reduction in CO2 emissions.

Let's do what we can with what we know today, then work on doing more when we have more information and better technology.

(07-22-2015 11:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's my point summarized.

If we can significantly reduce CO2 emissions through steps that make sense regardless of whether AGW is a problem, why don't we go ahead and do those steps instead of continuing to argue about AGW? When we get those steps accomplished (probably 10-30 years) we will be a whole lot better off than we are today and presumably we will have a better handle on AGW and will have made some progress on the technology front. Then we can make sensible decisions about where to go from there. The steps I outlined above make sense regardless of whether AGW is real or not, they can be accomplished with existing technology, and they will bring about a significant reduction in CO2 emissions.

Let's do what we can with what we know today, then work on doing more when we have more information and better technology.

That would make sense to me, but it's hard to get any of that done - certainly you can't use AGW as a reason for it. Nobody in control of any of the industry thinks CO2 is even a problem (though of course you still have the issue with China, etc.). We'd rather wait until there's no shadow of doubt about any of it, even though it would require more dramatic efforts then.

I personally think there needs to be a big push on solar and battery storage technology. It will be a while before we can make it a large portion of energy policy but that means all the more that we should do it now. Maybe not Apollo program big, but bigger than current efforts.

(07-22-2015 11:29 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 11:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's my point summarized.
If we can significantly reduce CO2 emissions through steps that make sense regardless of whether AGW is a problem, why don't we go ahead and do those steps instead of continuing to argue about AGW? When we get those steps accomplished (probably 10-30 years) we will be a whole lot better off than we are today and presumably we will have a better handle on AGW and will have made some progress on the technology front. Then we can make sensible decisions about where to go from there. The steps I outlined above make sense regardless of whether AGW is real or not, they can be accomplished with existing technology, and they will bring about a significant reduction in CO2 emissions.
Let's do what we can with what we know today, then work on doing more when we have more information and better technology.

That would make sense to me, but it's hard to get any of that done - certainly you can't use AGW as a reason for it. Nobody in control of any of the industry thinks CO2 is even a problem (though of course you still have the issue with China, etc.). We'd rather wait until there's no shadow of doubt about any of it, even though it would require more dramatic efforts then.
I personally think there needs to be a big push on solar and battery storage technology. It will be a while before we can make it a large portion of energy policy but that means all the more that we should do it now. Maybe not Apollo program big, but bigger than current efforts.

I think you could get substantial agreement on a lot of this if you separated it from the AGW hype. I really think the AGW hype is counter-productive because I think it causes a lot of people, who could and would be very useful in implementing a sensible program, to become defensive instead of cooperative. "Hey, Exxon, we're going to put you out of business because you are contributing to AGW," is not a way to get Exxon onboard as a player. "Hey, Exxon, you could make a lot of money doing X, Y, and Z," is almost guaranteed to get Exxon to do X, Y, and Z.

(07-22-2015 11:29 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  That would make sense to me, but it's hard to get any of that done - certainly you can't use AGW as a reason for it. Nobody in control of any of the industry thinks CO2 is even a problem (though of course you still have the issue with China, etc.). We'd rather wait until there's no shadow of doubt about any of it, even though it would require more dramatic efforts then.
I personally think there needs to be a big push on solar and battery storage technology. It will be a while before we can make it a large portion of energy policy but that means all the more that we should do it now. Maybe not Apollo program big, but bigger than current efforts.

The technologies that are game changers:
1) Electricity storage
2) Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), which facilitates solving the big problem with coal gasification/liquefaction (the true "clean coal" technology)
3) Nuclear waste recycling

(07-22-2015 11:08 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Neither study refers to the impact on overall global temperatures. That's what I would really want to know. If we can't tell from the data, then at least I don't want to hear that the article rebuts anything. The Earth is much bigger than Northern Europe and Eastern US.

My point was that as the left on the issue (which isn't always 'the left') has often acted as if the only factor in 'climate' is man.... and that if we can eliminate man's impact (which I believe we can't) we can ward off climate change. What these studies indicate is that there is a lot more going on than just man...or more to the point, just burning oil.

Quote: The CO2 output then was not as much as more recently, we just have better environmental controls on pollution.

That was entirely my point. following your logic (not agreeing or disagreeing with it, so if I'm misunderstanding, you should still be able to follow it) the elimination of cooling SO2 gasses would cause the warming effect of CO2 to be exacerbated.... but we wouldn't suggest producing more SO2, we'd simply look to continue to be cleaner.... without hysteria.

I'm not saying that's a scientific fact (that so2 cools and counteracts co2) I'm merely following your comment. There are numerous moving parts is my point... MOST of which, we cannot pretend to control.

(07-22-2015 01:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 11:08 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Neither study refers to the impact on overall global temperatures. That's what I would really want to know. If we can't tell from the data, then at least I don't want to hear that the article rebuts anything. The Earth is much bigger than Northern Europe and Eastern US.

My point was that as the left on the issue (which isn't always 'the left') has often acted as if the only factor in 'climate' is man.... and that if we can eliminate man's impact (which I believe we can't) we can ward off climate change. What these studies indicate is that there is a lot more going on than just man...or more to the point, just burning oil.

Quote: The CO2 output then was not as much as more recently, we just have better environmental controls on pollution.

That was entirely my point. following your logic (not agreeing or disagreeing with it, so if I'm misunderstanding, you should still be able to follow it) the elimination of cooling SO2 gasses would cause the warming effect of CO2 to be exacerbated.... but we wouldn't suggest producing more SO2, we'd simply look to continue to be cleaner.... without hysteria.

I'm not saying that's a scientific fact (that so2 cools and counteracts co2) I'm merely following your comment. There are numerous moving parts is my point... MOST of which, we cannot pretend to control.

I agree that acting like man is the only factor is just as dumb as saying the sun is the only factor.

We do still put out a lot of SO2 from what I've read (probably more now than then - globally), it's mostly other stuff that has been cleaned up. I guess I wasn't clear on that. So I don't know that it would account for any of the warming.

If the sun's TSI was gradually increasing there would be little we could do about it. If we get this miniature Maunder minimum occurring in 15 years or so and the temperatures don't drop in Europe/North America, it might be an indication that something is up. Not proof of anything, but it would be somewhat concerning.