Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[W1zzard]

weather

weather is not climate. climate is the weather averaged over a long time. so .. "omg it's cold this winter, must be global warming" no .. "omg it's so hot this summer, we have a drought, thanks global warming" no

 

[silkstone]

When you just look at studies, you have to look at the money and the money is really only flowing to CO2 studies that all more or less confirm what satellites tell us: CO2 is rising 2 ppmV. There's other fields of study, arguably far more important to this problem (like weather) that are getting virtually no funding. This minority doesn't get many papers published because there simply isn't resources (money) to drive up enough interest to do it. As such, that 97% figure is very, very biased and I wish people would stop using it to prove a point. The only conclusion can be drawn from it is that most of the research money has gone to CO2 (which shouldn't surprise anyone).

You misunderstand how the science is done. They don't get paid to prove a hypothesis. The money is there to investigate a question or problem.

A basic example might be, "What drives climate change?" (although that is far to broad of a question to investigate). They might get an answer that points to CO2 or something else entirely. All the findings are published, whether their hypothesis was correct or not.

Even if all the scientists were solely doing research on CO2, they would state a negative conclusion to their hypothesis and indicate where further research needs to be done.
It is not a case of money is going in to research on CO2, so scientists are finding that CO2 is the cause. That's just not how it works.

Regarding the quote. He is not saying that the current change in climate is caused by water vapour in that quote.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html

Already found that and it doesn't do a breakdown comparison of natural vs manmade. It only catalogues manmade. I suppose one could crunch all those numbers to generate figures but, no time for that.

Some of the data in the link you provided is referenced, but a lot of is not. I can not see where they are getting a lot of their numbers from.

I believe it is sourced from this quote:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

Making some allowance (+/-5%) for the crudeness of my calculation, the maximum supportable number for the importance of water vapour alone is about 60-70% and for water plus clouds 80-90% of the present day greenhouse effect. (Of course, using the same approach, the maximum supportable number for CO2 is 20-30%, and since that adds up to more than 100%, there is a slight problem with such estimates!).

Reading the rest of it sounds like it fluctuates wildly and no one really knows.

The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere has actually decreased:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/

It's by a "Guest Blogger" and just reading the first part...'nuff said.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-water-vapor-in-the-stratosphere-slowing-global-warming/

Published 2010 and as demonstrated by the previous link, water vapor fluctuates wildly. Would need to compare that article to a more recent article to see if it still holds water or not.

and there is also a very complex relationship between CO2, CH4 and where the water vapor ends up in the atmosphere
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

Dated 2008. That NSF webcast was in 2010 so it's a little more current than that link.

We do not have the complete picture yet, of that I am sure. However, all current evidence points to human activity as the cause of the current change in climate.

Not so fast. Human activity has very little impact on water vapor and most sources say the effect of water vapor is very debated.

weather is not climate. climate is the weather averaged over a long time. so .. "omg it's cold this winter, must be global warming" no .. "omg it's so hot this summer, we have a drought, thanks global warming" no

Watch the NSF video. You need weather (specifically where water vapor is in the atmosphere) in order to accurately predict climate. His goal is, by 2030, to be able to accurately predict water vapor's effect on the climate through the end of the 21st century.

Why it matters? A thick cloud has a 2 watt per meter squared negative feedback which adds up to a lot that is reflected instead of absorbed. Why that matters is because if that cloud is over the arctic, it's impact is near zero due to the ice under it having the same effect. On the other hand, if that cloud is over the ocean (very dark and absorptive), the negative impact is potentially "tremendous" depending on time of day, density of the cloud, and how much surface it covers.

The money is there to investigate a question or problem.

And that "question or problem" was CO2 over, and over, and over again. Other factors were largely ignored.

Regarding the quote. He is not saying that the current change in climate is caused by water vapour in that quote.

I didn't claim that. I said that water vapor is undeniably the #1 greenhouse gas. There's a lot of debate about the specificity because...there's so much we don't know or have the capacity to measure/predict.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Wheres the best place to go to find 97% of scientists who agree that man caused climate change.......a conference on global warming.------- F.......g brilliant ?

If you went to a baking convention you might find quite a lot of people there who like cakes !


Heres a scientist i trust in a respected publication, not much to read, i promise.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/03/brian-cox-scientists-climate-change

 

[BiggieShady]

It's okay to be wrong about global warming, by the time you are proven wrong you'll be long dead ... because that's what really matters, who is right and who is wrong

 

[silkstone]

Heres a scientist i trust in a respected publication, not much to read, i promise.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/03/brian-cox-scientists-climate-change

As Brian Cox rightly points out, by even debating the issue, I'm giving a sense of legitimacy to climate change denier claims
I guess I should stop now. There is no point.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

I'm giving a sense of legitimacy to climate change denier claims
I guess I should stop now. There is no point.

There is every point. stick to your convictions.

Right or wrong is of no consequence...what we do about it is.


Bowing out

 

[rtwjunkie]

I'm out too, since no one has addressed a good explanation for the falsification of the temperature readings that was the original point of this thread. It just seems to me, were it so clear, there would be no reason to change the data readings from what they were originally were at so many weather stations.

BTW, @silkstone, I don't think there is a person alive that denies climate is changing.

No hard feelings on my part! Greater minds than us will solve this someday.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Right or wrong is of no consequence...what we do about it is.

Queue the politics. Case in point: Kyoto Protocol.

Greater minds than us will solve this someday.

I don't think there is anything to "solve" per say. As @CAPSLOCKSTUCK said, it's the doing that needs doing.

I look at it this way: 10 years ago nuclear power was a non-starter. Now most countries are actively pursuing it (US has 5 reactors planned or in progress, for example) or seriously considering it. That may not be much but that is some doing getting done. It translates to upwards of five large coal/natural gas power plants that won't be built. I don't think that's enough to make anyone happy but it is a silver lining everyone should be able to get behind. So all of this noise about climate change did not fall on deaf ears.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Queue the politics. Case in point: Kyoto Protocol.


I don't think there is anything to "solve" per say. As @CAPSLOCKSTUCK said, it's the doing that needs doing.

I look at it this way: 10 years ago nuclear power was a non-starter. Now most countries are actively pursuing it (US has 5 reactors planned or in progress, for example) or seriously considering it. That may not be much but that is some doing getting done. It translates to upwards of five large coal/natural gas power plants that won't be built. I don't think that's enough to make anyone happy but it is a silver lining everyone should be able to get behind. So all of this noise about climate change did not fall on deaf ears.

More doing getting done: Burlington, VT became the first U.S. city to have all of its electricity supplied from renewable sources, split among three different sources: Solar, Hydro from the local river and a wood/trash fired plant. They are independant now of the rest of the grid. Yeah, the wood plant is a pollutant, but it's a start.

 

[W1zzard]

I look at it this way: 10 years ago nuclear power was a non-starter. Now most countries are actively pursuing it (US has 5 reactors planned or in progress, for example) or seriously considering it. That may not be much but that is some doing getting done. It translates to upwards of five large coal/natural gas power plants that won't be built. I don't think that's enough to make anyone happy but it is a silver lining everyone should be able to get behind. So all of this noise about climate change did not fall on deaf ears.

What we (1st world) do, doesnt matter at all. What matters is how China, India and similar developing countries progress. And who are we to deny them growth. Look at how many power plants China is bringing online each year, look at their coal consumption, now add some growth for the next 20 years

 

[DannibusX]

Oh look. The same old argument. There's lots of this on General Nonsense.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

What we (1st world) do, doesnt matter at all. What matters is how China, India and similar developing countries progress. And who are we to deny them growth. Look at how many power plants China is bringing online each year, look at their coal consumption, now add some growth for the next 20 years

China has 23 nuclear reactors with 26 under construction and even more planning. Four >1000 MW reactors went critical in 2014. China is also financing and building reactors in other countries like Pakistan and Argentina.

Nuclear is expanding in India albeit not as fast. India's largest nuclear reactor to date (917 MW) went critical just 3 months ago.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Oh look. The same old argument. There's lots of this on General Nonsense.

It isnt a General Nonsense topic and it hasnt been discussed in a non sensical way.

Well within the rules of this forum i think.
The fact that W1zz has had an input ( throughout the discussion) and that none of the mods have had any reason to call anyone out justifies my words.

I for one have enjoyed it, its been stimulating and very informative.

I would be interested to hear how you voted.

EDIT sorry i should have tagged @W1zzard in.

 

[REAYTH]

TheMailman called it years ago. He said the UN was basically the worlds corrupt HOA buying scientist to hike tax rates. Pretty obvious he was right at this point.

 

[Easy Rhino]

Anyone who tells you "the science is settled" has never performed a scientific experiment in their life. Science is not a thing that can be "settled." We have prevailing theories of course and sometimes, rarely, they can be considered laws of nature. But even those laws are tweaked over time as we develop better tools to do our "science" with. Currently the majority of climate scientists believe the earth is warming thanks to man. It probably is. The real debate is what impact does man have on climate. Nobody knows. Our tools are not refined enough to make proper measurements (as we have learned from the past 15 years) and we don't have enough raw data to put together models that make sense. There isn't much else to say on the matter other than there are people who claim to be doing science when in fact they are pushing a political agenda. Science, like all fields, is not free from people who are crooked.

 

[W1zzard]

China has 23 nuclear reactors with 26 under construction and even more planning. Four >1000 MW reactors went critical in 2014.

Nuclear in China is single digits percent. They have 2 million(!!) people working in state owned coal mines

the better unit to use for your argument is kWh (= energy = joules)

"In 2012 gross electricity generation was 4994 TWh (not including Hong Kong) on IEA figures, this being 3785 TWh from coal, 86 TWh from gas, 97 TWh from nuclear, 872 TWh from hydro, and 147 TWh from non-hydro renewables"

2013 data:

16,000 MW installed, produced 104 TWh. 16000 * 365 * 24 = 140 TWh peak = on average they are running at 74% of max load

 

[twilyth]

What we (1st world) do, doesnt matter at all. What matters is how China, India and similar developing countries progress. And who are we to deny them growth. Look at how many power plants China is bringing online each year, look at their coal consumption, now add some growth for the next 20 years

China has 23 nuclear reactors with 26 under construction and even more planning. Four >1000 MW reactors went critical in 2014. China is also financing and building reactors in other countries like Pakistan and Argentina.

Nuclear is expanding in India albeit not as fast. India's largest nuclear reactor to date (917 MW) went critical just 3 months ago.

Both India and China have growing demand for energy that will continue to outstrip whatever they can produce domestically. That tends to favor the development of renewable sources like wind and solar. This is especially true of China that has steadily increased the amount of energy it imports, including coal. They tend to be a bit paranoid about relying on external sources which is a big part of the reason that they have made developing solar technologies a priority. But it also applies to nuclear.

The cost per watt of solar has been dropping in a fairly linear fashion for decades and efficiency continues to rise. At some point it will just make more economic sense to use renewables rather than hydrocarbons.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

state owned coal mines

and have you seen what they describe as coal in China

We call it "brown coal" or orimulsion, its shit. We refused to burn it in the uk because it is so polluting.

In Wales we are lucky, sorry, rephrase, were lucky to have the finest coal in the world, anthracite. It drove the industrial revolution it also powered Queen Victorias own ship. Merthyr Tydfil was the first industrialized area in the world, take a walk around there today, you would never think it.
The enormous steel factory in Port Talbot is now owned by TATA the Indian steel giant, oddly they are cutting production here and increasing it in India. The steel works in Ebbw Vale stretched for 9 miles down one valley -all gone.

Unfortunately the local superpower at the time kind of took it off us (wealthy English landlords) coal, iron and copper masters, as set in print by Alexander Cordell in "the rape of the fair country". Incidentally Welsh mined slate was said to have roofed the world, all of the viable slate has gone as well. Swansea was known as "Copperopolis" f*** all copper left now.

The heavy industries have moved on leaving some of the unhealthiest populations in Europe, 3 generations of some families havent worked in some households.

Maggie Thatcher closed the mining industry even though it was a quality product with high demand.

Im ranting i know, but my point is and i'll take you back to the title "the rape of the fair country" we were raping our natural resources 250 years ago, we havent stopped and we havent learned the lessons from an ecological social or moral point of view. And we are still f*****g our people in the arse by removing the wealth.

Progress ? but what is the cost.
Politicians, with their agendas set policy, hindsite is supposed to make us wiser. Sometimes i have my doubts.

KYOTO ....bollocks..........from what i can remember a big chunk of the invited delegates dont even attend.

 

[W1zzard]

fairly linear fashion

your chart has an exponential scale btw

but yes, I agree, it is one possible approach: we push research to bring down cost of solar (which motivates china to do so as well), or we research it and give it to them for free, so we save money in the long run not having to fix the climate

and have you seen what they describe as coal in China

yup yup, "brown coal" here in German too. btw, in 2012 we mined more of it than China

edit:

just found this

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

we push research to bring down cost of solar (which motivates china to do so as well),

The EU recently imposed extreme taxes to reduce the amount of cheap solar equipment coming in from China, they were concerned the relative cheapness would damage EU industry's competitiveness.

Anthracite......relatively good
bituminous and brown, extraordinarily bad - hence the smog, sulphur emissions.

 

[DannibusX]

It isnt a General Nonsense topic and it hasnt been discussed in a non sensical way.

Well within the rules of this forum i think.
The fact that W1zz has had an input ( throughout the discussion) and that none of the mods have had any reason to call anyone out justifies my words.

I for one have enjoyed it, its been stimulating and very informative.

I would be interested to hear how you voted.

EDIT sorry i should have tagged @W1zzard in.

I wasn't saying it was a General Nonsense topic, just saying there's a ton of it there. All of everything you guys are discussing are there for everyone to read and bask in misinformation, consensuses or whatever other information sways your argument.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Nuclear in China is single digits percent. They have 2 million(!!) people working in state owned coal mines

the better unit to use for your argument is kWh (= energy = joules)

"In 2012 gross electricity generation was 4994 TWh (not including Hong Kong) on IEA figures, this being 3785 TWh from coal, 86 TWh from gas, 97 TWh from nuclear, 872 TWh from hydro, and 147 TWh from non-hydro renewables"

2013 data:

16,000 MW installed, produced 104 TWh. 16000 * 365 * 24 = 140 TWh peak = on average they are running at 74% of max load

16,000 MW is an old figure. As of right now, they have 20,115 MW in operation, 28,461 MW under construction, 40,820 MW planned at coastal locations, and 27,900 MW planned at inland location. By 2025, they will likely have 117,296 MW worth of nuclear power which is nearly a 583% increase in increase in output compared to today. They're going to overtake every other country on that image by almost double.

As of 2011, EIA put these predictions on Chines power production:

Electricity generation increased by more than 89% since 2005, and EIA projects total net generation will increase to 7,295 TWh by 2020 and 11,595 TWh by 2040, nearly three times the generation level in 2010.

We'll use the 2020 figure because it should be close to the 2025 figure I gave above (because more plants could exit planning and enter construction).
117,296 MW * 365.25 * 24 h = 1,028,216,736 MWh
Move the decimal 6 places and we get 1,028 TWh. 1028 TWh out of 7,295 TWh brings us to 14% up from 2% in 2013 in just 12 years. Their goal is 150 GW by 2030 and it looks like they're on track to get there.

This is completely consistent with I said. Many countries were tepid about nuclear until about 2005-2010 and they reconsidered (about the time of the 2007 IPCC report). Interest fell off in 2011 with the Fukishima disaster and came back after a 2013 self-imposed moratorium to reconsider designs and vulnerable sites. Now the world has gone back to being serious about nuclear. That fact goes in the "win" column.

 

[Fourstaff]

I think nuclear power is currently stuck in a very uncomfortable position. One of the few advantages it has (cleaner than coal) is being threatened by solar panels.

 

[Caring1]

weather is not climate. climate is the weather averaged over a long time. so .. "omg it's cold this winter, must be global warming" no .. "omg it's so hot this summer, we have a drought, thanks global warming" no

You are right in that it is not global warming, The correct terminology is Climate Change, and this is only true if a pattern of change can be seen.