WSJ: Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ever been to a metal recycling facility? You would not believe the energy it takes to do that. That’s one of the reasons why a lot of metal never gets recycled.
Ever been to the rainforest where they are digging for bauxite to ship to the US to be processed into aluminum.

The amount of energy saved in recycling aluminum is 95%, plus saving the rainforest.

Steel might not be as high – some have it at about 60% – but it is well worth to recycle, not only in terms of saving energy but also in saving resources.

Glass is the one thing that is borderline re recycling – some estimates showing only 5% energy saved and some showing somewhat more than that.
 
Ever been to the rainforest where they are digging for bauxite to ship to the US to be processed into aluminum.

The amount of energy saved in recycling aluminum is 95%, plus saving the rainforest.

Steel might not be as high – some have it at about 60% – but it is well worth to recycle, not only in terms of saving energy but also in saving resources.

Glass is the one thing that is borderline re recycling – some estimates showing only 5% energy saved and some showing somewhat more than that.
If 95% of aluminum used in the U.S. is recycled, it’s because aluminum doesn’t deteriorate particularly in the environment and is near to hand. However, aluminum recycling is a pretty marginal thing, cost-wise. It’s a pretty good business when aluminum prices are high and utility costs are low. But it can go negative on a recycler, and sometimes does. I have known several aluminum recyclers and that’s just a fact of the business.

It can be pointed out too that a lot of aluminum goes “up the chimney” in recycling. A lot of recycled aluminum is thin (like cans) and a lot of it burns up in the process of recycling. A lot of it has paint or oil on it, which also encourages burning of some of the aluminum itself as well as the foreign material. Among the most profitable things to recycle are transmission housings. Lots of aluminum in them and the alloy is exactly what transmission manufacturers want. But they always have transmission fluid and oil on them, which gets burned off.

A lot of other stuff gets burned in the process too. Aluminum windows and doors often have insulating material stuck to them. It burns off, creating cyanide gas in the process. Some aluminum products have bits of iron or other things bolted in or adhering. A lot of organic material goes into the furnace with the aluminum.

Importantly, there is the change of alloys. One of the main alloy materials for aluminum products is silicon. But others require copper or other metals. Not hard to add, but to take them out, they have to oxidize them with other additives or an “oxygen lance”. It’s truly awe-inspiring to see the belch of flame, smoke and fumes arising out of an aluminum furnace when they add the oxidizer. That’s burned copper, zinc, silicon or other materials going right up the chimney.

And, of course, a lot of aluminum oxide is generated. There are uses for it, including your toothpaste. (yup, your toothpaste) But a lot of it is simply dumped because recycling generates so much of it.

Oh yes, aluminum recycling is usually a three-step process of melting. Most of the initial recycling is done by entrepreneurs who collect the scrap and melt it willy-nilly without regard to content, creating a big block they call a “sow”. The “sow”, then is sold to an alloys processor that melts it again and recasts it into ingots of the desired alloy. The manufacturer of the end product then melts it again.

Recycling is a long way from being a clean or energy-lean process. It might help the rain forest, but it sure doesn’t save much energy (if any) and creates a lot of pollution itself.

I have never visited a steel recycling plant, but I am reasonably confident steel recycling is even dirtier than aluminum recycling because of all the stuff that goes into the furnaces. Imagine what all is in a crushed car that isn’t steel. I have seen how they crush scrap into those big cubes that go into the furnaces, and it’s a long way from being pure steel.
 
I have never visited a steel recycling plant, but I am reasonably confident steel recycling is even dirtier than aluminum recycling because of all the stuff that goes into the furnaces. Imagine what all is in a crushed car that isn’t steel. I have seen how they crush scrap into those big cubes that go into the furnaces, and it’s a long way from being pure steel.
Dirty Jobs, Season 3, Episode 18 - Alton Steel. AWESOME.
 
Glass is the one thing that is borderline re recycling – some estimates showing only 5% energy saved and some showing somewhat more than that.
Generally speaking, the higher the intrinsic value of the material, the more likely it is to be recycled. The reverse is also true. Also, the easier it is to reformulate it, the more likely it is to be recycled.

So, aluminum, which has a fairly high intrinsic value, is commonly recycled, whereas glass has a much lower intrinsic value and isn’t. Also, glass has other problems in reformulation. Some of it is colored. Some of it has additives that aren’t wanted in other products. But basically, glass isn’t worth a whole lot because it’s mainly just sand, and sand is cheap.
 
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m convinced, seeing how some have become so completely obsessed with so-called MMGW, that Christ Himself couldn’t talk them out of it!

According to recent reports, sea-ice levels are growing at both poles!..go figure Al. :rolleyes:

Peace, Mark
Recent reports where?
 
There was not one single model produced by any climate scientist that involved anything but atmospheric warming. The idea that the warming somehow ended up in the oceans is an unproven hypothesis and , again, was not predicted by a single model produced in the last 30 years. What we have is scientists who have been consistently wrong desperately trying to convince us we should trust them even though they haven’t been right yet
Huh? I’ve seen models that dealt with ocean warming dating back to the 1970’s. The issue isn’t whether warming ends up in the ocean - the issue is only whether we understand HOW MUCH warming ends up in the ocean.

I suppose you’ll ask me to prove it by showing you one. So let’s make a point. Your claim is that there has been no model that has shown this. Since you’ve made that claim first, numerous times, I’d like you to prove it, first. Please list all climate change models, ever, and then show that each of those models does not state that warming went into the ocean.

(BTW, the concept that this is an unproven hypothesis is also wrong. The question is not WHETHER it has happened, the question is “How much?”)

Climate studies long-term large-region trends. It is not weather. Some of the challenges to understanding can be illustrated by considering a simpler - but still very complex - analogy.

Consider actuaries who study mortality trends. They look at history, and develop models of what death rates will be like in a group. They cannot predict what will happen to any particular individual (like weather in any given place on any given day) as their analysis is on long term large scale trends.

If I were to fault them saying “none of their models predicted exactly how a given subset of people would die” and then claim that we should therefore believe that NO ONE would die, you would immediately see the absurdity of such a claim.

But if we create climate models that largely fit the trends and need of further testing or further development because it is a highly complex, highly nuanced model, you use the fact that further development is needed to claim that there is no climate change - in spite of the available data.

I’m sorry, your argument is fundamentally unsound at its very foundation - as is easily shown by the above analogy.
 
Huh? I’ve seen models that dealt with ocean warming dating back to the 1970’s. The issue isn’t whether warming ends up in the ocean - the issue is only whether we understand HOW MUCH warming ends up in the ocean.

I suppose you’ll ask me to prove it by showing you one. So let’s make a point. Your claim is that there has been no model that has shown this. Since you’ve made that claim first, numerous times, I’d like you to prove it, first. Please list all climate change models, ever, and then show that each of those models does not state that warming went into the ocean.

(BTW, the concept that this is an unproven hypothesis is also wrong. The question is not WHETHER it has happened, the question is “How much?”)

Climate studies long-term large-region trends. It is not weather. USome of the challenges to understanding can be illustrated by considering a simpler - but still very complex - analogy.

Consider actuaries who study mortality trends. They look at history, and develop models of what death rates will be like in a group. They cannot predict what will happen to any particular individual (like weather in any given place on any given day) as their analysis is on long term large scale trends.

If I were to fault them saying “none of their models predicted exactly how a given subset of people would die” and then claim that we should therefore believe that NO ONE would die, you would immediately see the absurdity of such a claim.

But if we create climate models that largely fit the trends and need of further testing or further development because it is a highly complex, highly nuanced model, you use the fact that further development is needed to claim that there is no climate change - in spite of the available data.

I’m sorry, your argument is fundamentally unsound at its very foundation - as is easily shown by the above analogy.
Where is the link to these models you claim exist? did they accurately predict a 18 year “pause” in “global warming”
 
Where is the link to these models you claim exist? did they accurately predict a 18 year “pause” in “global warming”
Why do you assume that any model that dealt with the role of the oceans in any manner whatsoever would automatically have to correctly predicted a pause in atmospheric warming? Did it occur to you that the way in which those models dealt with the oceans might be a bit inaccurate? No one is claiming the old models were perfect. I am just refuting the nonsensical claim that no one ever considered the oceans in climate models back then.
 
Why do you assume that any model that dealt with the role of the oceans in any manner whatsoever would automatically have to correctly predicted a pause in atmospheric warming? Did it occur to you that the way in which those models dealt with the oceans might be a bit inaccurate? No one is claiming the old models were perfect. I am just refuting the nonsensical claim that no one ever considered the oceans in climate models back then.
Not only were they not perfect. They were dead wrong. Every single one of them

No one claimed the models didn’t take the oceans into account. However the simple truth is that not one single model said that global warming was going to pause for 18 years and instead the oceans were going to warm. Now that increasing evidence is coming out that the ocean warming theory is likewise flawed I am sure we will soon see more excuses as to why they were right even when they were wrong.
 
Alarmists painting the end of the world with everybody drowning are just as bad as the deniers.
Well, I respect that. Personally, though, I am far from convinced it’s alarmist. I’m always very hesitant to parse my thoughts on this subject because I’m very unsure what the truth is.
 
Well, I respect that. Personally, though, I am far from convinced it’s alarmist. I’m always very hesitant to parse my thoughts on this subject because I’m very unsure what the truth is.
Estimates for sea levels by 2100 are around +1 meter, due to melting ice and warming oceans. That’s not enough to flood the continents, but will cause problems for many coastal cities and low-lying island nations.
 
Estimates for sea levels by 2100 are around +1 meter, due to melting ice and warming oceans. That’s not enough to flood the continents, but will cause problems for many coastal cities and low-lying island nations.
Hans, where do you get your ‘estimates’?

The IPCC is only projecting 1.0 to 2.0 mm per year, which is 10-20% of your huge figure.
Can you say ALARMIST !?
 
Hans, where do you get your ‘estimates’?

The IPCC is only projecting 1.0 to 2.0 mm per year, which is 10-20% of your huge figure.
Can you say ALARMIST !?
I figured it out. Hans is using a derivative of the Gore model to estimate sea level rise by 2100

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Where is the link to these models you claim exist? did they accurately predict a 18 year “pause” in “global warming”
As noted previously, when you start providing evidence for your claims regarding inaccurate models, I’ll start providing evidence for models.

Second, pauses in global warming are not a new occurrence. 15-ish year pauses due not change the upward trend in global temperature - just as a recession doesn’t indicate that stocks don’t go up in the long term.

Third, what pause? Global temperatures continue to climb.13 of the 14 warmest years on record occurred since the start of 2000. Even if the rate of increase has slowed this doesn’t mean that there isn’t an increase - that isn’t a pause.

Fourth, astronomical cycles indicate that we should be moving into an ice age - the Earth should be cooling. But the opposite has happening. Evidence of historical ice ages shows that they line up well with these astronomical cycles, but that the cycles can be overwhelmed by other factors, such as atmospheric composition. That appears to be what we have here.

Fifth, how can any Catholic advocate such a cavalier and irresponsible approach to our planet? Well-parented children are taught to clean up their mess so that the next child can use the play area - or to clean up their room or take care of their things. Keeping the air clean - not just for reasons of climate change - is simply the right thing to do for good air quality. The expense is already there when we leave a mess, its simply a question of how and when to pay for it. And I’d rather pay in a planned, controlled way than in a less efficient reactive way. Cleaner energy sources - wind, solar, CNG, etc. are all viable. Simply modernizing business air conditioning in the U.S. would be cost-effective and have a significant impact on air quality.

But instead we argue - just as people used to argue over whether smoking cigarettes causes cancer - because of course a fault can always be found with a statistical argument.

Well, the statistics here are solid. And I believe in responsibility - cleaning up our mess and using energy responsibly is the right thing to do. Additionally, its a politically important thing to do. Imagine the political impact of an energy independent U.S. and Europe?

In what sense is it responsible to argue against these things by making claims like “no model has ever…” with no evidence offered?

Personally, I’m appalled that conservatives who argue for fiscal responsibility (and I am one) are so unwilling to argue for environmental responsibility. Responsibility is responsibility, and the cost of polluting the environment is high - and likely much higher - if we meet it reactively.
 
No they do not. To require ‘extraordinary’ proof for what the reader think is an extraordinary claim is just another form of Confirmation Bias.
Do you really believe the claim made in posting 623 that none of the climate models took into account the oceans? If it is not so extraordinary a claim, it should be easy to demonstrate it is true.
 
Hans, where do you get your ‘estimates’?

The IPCC is only projecting 1.0 to 2.0 mm per year, which is 10-20% of your huge figure.
Can you say ALARMIST !?
You seem to be a bit out of date. The current sea level rise is around 3 mm, and it’s accelerating. The Third National Climate Assessment (May 2014) projects sea level rises of between 30 and 120 cm this century. The lower end is very conservative with no feedback built in.
 
As noted previously, when you start providing evidence for your claims regarding inaccurate models, I’ll start providing evidence for models.
Since neither wishes to provide the requested ‘proof’
I will be happy with the default position.

Believe nothing, do nothing.

For I require evidence that a change of behavior and lifestyle is beneficial before I will do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top