The Annual Global Warming Flame Thread

[Darwin]

Some explication of thorium issues here: http://www.dauvergne.com/technology/thorium-vs-uranium/

More complex reactor design required and it breeds uranium. Anti-nukers fibrillate with high indignation when breeder reactors enter a discussion.

[sgreger1]

Uranium is also not the only usable fuel.

Thorium is another option, though last time I mentioned it Justin said there was some issue with it.

[sgreger1]

I'm not really a believer or a skeptic. Mostly I am just apathetic.

So, if the temperature goes up, we'll be looking at about an extra 20 inches in sea-level. So... Given an enormous effort, we'll build a 21 inch seawall around rich people's houses by the shore - or maybe we'll have to move back from the ocean a few feet. Or we'll get innovative and do some geo-engineering (http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ge...ntury_999.html). There will be some changes. And that is scary for people, but we should keep in mind, to be cliche, that the one constant is change and that we have survived as a species so far by adapting to those changes (probably the only evolutionary benefit to our large brains). i.e., Malthus was wrong because he didn't factor in technology advances.

I also find it a bit funny, the level of trust people put into these computer climate models... We all understood the enormous problems associated with computer simulations in other areas like the SDI program from the 80's. We understand that tomorrow's weather forecast is at best a good effort. Yet we enthusiastically accept that the climate models are valid - and climate is a LOT harder to model then missile trajectories or weather patterns for 48 hours out given the enormous number of variables involved - we are basically sucky at modeling relatively simple systems - modeling a system as large as the Earth is simply not possible with any degree of accuracy and probably won't be within my lifetime. So, we are stuck running each, potentially flawed, model with a tiny number of, not particularly clean, variables - which leads to more or less useless data, IMO, since the interaction of millions of interactions and feedbacks is what determines our climate, not just 1 or 2 variables. (i.e., increased co2 raises temperature, increased available co2 + increased temp = more plant life, more plant life = less co2, etc, etc.)

At the end of the day, IMO, we're, as a species, probably better off with warming then cooling. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...g-ice-age.html And cooling is probably inevitable based on geologic history and planetary physics.

There has, to my knowledge, never been an extinction event directly related to warm interglacial periods (which is where we are now as I understand).

This is the best global warming related post I think i've seen on the internet yet. THIS x infinity.

[Darwin]

Not for nothing is this current era called an interglacial period. Between ice ages. You know, until the next one.

[sgreger1]

If you can call a small percentage an exaggeration. I don't claim to know how small a percentage but I'd surmise it's minuscule.

A small percentage? The difference between a .2 rise in temperature over a decade and a 2.4 increase is BIBLICAL. None of us would be having grandchildren if the earth were heating up that fast. The discrepancy is huge.

[sgreger1]

An error in one study does not constitute conflicting evidence. Do you seriously believe this one error in this one study overturns the thousands of other studies and thousands of pieces of evidence?

I specifically said that I do not think this discredits the global warming science at all. It shows how flawed our review process is, but the point was that it got caught, and other scientists immediately called bullshit on the study. This is exactly how science is supposed to work.


I am not a denier, I believe in global warming entirely, just I take an entirely different opinion on what it means. AGW in it's current for is, imo, scientists coming to a conclusion before they have all the data. Like I said, we are observing a trend amongst decades worth of climate data, and this needs to be investigated. But it appears as if the entire scientific community has already made their conclusions regarding AGW, and are very reluctant to any kind of criticism, unlike other fields of science which welcome criticism.



I think there is plenty of evidence of a trend, but the scientists have been so quick to push their pre-determined conclusion that we keep seing junk science fall through the cracks. We have seen several of their very short term predictions turn out to be incorrect, so that tells me they have not really gotten this down to a science enought to project out 300 years from now. And yet they go to our schools and tell our children that the world will be over in their lifetime. It is irresponsible and it is not science, it is alarmism.




Anyways, intention of the post was not to claim that one paper by some nobody disproves the vast amount of research which exists in this field. Merely that the scientific community needs to stop being so god damn intent on PROVING AGW. Research is not about proving that you are right, it is just supposed to be an objective look at the data. I am very worried that the scientific community has not shown the same kind of skepticism with AGW that it normally would, that is all. To me it wreaks of corruption.

[snupy]

Exactly... If you are concerned about global warming and would like to use that as rationale for shifting funds to advanced research or replacing inefficient infrastructure... I'm with you - whether the science is perfect or not.

Unfortunately, too many of the "solutions" on the table are to tax me more, raise my gas prices, raise my electricity bill, etc.

How do you think we will pay for replacing inefficient infrastructure? It will be no different, I assure you.

[snupy]

http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13398

[Jwalker]

I'm inclined to believe you immediately, I remember we watched an old movie in elementary school about recycling and they talked about metal and landfill space running out by 1993. I grew up in the mid 90's by the way and the movie wasn't that old. Nuclear power isn't free though you do have to build it which my state did and wasted like 6 billion dollars (real money back then not something congress will probably wake up and decide to spend tommorow) then gave up.

Yes I took a course in economics so I understand stuff like the reason people were waiting in line for gas in the 70's wasn't the oil shortage, but price controls and weird regulations on distribution. If they hadn't done that it would be like this time around prices would rise people would cut back on consumption, use it more efficiently, find substitutes and oil that was previously uneconomical to develop would be gone after. I also know that there's a cost benefit analysis to pollution and 20 percent of our 1990 levels (which was the per person level in 1910) or "carbon neutral" whatever that means certainly isn't it unless you believe it's better.

[Jwalker]

Yeah nuclear is fine but we need to re-use some of the "waste" I mean right now 1/5 of our power is nuclear. I always get exasperated when people talk about waste disposal because yeah it is an issue but apparently disposing of the millions of tons of coal ash for every pound of uranium isn't . Aside from the CO2, coal ash and air pollution is a serious issue and by the when you scrub a plant it doesn't make the sulfur disappear it just get's concentrated in the coal ash. If we build up the supply of nuclear reactors we'll deplete uranium reserves faster but I'd say we're more likely to find uranium reserves than coal reserves. We'll still need coal so I think we should build some coal gasification plants since they're more efficient but honestly the odds of that happening are about zero.

[snupy]

That said, rip out all of the coal power plants and replace them with nuclear. Please.

I like what the Chinese are doing with pebble bed reactors, which can't melt down. Also, what happened to the nuclear generators the size of a fridge, which could power an entire block? Of course, both of those technologies are probably outdated now. I am all for nuclear myself though.

[snupy]

I also find it a bit funny, the level of trust people put into these computer climate models... We all understood the enormous problems associated with computer simulations in other areas like the SDI program from the 80's. We understand that tomorrow's weather forecast is at best a good effort. Yet we enthusiastically accept that the climate models are valid - and climate is a LOT harder to model then missile trajectories or weather patterns for 48 hours out given the enormous number of variables involved - we are basically sucky at modeling relatively simple systems - modeling a system as large as the Earth is simply not possible with any degree of accuracy and probably won't be within my lifetime.

You got that right, particularly given Observed Arctic shrinkage has been faster than that predicted.[82] Precipitation increased proportional to atmospheric humidity, and hence significantly faster than current global climate models predict.[83][84]

Our climate models are so bad, the effects of global warming are occurring FASTER than our present climate models are able to predict!

[WickedKitchen]

If you can call a small percentage an exaggeration. I don't claim to know how small a percentage but I'd surmise it's minuscule.

[snupy]

it's fundamental to science to change theories if conflicting evidence arises..

An error in one study does not constitute conflicting evidence. Do you seriously believe this one error in this one study overturns the thousands of other studies and thousands of pieces of evidence?

[toddzilla]

I took a Global warming class in college. It was problem my favorite class just because I got in huge debates with my professor every class and he would get so pissed haha. Its my personal belief that this is all just one big cycle of the earth. Yes I would agree that it may have been exaggerated due to our increased carbon footprint, but regardless we would have seen a warming trend like we are in now. These cycles have happened before and they are going to keep happening as long as the earth isn't vaporized haha