You know what? I sort of agree with you. Ocean acidification doesn't get half the play it should. Sure, you can call it ocean-less-alkalinization if you want to be less inflammatory, but the fact is the extra CO2 is changing surface ocean chemistry: CO2 + H20 -> H2CO3 -> HCO3- + H+
Natural processes--primarily, uptake by the ocean and photosynthesis--absorb substantially all of the naturally produced carbon dioxide and some of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide, leading to an annual net increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of 3.1 to 3.5 billion metric tons.
.
Again, there's plenty of uncertainty in global warming science, but this ain't it.
Read the table. Look at the net flux of natural CO2 sources and sinks. Look at the manmade flux for comparision. Look here.
There are some people out there who dispute the human impact on atmospheric CO2 trends, but this particular issue is a smoking gun. The data fits, and there is no plausible alternative hypothesis that explains the very striking trend in CO2 emissions (highest in 400k years, by a lot). If you want to pick apart global warming, spend your time on the climate sensitivity bit, not on the CO2 concentration part.
Current human emissions are around 7 billion tons per year ref 1ref 2
The idea is to reduce our net emissions. Sucking 1 billion tons per year out of the air is just dumb (other than via the old fashioned natural way- trees and such). I haven't read TFA but if the prize is indeed for pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere is a waste of time. What matters is net emissions, and the best way to achieve that is to reduce/capture/avoid the emissions in the first place. You can capture coal CO2 for like a 20% energy/price premium and sequester it. You can go the Greenfuel route and use flue gas to grow algae used for fuel (thus greatly increasing the amt. of energy per unit CO2 emission). Conservation, solar, wind, the usual. Nukes too if you can magically figure out a political solution to widespread nuke opposition.
I can assure you that we are not going to run into a situation of having too little CO2 anytime soon. Current levels are way, way above anything we've seen for 400k years. And they will continue to rise and human emissions continue to increase under business as usual.
One could argue that any efforts that serve to minimize the trend in CO2 levels just might be a good thing. It's a matter of perturbing the system less, not more. I think the geological record shows that when the system is perturbed too hard (comet impacts, solar cycles, etc.), bad things happen (defined as bad if you are a living thing and like to stay that way). I'm not really into gloom and doom, but I do think that planning, foresight, and risk aversion are generally good things.
In the building of new homes, perhaps everything is standardized these days. In the existing stock of homes, no frickin' way. I can say that as the proud owner of a few custom-sized doors and storm doors, which unfortunately do not come cheap. One was about half an inch off a stock size, but of course that's not close enough.
Seriously, I am getting rather tired of the I can't believe that climatologists have anything other than the foggiest idea of what will happen argument. This is a very lazy, very pre-conditioned, very lame line of argument. Yes, climate systems are really f-ing complicated and there's a lot we don't know. But there's a lot we do know, and we generally know what we don't know (which is important). Read the report, and when the full IPCC report comes out, flip through that sucker and tear it apart to your heart's content. With detail. With logic.
I do agree with your contention that most people can't think of anything that encompasses a time-scale larger than a generation. But as far as the science goes, I think we're past that.
My bottom line is:
Atmospheric CO2, methane, etc. are rising due to human activities
The science of heat getting trapped by CO2 is well known (as applied to climate, see Arrhenius, 1896 or so)
Where is gets squirrelly is how all of the other climate feedbacks work. Are there mechanisms like the one(s) Lindzen of MIT talk about, that (somewhat magically) release the extra heat out the back door? Water vapor/clouds? Ice albedo? Increased crop fertility? A lot is known about these, and a lot is unknown. But I sure as shit haven't seen any smoking guns that say don't worry about it. For me, the null hypothesis is, well, read the frickin' report.
Also, there are pluses and minuses associated with increased CO2, with or without warming. On the plus, maybe increased crop yields. On the minus, more pollen, much more hardy poison ivy, ocean acidification. Even if the climate can take care of itself, I am still quite concerned with CO2 emissions.
Humans are surprisingly efficient considering the low temperature at which we convert biomass to energy- something along the lines of 20% (based on studies of endurance cyclists, I believe- sorry, don't have time to find the source). That's not exactly good, but it's not bad compared to an internal combustion engine.
The main problem with human power is that even at the (old?) minimum wage of $5 or so an hour, and given that someone in pretty good shape can put out ~200W for a few hours, you're looking at $25/kWh, roughly 250x more expensive than typical retail. Sure, there are lower wage structures out there, but you're not going to get close.
And what do you read? Define 'smoke'. If you want to talk CO2, start here. Then read this. Surprise! The volcano argument is lame.
Your post is exactly what I am talking about; I should have teed off on you instead of that other guy. You have a belief (loosely stated as my poop can't possibly be as stinky as moose poop) and have found support for it with a number that is, by any sane reading of the data, wrong. There's plenty of holes to poke in climate change science, but where the increased atmospheric and oceanic carbon is coming from ain't one of them.
Well spoken. Good thing I get to knock up the wife now and again to relieve my cross feelings (#4 on the way- oops! So much for my carbon footprint...)
Dude, you're right, you just asked a question. But there are so many fact-devoid assertions about climate change around here (on all sides, but mainly with the skeptics; being a contrarian is too-cool-for-school on./) and I find it really irritating. No, your post didn't fit into the core of what I'm talking about, you were a target of convenience.
General rant (sorry iminplaya, you're the straw and I'm the camel):
Every time a global warming story comes up, lots of readers throw out their own unsubstantiated (or more usually debunked) theories, without bothering with basic fact checking. Here, the parent is 'certainly interested' in geologic CO2 fluxes, but can't be bothered to search. Are geological CO2 fluxes being measured? Yes. It's called Wikipedia, people.
Sorry. But if someone throws out solar fluctuations as the primary reason for current warming one more time, I'm going to be very, very cross. Do some research.
That article states, among other things, "More recently, a study and review of existing literature published in Nature in Sept. 2006 suggests that the evidence is solidly on the side of solar brightness having relatively little effect on global climate, and downplays the likelihood of significant shifts in solar output over long periods of time."
I have a Treo 650. My company even paid a lot for it to get an unlocked GSM version.
Go and watch Steve Job's introduction again. It's not that the iPhone has so many more features, it's that it appears that it doesn't suck when executing those features.
Now I don't think the Treo sucks; I generally like mine. But compared to the kind of usability it could offer (see: iPhone), it pretty much sucks.
For me, the biggest hangup with the iPhone is the Cingular monopoly. Yeah, I know there are some valid reasons for that, but I would have liked to have seen at least 2 carriers.
Also, I am leery of Apple lock-in. While Microsoft brute-force compels you into MS-lock-in through monopoly power, Apple seduces you through superior interface and hardware design. But in either case you are looking at closed systems (let's leave the argument about whether MS or Apple is MORE closed for another time; at least Apple does closed systems well).
Here's some commentary (pdf) from Hansen himself. He readily admits the sensitivity of temperature to CO2 of the 1988 model was too high, because we've learned stuff since them. Gee, a scientist makes a pretty good prediction nearly 20 years ago, and readily acknowledges the limitations of that prediction? Why again do some people argue that Hansen not credible?
This is the best treatment of Hansen's 1998 predictions that I have seen. It discusses Hansen's forecasts of emissions and temperature back in '88 (this was testimony before Congress; Pat Michaels and Michael Crichton have since lied quite bluntly about this testimony only by talking about scenario A, which is not relevant given actual CO2 emissions).
I've come to realize that I almost always use Wikipedia as my first stop when researching something I want to learn about. I realized that I was scanning search results for a wikipedia link (now I just go straight to the wikipedia search), and chose that first.
Yes, I know Wikipedia isn't always accurate. Shocking, on a site where anyone can pretty much edit anything. But the breadth of content, and the relatively uniform structure, and the reasonable level of accuracy make Wikipedia my preferred initial stop for most casual research.
This is one of those./ memes that make me gag: "Corporations are made up of people, so they can't be evil" or some derivative thereof.
Read about the Milgram experiements. Reflect that corporations are generally hierarchical. Consider that the leaders of such corporations may in some circumstances have incentives that would reward them to do harm to others (define as you wish). Reflect.
I'm not in the corporations are evil camp, but I believe that any human organization, especially ones with any element of authority and hierarchy, have great capacity to do evil under certain circumstances. It's a relic of how we are wired.
Slashdot Mirror
This is about the pithiest post I've ever seen on
You know what? I sort of agree with you. Ocean acidification doesn't get half the play it should. Sure, you can call it ocean-less-alkalinization if you want to be less inflammatory, but the fact is the extra CO2 is changing surface ocean chemistry: CO2 + H20 -> H2CO3 -> HCO3- + H+
This troubles me.
Again, there's plenty of uncertainty in global warming science, but this ain't it.
Read the table. Look at the net flux of natural CO2 sources and sinks. Look at the manmade flux for comparision. Look here.
There are some people out there who dispute the human impact on atmospheric CO2 trends, but this particular issue is a smoking gun. The data fits, and there is no plausible alternative hypothesis that explains the very striking trend in CO2 emissions (highest in 400k years, by a lot). If you want to pick apart global warming, spend your time on the climate sensitivity bit, not on the CO2 concentration part.
Can we all just back up a second?
Current human emissions are around 7 billion tons per year ref 1 ref 2
The idea is to reduce our net emissions. Sucking 1 billion tons per year out of the air is just dumb (other than via the old fashioned natural way- trees and such). I haven't read TFA but if the prize is indeed for pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere is a waste of time. What matters is net emissions, and the best way to achieve that is to reduce/capture/avoid the emissions in the first place. You can capture coal CO2 for like a 20% energy/price premium and sequester it. You can go the Greenfuel route and use flue gas to grow algae used for fuel (thus greatly increasing the amt. of energy per unit CO2 emission). Conservation, solar, wind, the usual. Nukes too if you can magically figure out a political solution to widespread nuke opposition.
I can assure you that we are not going to run into a situation of having too little CO2 anytime soon. Current levels are way, way above anything we've seen for 400k years. And they will continue to rise and human emissions continue to increase under business as usual.
One could argue that any efforts that serve to minimize the trend in CO2 levels just might be a good thing. It's a matter of perturbing the system less, not more. I think the geological record shows that when the system is perturbed too hard (comet impacts, solar cycles, etc.), bad things happen (defined as bad if you are a living thing and like to stay that way). I'm not really into gloom and doom, but I do think that planning, foresight, and risk aversion are generally good things.
In the building of new homes, perhaps everything is standardized these days. In the existing stock of homes, no frickin' way. I can say that as the proud owner of a few custom-sized doors and storm doors, which unfortunately do not come cheap. One was about half an inch off a stock size, but of course that's not close enough.
Yeah, that weeds out the hotties real quick.
Apologies to all the smokin' female Linux users out there...
Seriously, I am getting rather tired of the I can't believe that climatologists have anything other than the foggiest idea of what will happen argument. This is a very lazy, very pre-conditioned, very lame line of argument. Yes, climate systems are really f-ing complicated and there's a lot we don't know. But there's a lot we do know, and we generally know what we don't know (which is important). Read the report, and when the full IPCC report comes out, flip through that sucker and tear it apart to your heart's content. With detail. With logic.
I do agree with your contention that most people can't think of anything that encompasses a time-scale larger than a generation. But as far as the science goes, I think we're past that.
My bottom line is:
Where is gets squirrelly is how all of the other climate feedbacks work. Are there mechanisms like the one(s) Lindzen of MIT talk about, that (somewhat magically) release the extra heat out the back door? Water vapor/clouds? Ice albedo? Increased crop fertility? A lot is known about these, and a lot is unknown. But I sure as shit haven't seen any smoking guns that say don't worry about it. For me, the null hypothesis is, well, read the frickin' report.
Also, there are pluses and minuses associated with increased CO2, with or without warming. On the plus, maybe increased crop yields. On the minus, more pollen, much more hardy poison ivy, ocean acidification. Even if the climate can take care of itself, I am still quite concerned with CO2 emissions.
Humans are surprisingly efficient considering the low temperature at which we convert biomass to energy- something along the lines of 20% (based on studies of endurance cyclists, I believe- sorry, don't have time to find the source). That's not exactly good, but it's not bad compared to an internal combustion engine.
The main problem with human power is that even at the (old?) minimum wage of $5 or so an hour, and given that someone in pretty good shape can put out ~200W for a few hours, you're looking at $25/kWh, roughly 250x more expensive than typical retail. Sure, there are lower wage structures out there, but you're not going to get close.
And you thought solar was expensive?
Thanks for having an open mind. Sorry for going off on your there.
And what do you read? Define 'smoke'. If you want to talk CO2, start here.
Then read this. Surprise! The volcano argument is lame.
Your post is exactly what I am talking about; I should have teed off on you instead of that other guy. You have a belief (loosely stated as my poop can't possibly be as stinky as moose poop) and have found support for it with a number that is, by any sane reading of the data, wrong. There's plenty of holes to poke in climate change science, but where the increased atmospheric and oceanic carbon is coming from ain't one of them.
Well spoken. Good thing I get to knock up the wife now and again to relieve my cross feelings (#4 on the way- oops! So much for my carbon footprint...)
Dude, you're right, you just asked a question. But there are so many fact-devoid assertions about climate change around here (on all sides, but mainly with the skeptics; being a contrarian is too-cool-for-school on
Cheers.
General rant (sorry iminplaya, you're the straw and I'm the camel):
Every time a global warming story comes up, lots of readers throw out their own unsubstantiated (or more usually debunked) theories, without bothering with basic fact checking. Here, the parent is 'certainly interested' in geologic CO2 fluxes, but can't be bothered to search. Are geological CO2 fluxes being measured? Yes. It's called Wikipedia, people.
Sorry. But if someone throws out solar fluctuations as the primary reason for current warming one more time, I'm going to be very, very cross. Do some research.
Start here
Carbon flux- humans have thrown the net flux out of whack
The ocean is a carbon sink, thanks to us
Here's the carbon cycle. Lots of big fluxes, but we've tipped the balance
Even if a smoking gun was exposed saying that blatant fraud was discovered in one or both elections, what would it accomplish?
A strong impetus for election reform, to minimize the likelihood of future fraud?
That article states, among other things, "More recently, a study and review of existing literature published in Nature in Sept. 2006 suggests that the evidence is solidly on the side of solar brightness having relatively little effect on global climate, and downplays the likelihood of significant shifts in solar output over long periods of time."
I have a Treo 650. My company even paid a lot for it to get an unlocked GSM version.
Go and watch Steve Job's introduction again. It's not that the iPhone has so many more features, it's that it appears that it doesn't suck when executing those features.
Now I don't think the Treo sucks; I generally like mine. But compared to the kind of usability it could offer (see: iPhone), it pretty much sucks.
For me, the biggest hangup with the iPhone is the Cingular monopoly. Yeah, I know there are some valid reasons for that, but I would have liked to have seen at least 2 carriers.
Also, I am leery of Apple lock-in. While Microsoft brute-force compels you into MS-lock-in through monopoly power, Apple seduces you through superior interface and hardware design. But in either case you are looking at closed systems (let's leave the argument about whether MS or Apple is MORE closed for another time; at least Apple does closed systems well).
Strawman means all sorts of things these days. At my company, it means "rough outline" or "initial concept." Go figure.
Here's some commentary (pdf) from Hansen himself. He readily admits the sensitivity of temperature to CO2 of the 1988 model was too high, because we've learned stuff since them. Gee, a scientist makes a pretty good prediction nearly 20 years ago, and readily acknowledges the limitations of that prediction? Why again do some people argue that Hansen not credible?
This is the best treatment of Hansen's 1998 predictions that I have seen. It discusses Hansen's forecasts of emissions and temperature back in '88 (this was testimony before Congress; Pat Michaels and Michael Crichton have since lied quite bluntly about this testimony only by talking about scenario A, which is not relevant given actual CO2 emissions).
The verdict: Not perfect, but pretty damn good.
Nicely done; you fit most of the skeptics' standard and discredited talking points in 3 lines. And added a dash of standard logical fallacy as well.
You can go here, here, or here for more info.
I've come to realize that I almost always use Wikipedia as my first stop when researching something I want to learn about. I realized that I was scanning search results for a wikipedia link (now I just go straight to the wikipedia search), and chose that first.
Yes, I know Wikipedia isn't always accurate. Shocking, on a site where anyone can pretty much edit anything. But the breadth of content, and the relatively uniform structure, and the reasonable level of accuracy make Wikipedia my preferred initial stop for most casual research.
It really is an amazing phenomenon.
Please re-read the grandparent before making snarky comments:
.33 = 1,080 kWh thermal to produce (oil -> electricity).
That took 360 /
Yeah I know oil isn't used much for electricity generation, but the same logic applies for coal or natural gas, as far as thermal efficiency.
So our math is the same, but our reading skills are not. How's that for snarky?
This is one of those
Read about the Milgram experiements. Reflect that corporations are generally hierarchical. Consider that the leaders of such corporations may in some circumstances have incentives that would reward them to do harm to others (define as you wish). Reflect.
I'm not in the corporations are evil camp, but I believe that any human organization, especially ones with any element of authority and hierarchy, have great capacity to do evil under certain circumstances. It's a relic of how we are wired.
LEDs aren't ready yet. They will be, though.
In the meantime, I'm all about CFLs.