Global Warming?

[Ridgerunner]

We haven’t been to the Moon since 1972, because we cannot afford it. Coincidentally, 1972 is when human civilization appears to have peaked:

Maybe we can’t afford it, but we have certainly afforded checking out the moons of other planets in exquisite detail and nabbed a piece of a comet in flight. Must have cost a lot to do those things, and one wonders whether barely landing some men on the moon and being lucky to get them off (which we were) even compares technologically with sending rovers for months and months to test the soils and check out the terrain on Mars, all guided from earth. Maybe there are other reasons why the U.S. has not gone to the moon.

As to “civilization” generally, could anyone have asked for less “civilized” places than the Soviet Union and Maoist China in 1972?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, we can see ocean temperatures rising and that could be the result of greenhouse warming … but only if the atmospheric temperature has risen as well, otherwise where is the energy coming from to warm the oceans?
There is no moral component to the question of whether the theory of AGW is valid. It is a scientific question only.

Ender

Those who promote MMGW have a response to your question. If I remember correctly, the response is that it’s coming from the atmosphere all right, but that the ice is absorbing all of it, which is why the atmosphere is not warming. On the other hand, I have read it theorized that we have nowhere near enough data to know whether the oceans are warming or not or, if they are, what’s causing it, so little do we know about the temperatures generated by underseas subduction and vulcanism.

I even read it theorized (all with nice charts and such) that the oceans are warming very, very gradually in a recovery from the Little Ice Age, it taking something like 3000 years for ocean temperatures to “equalize” with atmospheric temperatures. (It doesn’t take long the other way around, though)

Lots of folks say lots of things, and every one of them has the data to “prove” his point.

To me, though, the moral dimension is this. We have a disputed theory of MMGW, and we have politicians and billionaires who want to sell us on the idea that we ought to eschew cheap energy in favor of expensive energy (in which the superwealthy have invested billions) in order to combat MMGW. Well, that sounds very nice until one considers how it will affect the poor and the elderly who would like to be able to afford warm homes, have lighting and refrigeration and food. The politicians now in power think that’s a good trade and intend to make utility bills “skyrocket”. (Obama’s words)

So, the moral component, in my mind, is this: Do we let the old lady in Fargo freeze and do without oranges from Florida for the sake of a disputed theory that the rich and powerful promoters of MMGW do not seem to believe in themselves if one looks at how they live?

I say no we don’t.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

To me, though, the moral dimension is this. We have a disputed theory of MMGW, and we have politicians and billionaires who want to sell us on the idea that we ought to eschew cheap energy in favor of expensive energy (in which the superwealthy have invested billions) in order to combat MMGW. Well, that sounds very nice until one considers how it will affect the poor and the elderly who would like to be able to afford warm homes, have lighting and refrigeration and food…

There are superwealthy who have invested in every business you can imagine. It there any reason to think that the particular superwealthy who have invested in, say, the photovoltaic industry, are any more evil than the superwealthy who have invested in coal or oil? And if the politicians are so beholding to these green energy investors, those investors must be pretty numerous, wouldn’t you think? Or exceptionally wealthy - more wealthy than the superwealthy who invest in oil. But is that really the case? Is the green energy sector so full of investors that they outnumber the evil investors in all the industries that would stand to loose if green energy policies are adopted? I have not done the research, but I doubt you will find more investors in green energy companies than you will find investors in the oil and coal companies. Politicians care about numbers. They would not find it to their benefit to sell out to such a small group when they could much more profitably sell out to a much larger group. So I just don’t see the human factors of this supposed conspiracy making sense, even if you assume the worst about everyone involved. It makes much more sense, if you want to believe a conspiracy, that the oil and coal investors are throwing their considerably greater weight behind a campaign to discredit any evidence that their industry is to blame for anything.

As for those who suffer from this policy or that, you can always point to some who might suffer if fuel prices increase. But others will suffer when their entire village is submerged and they have to flee as refugees. No matter what policy is adopted, or no policy at all, you can always find some people who will be hurt by that decision. That is why the moral question cannot be answered until the purely scientific one is answered first. Otherwise we won’t even know what the moral question is.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There are superwealthy who have invested in every business you can imagine. It there any reason to think that the particular superwealthy who have invested in, say, the photovoltaic industry, are any more evil than the superwealthy who have invested in coal or oil? And if the politicians are so beholding to these green energy investors, those investors must be pretty numerous, wouldn’t you think? Or exceptionally wealthy - more wealthy than the superwealthy who invest in oil. But is that really the case? Is the green energy sector so full of investors that they outnumber the evil investors in all the industries that would stand to loose if green energy policies are adopted? I have not done the research, but I doubt you will find more investors in green energy companies than you will find investors in the oil and coal companies. Politicians care about numbers. They would not find it to their benefit to sell out to such a small group when they could much more profitably sell out to a much larger group. So I just don’t see the human factors of this supposed conspiracy making sense, even if you assume the worst about everyone involved. It makes much more sense, if you want to believe a conspiracy, that the oil and coal investors are throwing their considerably greater weight behind a campaign to discredit any evidence that their industry is to blame for anything.

As for those who suffer from this policy or that, you can always point to some who might suffer if fuel prices increase. But others will suffer when their entire village is submerged and they have to flee as refugees. No matter what policy is adopted, or no policy at all, you can always find some people who will be hurt by that decision. That is why the moral question cannot be answered until the purely scientific one is answered first. Otherwise we won’t even know what the moral question is.

No, I think we can know that it’s immoral to cause suffering without really knowing whether there’s an overwhelmingly overbalancing moral obligation to do it. And since the science is hardly settled (despite the claims to the contrary) we cannot say there is that overwhelming overbalancing moral obligation.

Actually, as you look at the respective contributions to political campaigns and public relations campaigns, which I commend you for doing, you will find that the oil and coal companies’ contributions are pretty small compared to those of those who stand to gain from imposition of “alternative energies” on the public by investors and environmental organizations (including the government which has spent $100 billion on it so far). That’s exactly why you don’t see politicians like Obama living as if they believe in MMGW at all while simultaneously pushing for limitations on fossil fuel use. It’s the money. At least Jimmy Carter wore a sweater in the White House and turned the thermostat down to 65. He really believed we were on the lee side of “peak oil”, wrong though he was. He walked the walk. Obama, on the other hand, caused a dozen ships to take heavily armored cars and other equipment to Africa when he went there just to shake Mandela’s hand before he died, and had round-the-clock overhead jet fighter protection throughout the trip. He doesn’t believe in MMGW at all.

Sometimes the obvious answer is the real answer to some things.

 

[estesbob]

We must see our space effort, then, not only as an adventure of today but also as an investment in tomorrow. We did not go to the moon merely for the sport of it. To be sure, those undertakings have provided an exciting adventure for all mankind and we are proud that it was our Nation that met this challenge. But the most important thing about man’s first footsteps on the moon is what they promise for the future.

We must realize that space activities will be a part of our lives for the rest of time. We must think of them as part of a continuing process–one which will go on day in and day out, year in and year out-and not as a series of separate leaps, each requiring a massive concentration of energy and will and accomplished on a crash timetable. Our space program should not be planned in a rigid manner, decade by decade, but on a continuing flexible basis, one which takes into account our changing needs and our expanding knowledge.

Source: Richard Nixon: “Statement About the Future of the United States Space Program,” March 7, 1970.

“No bucks, no Buck Rogers”

 

[frobert]

“No bucks, no Buck Rogers”

Actually I think Nixon was right on. There is no way that we could afford the energy needed to do more in space than we are now doing.

I don’t know if you are a science fiction fan but if you are you may have noticed the lack of stories of travel out of our Solar System to distant stars? I have a theory about why. You see the enthusiasm among scientists dwindled when they realized that the probability of leaving our Solar System was very low.

There is a paradox I believe attributed to Fermi. It goes like this. Any intelligent civilization would use up its energy supply before it was able to develop the technology for travel to the stars.

 

[estesbob]

Actually I think Nixon was right on. There is no way that we could afford the energy needed to do more in space than we are now doing.

I don’t know if you are a science fiction fan but if you are you may have noticed the lack of stories of travel out of our Solar System to distant stars? I have a theory about why. You see the enthusiasm among scientists dwindled when they realized that the probability of leaving our Solar System was very low.

There is a paradox I believe attributed to Fermi. It goes like this. Any intelligent civilization would use up its energy supply before it was able to develop the technology for travel to the stars.

Well not to derail the thread but every Science fiction book I have read this year (about a dozen) has taken place outside the solar system.

 

[JB_Dugan]

No. I wasn’t around yet

Well that explains a lot…

Nixon has also cancelled Saturn and NERVA programs, effectively preventing any serious space exporation for the next few decades, and destroying capabilities which haven’t been restored to this day. The funniest part is that killing Saturn (i.e. the Moon rocket) saved… wait for it… $18 million.

Nixon was literally given keys to the Solar System, and he said that he was not interested.

And thus, the decline began.

The U.S. space program was nothing more than a grand public relations campaign.

We showed the world that the American taxpayer could put a man on the moon. We are such a great nation that we can overtax our citizens to the tune of $BILLIONS and we sat around our TV sets and in our RV’s at Cape Kennedy eagerly cheering the next rocket launch.

For what?

A ball point pen that can write in zero gravity…

The space program produced nothing that can save mankind from the horrors of excess CO2 or prevent hurricanes or keep sea ice from melting or save the Polar Bears…

What a colossal waste!

 

[SuperLuigi]

Fossil fuel deposits are not renewable, hence, economy based on fossil fuels is not sustainable by definition.

Irrelevant.

Sustainability does not have to depend entirely on renewables.

ROTFL. Because the fossil industry has no impact on wildlife. None at all:

That’s not what I said. If you have to change the subject, it tells me you are not confident in your discussion.

Furthermore, the tar sands do not take up that much land in Canada and with proper remediation, a lot of that can be restored.

Unfortunately, thermodynamics is not on your side. Increased atmospheric CO2 must increase Earth’s heat content. This directly follows from blackbody radiation and absorption characteristics of CO2. There is no way around it.

Thermodynamics are on the side of facts.

That’s high school level thinking. There’s more feedback loops and cloud that go into it.

I think you’ve seen one too many graphics with an imaginary, planetary heat shield with arrows spiraling back to the earth.

There is some controversy regarding how exactly temperature rises in response to CO2, but equilibrium temperature which must be eventually reached can be calculated pretty easily. In fact, Svante Arrhenius did so back in 1898 and his prediction turned out to be surprisingly correct.

You’re quoting a study from 1898?

Also, temperature is not that great of a measurement because it’s only an average of kinetic energy. Averages aren’t so great, especially when you’re modeling an entire planet.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Did you ever take Physics 101?

Modeling is not taught in Physics 101 anywhere.

Did you ever take a class in thermodynamics? I’ve noticed a lot of AGW zealots who haven’t.

Is it God’s will that man wipes out most life on Earth and himself, so cockroaches can claim dominion of land?

I would say not, and that life on this planet, including man, is very adaptable.

But since AGW is overrated, we won’t have to worry about that particular problem.

 

[Ender]

The US is only 6.6% of the world’s land mass. Why should every wiggle in the US data be representative of some wiggle in the global data as well?

This is disappointing. You surely know my argument cannot be reduced to this.

But it was in response to the implied theoretical argument that if we ever observe surface warming without comparable atmospheric warming, that would disprove the theory of global warming through CO2.

The argument is neither implied nor theoretical; it is the actual scientific basis of the AGW theory.The maximum warming should, by greenhouse gas theories, occur in the troposphere (the first 10km or so of atmosphere). Global warming theory strongly predicts that the warming in the troposphere should be higher than warming at the ground. (Climate Skeptic)
climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/chapter-3-skept.html
I did first try to find such a plain description of the greenhouse gas theory at RealClimate and in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report but I don’t have a lot of patience and when I couldn’t find anything I went elsewhere. If you disagree with the above statement then you go find something with which to counter it. You won’t find anything but I encourage you to look; you really should understand what the theory you’re defending actually predicts.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is disappointing. You surely know my argument cannot be reduced to this.

I honestly don’t see the problem you have with those two charts. They both represent data that is subject to random effects. These random effects need not be correlated. It is not as if one random thing is happening to the entire globe, so that the same randomness should be seen in every subsample. Rather numerous uncorrelated random effects are occurring in various regions of the globe. The fact that they are uncorrelated means they could perturb the data in one way in one region and in another way in another region, giving rise to the different shapes you see.

The argument is neither implied nor theoretical; it is the actual scientific basis of the AGW theory.The maximum warming should, by greenhouse gas theories, occur in the troposphere (the first 10km or so of atmosphere). Global warming theory strongly predicts that the warming in the troposphere should be higher than warming at the ground. (Climate Skeptic)
climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/chapter-3-skept.html
I did first try to find such a plain description of the greenhouse gas theory at RealClimate and in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report but I don’t have a lot of patience and when I couldn’t find anything I went elsewhere. If you disagree with the above statement then you go find something with which to counter it. You won’t find anything but I encourage you to look; you really should understand what the theory you’re defending actually predicts.

I disagree that it predicts what the quote from Climate Skeptic says. And I outlined my objection several posts ago. But perhaps I can clarify and elaborate on my objection here. The temperature of the air is a measurement of average thermal motion of molecules. Since most of those molecules are Nitrogen and Oxygen, the temperature measurement of the air represents mostly the thermal motion of those molecules. If CO2 molecules were differentially more energetic (for having absorbed an IR photon), that would not be picked up in the air temperature reading. When a CO2 molecule absorbs an IR photon in its absorption wavelength, it acquires more energy, and if the air were composed of only CO2 molecules, that increased energy would show up as an increase in sensible temperature. But since CO2 represents such a small percentage of the air, it has almost no effect on the sensible temperature of the atmosphere as it absorbs and re-radiates IR. In molecule collisions some of that elevated energy may be transferred to nearby N2 and O2 molecules, but this would not prevent the CO2 molecule from re-radiating a photon before that happened.

In any case, there is no justification for saying that AGW predicts predicts that the warming in the troposphere should be higher than warming at the ground.

I hope I have addressed the correct objection. There were many in the article cited.

 

[Ender]

In any case, there is no justification for saying that AGW predicts predicts that the warming in the troposphere should be higher than warming at the ground.

It may be true that tropospheric warming is no higher than at the surface, but it is nonetheless what the greenhouse theory predicts … as is shown in this information from IPCC AR4 (Appendix C).

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-9-1.jpeg
Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right).

Figure C (middle, left) is the greenhouse gas model and it clearly shows greater warming in the troposphere than at the surface … exactly as Climate Skeptic said.

Ender

 

[weller2]

Our space program should not be planned in a rigid manner, decade by decade, but on a continuing flexible basis, one which takes into account our changing needs and our expanding knowledge.

Source: Richard Nixon: “Statement About the Future of the United States Space Program,” March 7, 1970.

Problem is, physics of spaceflight is completely inflexible.

All studies of Mars missions done since 1950s concluded that you need (1) a Saturn-V-class booster to get all the needed equipment into Earth orbit and (2) a nuclear engine to kick that heavy package to Mars with a reasonable amount of propellant. Nixon had both things available, but he killed them off precisely because he didn’t want to get dragged into another race with Russians, this time to Mars – he needed money for Viet Nam war and social programs.

One of the great riddles of history is whether this was his greatest insight, or his greatest mistake.

 

[weller2]

Did you ever take a class in thermodynamics? I’ve noticed a lot of AGW zealots who haven’t.

Have you heard of Gauss’s theorem? Energy in, energy out. That’s the all there is to global warming.

What’s your alternative mechanism for transferring the CO2-trapped energy out of the planet?

 

[livingwordunity]

When the climate quits changing we are all in trouble.

 

[estesbob]

Have you heard of Gauss’s theorem? Energy in, energy out. That’s the all there is to global warming.

What’s your alternative mechanism for transferring the CO2-trapped energy out of the planet?

The same way it always has

 

[alevanpa]

…It there any reason to think that the particular superwealthy who have invested in, say, the photovoltaic industry, are any more evil than the superwealthy who have invested in coal or oil? And if the politicians are so beholding to these green energy investors, those investors must be pretty numerous, wouldn’t you think?..

Leaf…
First point is investors are not evil. They are people willing to risk their money on projects that may, or may not, succeed, in the belief that they will gain a profit-in plain language, they take a risk with their money, because they think the new business/industry will turn a profit, and they will make lots of money. Most of the time, investments in new, untried things, fail, and investors lose their money, but sometimes they don’t and people get very rich.

Coal and oil are industries based in actual use: they were developed by private investments, were successful and so useful to the general population that they are fully integrated into the economy. They are useful energy sources accepted by the entire world.
The “PhotoVoltaic Industry” is a government invented industry–as is “wind energy.” They only exist because of subsidies provided by the federal government–which was done, by the Feds, with the specific intent of replacing some, or most of, oil, coal and gas.

These “industries” cannot exist without government subsidies because they are inefficient, and super expensive providers of energy-compared to standard sources. Because they are inefficient and costly, and not likely to actually be successful, normal investors will not provide investment funds unless certain profits are guaranteed by the federal government–which is exactly what is happening.

Consequently, once started, these “industries” are completely dependent on political support. Without friendly politicians they go out of business, and they lose the actual money they invested based on political promises. So, they, are required, for their very existence, to support the politicians who will continue to provide their subsidies.

So, to answer your question, Yes, the photo-voltaic and wind industries pay politicians who specifically will support their industries with tax-payer money. Think of Solyndra (there are others, but Solyndra is the most well known): it was supported by our government to the tune of $500 million dollars, and it still failed. But, the really wonderful thing about the failure is that the “investors”.didn’t lose anything–the people of the United States lost everything.

Of course, Solyndra’s investors" supported Obama and the Democrats’ election campaigns with $100s of thousands in donations. They knew who buttered their bread. And, they did.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=weller2;11494948]Have you heard of Gauss’s theorem? Energy in, energy out. That’s the all there is to global warming.

The mistake made is that is too simplistic to describe a planetary system. We need to look more closely at where energy is being stored and various feedback loops.

Even with Gaussian problems (which I’ve worked in grad school BTW) are useless if you don’t have all the information.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Leaf…
First point is investors are not evil. They are people willing to risk their money…

I realize that. And if you look at the context in which I used the word “evil”, it was in response to someone else saying how corrupt all the green energy investors were. I don’t think they are any more or less corrupt than investors in oil and coal. And since there was a lot more money invested in coal and oil, it stands to reason that there is more opportunity for politicians to be influenced by money for coal and oil. That was my only point. My repeated use of the word “evil” was purely tounge-in-cheek.

Coal and oil are industries based in actual use: they were developed by private investments, were successful and so useful to the general population that they are fully integrated into the economy.

There are plenty of ways that coal and oil benefited from government help.

The “PhotoVoltaic Industry” is a government invented industry–as is “wind energy.” They only exist because of subsidies provided by the federal government–which was done, by the Feds, with the specific intent of replacing some, or most of, oil, coal and gas.

If that were the case, these industries would be flourishing only in the US. But they are growing everywhere in the industrialized world.

These “industries” cannot exist without government subsidies because they are inefficient, and super expensive providers of energy-compared to standard sources.

That may have been during the early development stage, but if you take a look at the economics of it now you find them gaining in efficiency so they will soon be more cost effective than coal or oil for what they do without subsidies.