Why I'm skeptical of global warming and why it is important

Post Reply New Topic

...
So your idea is that it's more likely that the best scientists in the world are a part of a vast conspiracy theory, than that the greenhouse effect (which was well-known and described long before global warming became an issue) actually functions as predicted decades ago?

As far as percentages that mean certainty, it varies from discipline to discipline. In rocket science, it's pretty much 100%. In cutting-edge particle physics, it's more like 60% (check out, for example, the competitiveness at CERN) . In biology, it's 80-90% for issues outside of the ToE; for the ToE, it's more like 99.9%
More than 95% of climate scientists agree that global warming is real, and that it's caused by humans.

I think the observations are sufficient to establish that we are currently in a warming era. What is missing is a really good science of climate which could establish the main causes. It may yet be true that human activity is the main driver of the warming, but this has not been established scientifically. We have have is a lot of -statistical models- and all statistical models can establish is correlation, not cause.

ruveyn

there is no doubt we humans have an effect,
how much i dont know but i think its more than what many want to belieeve.

I am skeptical about global warming. I consider myself a true climate skeptic whereas those that have been using that term are really just deniers.

I'd say there is enough evidence that a) The world wide temperature is on the rise. b) That is not good. c) The rise is caused by greenhouse gases. d) Humans are behind the relevant change in atmosphere that increased the amount of greenhouse gases.

If so, why am I a skeptic, you should ask. Well, I just don't really believe in the magical environmentalist idea that by just reducing emissions we would restore temperature. I think there is no evidence for that. There is also no evidence that we can reduce emissions. Rather, I think we should look for more realistic solutions, like a system to clean those gases, or a contraption out of Tesla's wet dreams that can control climate.

Nice how about Genetically modified super plants that turn excess CO2 and methane into Sugar?

not kidding.

That is why we need a proper climate science (which we do not have now). Just to find out how much and to see if cutting back will do any good.

I think we should cut back on hydrocarbons simply because burning oil makes us dependent on parties who are hostile to us. I think the way to go is nuclear fission power. Stop burning oil and making a mess of the atmosphere.

ruveyn

from a pure health persective less fossil fuels is a good thing, there is no doubt they have an effect.
i agree that there are many valid reasons for moving to a nuclear power grid with alternatives where the infrastructure does not need or suppport nuclear power plants.

pulsed fusion is years off but if it becomes feasible i would prefer that over fission, much cleaner and with virtually no permanent resource drain.

the real issue with alternatives today is the limited growth of many of the copanies involved, not because they dont have work but because they ae constantly stretched beyond capacity and they cant even keep up with the increase in demand, let alone the huge back order vestas siemens and suslong (chinese) has built up over the last couple of years.

That's exactly my point. The notion that we can make everyone stop greenhouse gases under the justification that we think things will become better if they do is the silliest and least realistic option of all those mentioned by me and by you.

Also of interest : The prisoners dilemma. Unless we all (all countries and all corporations) reduce emissions, we are not going to lower the amount of CO2. And those that don't reduce the emissions will get an economical benefit as long as they are not the only ones who do. We are screwed.

We currently have no real solution at all to the climate problem. It is probably a good idea to begin looking for one. What we do have is a lot of whining about how we should be reducing emissions, and every two years we host an international debate about it all while the world keeps on warming.

It also happens to be the case that the governments of those national academies are all in deep denial about climate change, with the United States being the worst offender.

That it is >90% certain that we are the main contributors should speak volumes as to how reliable climate science really is. Nothing is ever 100% certain, or even 90% certain at times. The science behind climate change and global warming, particularly AGW, is very reliable. I would go as far as saying that it is much more reliable than our theories of gravity are.




That's not true. Check, for instance, a study by James Hansen called "Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications" (You can find it on the NASA website, I can't post links until about 5 days from now). It compares his predictions made in the 1980's all the way to today. The verdict was that the warming was for the most part right on schedule.

And a more famous one called "Where should Humanity Aim?", also by James Hansen (Just google it, you will find it immediately).


Climate science is based entirely on physical models, and a lot of it is derived from studies in paleoclimate.

It is true that governments around the world aren't putting any real effort into cutting their carbon emissions. Alas it is one of the many pitfalls of having a global economy dependent on fossil fuel and allowing fossil fuel industries to have a large influence in our national governments. The most recent meeting at Copenhagen was abysmal.

However, that we lack the political will to reduce emissions doesn't mean that its not possible, or that the science of climate change is suspect. Also, we have solutions that we can implement right now (i.e. hybrid electric cars, insulation and other technologies that increase energy efficiency, carbon sequestration, etc.). But so far there hasn't been any aggressive effort to deploy them.

It actually does.


I never said it was.

You mean those things that run on the town's electricity that is generated by carbon?





This is factually false and stating it as truth with such certainty allows us to frame you into denier.



Radical environmentalists intercept Japanese fishing ships. Considering that warming is mainstream science already, there is nothing radical about the environmentalists you are talking about. The use of the word radical may be a case of projecting...

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 04 Oct 2011, 7:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

How so? You need to provide some actual science/engineering rather than just saying so.



But you said:



If you didn't mean that, you have to be careful with your terminology. I know that later in your post you say otherwise, but still.



The point is that electricity can be produced by other sources than fossil fuel. And even if we allow the worst case scenario (i.e. electric power from coal), they would still generate far less carbon per mile because electricity is far more efficient than combustion. They thus can be said to reduce emissions (and energy consumption), and can do it quite dramatically.

It is possible to dramatically reduce emissions, and the technology exists right now (electric cars are just one of bazillions of options BTW). What is lacking is political will and a coordinated carbon reduction policy.


*UPDATE: Just looked up the figures for the carbon footprint of electric cars to gasoline cars. If we assume that all of our electricity comes from coal (which it doesn't by the way, in the United States anyway only about 50% of it comes from coal), then an electric car will produce only about 20 lbs of carbon per mile traveled, compared to about 71 lbs for petrol cars.

Again, all of our electric power doesn't come from coal, so the actual figure is going to be a lot less. And it will fall as more and more of our electricity comes from renewables and nuclear over the coming decades, and the electric car matures.

This is a physical impossibility. Your ratios might be correct, but I suspect that you're off by a couple orders of magnitude on the numbers of miles traveled to produce that much carbon.

@Vex: I would agree that 'warming skeptic' is not the proper term for you. You're more of a 'warming mitigation skeptic,' or something like that.

The Los Alamos PACER project proved that fusion power is practical using today's technology but the politicians stopped the project because they did not like the idea of exploding hydrogen bombs.

*UPDATE: Actually, I did find more reliable figures, this time from a study done by MIT. It's called "Wheels to Wells Analysis of EV's", and their conclusion is that energy consumption is reduced by 50% and carbon emissions by 60% when assuming all coal-fired power plants. A little off, but certainly not "orders of magnitude". The site I referenced did make a leap that wasn't clear, so I had to reject the figures. Still though, the amount of carbon generated is far less than a petrol car, so I'm not "orders of magnitude off". Not by a long shot.

Also, if we use the more reliable figures (about 0.24 Kwh per mile traveled, 2.3 lbs of carbon per Kwh from coal), then CO2 emissions would be about 0.57 lbs per mile with an electric car, if we assume all coal fired power plants. That is still much lower than a petrol car (about 0.76 lbs per mile if we assume 25 mpg, and 19 pounds of carbon is emitted per gallon of gas). If a petrol car were to be comparable to electric cars for carbon emissions, then you would need to get at least 35 mpg. Most cars average much lower than this.

The bottom line, even if we assume the worst case scenario, carbon emissions are still significantly less for EV's. Since not all of our electricity is produced by coal (which by the way can be easily replaced), it is likely to be far lower in any case.

(bolding mine)
Your initial numbers:

0.57 lbs/mile vs. 20 lbs/mile for an electric vehicle.
so, yeah, off by several orders of magnitude.
Again, I wasn't questioning the ratios - the relative goodness of electric vs. liquid fuel vehicles - just the raw numbers.