The GW denialists are winning

[BrianG]

Well your persistence is astounding BrianG

Thank you, I think.

Do you never sleep?

Very well, thank you. I get about six or seven hours every night. Don't let the time zones confuse you.

How many of you are there?

As far as I know, just one of me. Why do you ask?

Do you ever concede a point?

Yes, I've recently learned about lab tests on [ce]CO2[/ce]'s greenhouse effect on temperature, before that I believed the effect was entirely spectral. Now I know better.

How come this is so important to you?

I've written earlier, I use fossil fuel products every day. I have a vested interest in low prices. I would also like to keep energy and fuel prices low, so the poor will be able to afford the necessities of life. I like good science.

 

I don't see you as a sceptic just a denialist as i have already defined.

Your persistent, over-the-top denialism in the face of all reasonable arguments has finally worn me down.

 

I'm sorry you feel that way. I see you as a person who wants what is best for your children and the world, but may not have all the facts. I'm trying to learn from you and share what I know. Why don't you take a rest, and start over? I'll still be here :)

[Michaelangelica]

You miss my point, I'm not saying the experimental tests on man made [ce]CO2[/ce] and climate temperature have too large a margin of error, I'm saying there are no experimental tests on man made [ce]CO2[/ce] and climate temperature. Do you see the difference?

 

 

 

We don't know this from observations alone, there have been hundreds of tests on man made particulates and temperature in the field. There is a firm experimental foundation for this theory.

OK, Thanks for the encouragement; i just love this, its just like

 

are no experimental tests on man made [ce]CO2[/ce] and climate temperature.

Are you sure?

What sorts of experiments do you want?

How would you rectify this? How would you design such an experiment?

 

It dosn't matter if the GHGs are man made or natural. The ones of most concern to me are natural. The ones presently locked in the environment but may suddenly escape with increasing temperature.

 

I agree with you water vapor is a major GHG. (It is only since the 1930's that we have built so many large dams and massive irrigation works).

We are also still producing at least another four man-made, synthetic GHGs that i know of.

 

If you are worried about the price of petrol, GW will have very little effect on it one way or the other. In 10-20 years we will not be able to afford to use it in cars. We will need to use it for chemicals, plastics and other things. In some ways GW may be helping solve your problem. The increasing concern with the state of the environment is forcing manufacturers to design more fuel efficient cars (Pirus Toyota, Honda). In Brazil most cars can run on ethanol and/or petrol and/or gas. Perhaps you could import one of these? Then i could turn off my computer and the planet would cool a bit? ;)

[lemit]

Brian,

 

Like Michaelangelica, I have become exhausted and have started to question your motives.

I've written earlier, I use fossil fuel products every day. I have a vested interest in low prices. I would also like to keep energy and fuel prices low, so the poor will be able to afford the necessities of life. I like good science.

We all use fossil fuel products every day. You've also written that you work in the industry, so your claim of concern about the poor may be more than a little disingenuous. And you shouldn't claim that you just like good science, because you don't seem to be interested in following it no matter where it might take you. But most critically, you open up at least the slight possibility that you are a corporate shill for an industry that has a great financial stake in promoting the use of fossil fuels, as opposed to a movement that, as you have pointed out, does not offer the promise of great financial reward.

 

You also said to Michaelangelica:

I see you as a person who wants what is best for your children and the world, but may not have all the facts. I'm trying to learn from you and share what I know.

That seems like a non sequitur to me, saying you are trying to learn from someone whose knowledge you also question. One of the things I've noted about your posts here is that you don't evidence a great intellectual curiosity. You don't ask open-ended questions. You don't seem to be interested in learning anything from others, but rather in shallow disputation of everything you are predisposed to disagree with.

 

I have a simple request. Can you show, from previous posts in the climate science threads, where you have conceded anything, where you have shown that you are learning? Despite the way I've written this post, I want to give you a chance to answer, and I want to be proven wrong. I hope you'll take the time to answer, instead of simply engaging in more disputation and quibbling.

 

Thank you.

 

--lemit

 

p.s. After you answer, you can go back to disputation and quibbling.

[BrianG]

Brian,

 

Like Michaelangelica, I have become exhausted and have started to question your motives.

... you work in the industry...disingenuous.... you don't seem to be interested in following... you are a corporate shill...saying you are trying to learn from someone whose knowledge you also question.... you don't evidence a great intellectual curiosity... don't ask open-ended questions...don't seem to be interested in learning... shallow disputation of everything...

 

That's quite a list of accusations, can you cite any posts to back them up?

 

I have a simple request. Can you show, from previous posts in the climate science threads, where you have conceded anything, where you have shown that you are learning? Despite the way I've written this post, I want to give you a chance to answer, and I want to be proven wrong. I hope you'll take the time to answer, instead of simply engaging in more disputation and quibbling.

 

Thank you.

 

--lemit

 

p.s. After you answer, you can go back to disputation and quibbling.

 

I've already answered this question from Michaelangelica in my previous post. Would you please cite something to substantiate your accusations?

[lemit]

Thank you for your answer.

 

--lemit

[BrianG]

...What sorts of experiments do you want?

How would you rectify this? How would you design such an experiment?

 

 

It dosn't matter if the GHGs are man made or natural.

No, it doesn't matter if GHGs are man made or natural, the essential condition of good experimental design would be randomized time for a series of measured releases and captures of GHG's along with climate temperature measurements.

 

 

 

If you are worried about the price of petrol, GW will have very little effect on it one way or the other. In 10-20 years we will not be able to afford to use it in cars. We will need to use it for chemicals, plastics and other things. In some ways GW may be helping solve your problem...

 

Could you please cite a source for this claim? I keep hearing about peak oil, but they just produce more and more, every year.

[Michaelangelica]

No, it doesn't matter if GHGs are man made or natural, the essential condition of good experimental design would be randomized time for a series of measured releases and captures of GHG's along with climate temperature measurements.

What do you mean by that?

How would YOU do this?

 

Could you please cite a source for this claim? I keep hearing about peak oil, but they just produce more and more, every year.

Oil is a finite resource, becoming more expensive to extract every day. The only uncertainty is the exact amount we have left; and exactly how long what we have, will last.

Exxon decided to get out of oil years ago, as they saw peak oil happening about now. They didn't believe Yanks would use smaller cars, and didn't think there was a lot more oil to find. Agreed, the so-called "Peak Oil" date seems to be a movable feast, as more discoveries are made, but at some time in the near future there will be more important things for crude to do than heat your house or run your car. Possibly also for coal.

If this is your major concern, re global warming, you have many alternatives- natural gas and ethanol for example. In Germany solar Panels.

You can easily make your own ethanol in the time it has taken you to dispute all this at hypography!

[pamela]

hmmmnnn....... The climate is sure getting warmer in this thread by use of emotion.:confused:

An argument is better received by all parties involved if we remain calm, provide support of our claims and avoid speculative conjecture on what drives each participant.

[Essay]

... the essential condition of good experimental design would be randomized time for a series of measured releases and captures of GHG's along with climate temperature measurements.

 

IF CO2 levels were at their natural baseline (pre-industrial epoch), then significant releases (and captures) might be expected to show up in the temperature signal -- with the CO2 acting directly as a variable forcer (on top of all the other relatively constant forcers).

 

But at this point CO2 has been a strongly out-of-balance "forcer" for over 150 years. That CO2 forcer is stuck in the "on" position, regardless of any small variations (you might experimentally induce) in the already too high CO2 levels.

 

Plus, even if you could overcome the "baseline problem" (above), anyone would be hard-pressed to be certain that some algal bloom on the other side of the planet wasn't confounding the results.

 

~ :confused:

[Essay]

hmmmnnn....... The climate is sure getting warmer in this thread by use of emotion.

An argument is better received by all parties involved if we remain calm, provide support of our claims and avoid speculative conjecture on what drives each participant.

 

Hi Pamela.... ...always good advice....

...Hope things are well ...and weller....

===

 

I'm learning new stuff, ...so I enjoy the precipitating apoplexy.

 

Cheers,

 

~ :confused: ;)

[BrianG]

I'll get to the experiment shortly, please let me answer this first.

 

Oil is a finite resource, becoming more expensive to extract every day.

 

The only uncertainty is the exact amount we have left; and exactly how long what we have, will last.

When, how and why did the geological process that creates oil stop?

 

 

Exxon decided to get out of oil years ago, as they saw peak oil happening about now. They didn't believe Yanks would use smaller cars, and didn't think there was a lot more oil to find.

 

http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/news_pub_fo_2008.pdf

 

If you look at page 20, Exxon has been increasing oil production at 1% per year, and anticipate that to continue to 2030.

 

Agreed, the so-called "Peak Oil" date seems to be a movable feast, as more discoveries are made, but at some time in the near future there will be more important things for crude to do than heat your house or run your car. Possibly also for coal.

If this is your major concern, re global warming, you have many alternatives- natural gas and ethanol for example. In Germany solar Panels.

You can easily make your own ethanol in the time it has taken you to dispute all this at hypography!

 

I think ethanol is evil, burning food, it's a famine in a gas tank. Poor people have enough to do, without having to compete with your car, to eat.

 

Solar panels in Germany are sustained with tax incentives, our tax Euro pays for their installation and use. I get a kick out of seeing solar panels blanketed with snow.

[Michaelangelica]

I think you are a troll Brian, Goodbye

Minchin's qualifications for energy and resources are no less bizarre. Like Abbott himself, he believes that "climate change is crap". All that fuss about global warming is scientific fraud and a post-communist conspiracy to bring down capitalism. To give him oversight of the nation's biggest polluters is beyond satire.

 

As Copenhagen gets under way, the logical extension of the Minchinite fantasy is that a few hundred or so world leaders have been sucked into this wicked plot. The presidents of the United States, France, China, Russia and Indonesia; the Chancellor of Germany; the prime ministers of Australia, Japan, Canada and most of Europe, and a conga-line of statesmen and women from the world beyond have all fallen for the sucker-punch of a pack of leftist greenies out to destroy civilisation.

 

For all the quibbling of the deniers, the scientific evidence that climate change is real and caused, in great part, by human action, is overwhelming. Trapped in their provincial swamp of ideological correctness, Minchin and his ilk learn nothing and forget nothing

Mike Carlton

[maikeru]

I'll get to the experiment shortly, please let me answer this first.

 

 

When, how and why did the geological process that creates oil stop?

 

They haven't, but if you have enough time...

 

Petroleum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Maybe millions of years will suit you?

 

http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/news_pub_fo_2008.pdf

 

If you look at page 20, Exxon has been increasing oil production at 1% per year, and anticipate that to continue to 2030.

 

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Oilreport_10-2007.pdf

 

I think ethanol is evil, burning food, it's a famine in a gas tank. Poor people have enough to do, without having to compete with your car, to eat.

 

Depends where, what from, and how the ethanol was manufactured. Currently as it is, turning crops into ethanol is mostly wasteful, although I can think of several improvements and additional feedstocks that would be more acceptable, IMO. Making ethanol from maize isn't very feasible... I've seen estimates of farmland requirements of 1-3 times the continental US to grow enough maize to convert into ethanol to replace gasoline for our transportation needs. However, the way you put it is simplistic.

 

Solar panels in Germany are sustained with tax incentives, our tax Euro pays for their installation and use. I get a kick out of seeing solar panels blanketed with snow.

 

Solar panels are cool, but the current ones from their manufacturing and eventual replacement will result in toxic waste. I think it's excellent to generate electricity from the sun, but we need to pay attention to possibly looming problems:

 

Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China - washingtonpost.com

[lemit]

Brian,

 

Some of my language and my tone in an earlier post was very accusatory and was out of line. I'm sorry for any discomfort I may have caused you. I'm doubly sorry if any of my actions have reflected badly on Hypography and its staff.

 

--lemit

[BrianG]

Lemit,

 

Accepted, you're improving, this is more gracious than your first apology.

 

They haven't, but if you have enough time...Maybe millions of years will suit you?

 

Have you ever heard the theory of deep oil? Maybe it won't take a million years. If we don't explore and build our infrastructure, we won't find and produce more oil.

 

 

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Oilreport_10-2007.pdf

 

Who are these people? They look like an organization of politicians (Green Party) and financiers out to make money off the theory of peak oil. They don't produce any, Michaelangelica referenced a company that has continued to increase oil production and expects to continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

 

Depends where, what from, and how the ethanol was manufactured. Currently as it is, turning crops into ethanol is mostly wasteful, although I can think of several improvements and additional feedstocks that would be more acceptable, IMO. Making ethanol from maize isn't very feasible... I've seen estimates of farmland requirements of 1-3 times the continental US to grow enough maize to convert into ethanol to replace gasoline for our transportation needs. However, the way you put it is simplistic....

Currently, as it is, every gallon of ethanol is subsidized by $0.51 of our tax dollars. I don't mean to be overly simplistic, if farmers are using labor and land producing ethanol instead of food, the price of food increases. I call this evil, I don't call the proponents, farmers or taxpayers evil, only the outcome, starving people for fuel production. Fossil fuel are a unique resource, no living organism uses them but man. Why burn food when we have a perfectly good source of energy dense fuel for transportation?

[maikeru]

 

Have you ever heard the theory of deep oil? Maybe it won't take a million years. If we don't explore and build our infrastructure, we won't find and produce more oil.

 

Yes, several times over. The "abiotic" theory of oil production deep within the earth from methane or other simple hydrocarbons supposedly in the mantle, etc.

 

Abiogenic petroleum origin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

However, it appears to have a relatively minor contribution to most known oil deposits, not enough to warrant interest on a commercial scale or sustainable rate. I've read some essays and comments by petroleum geologists and engineers, but none have seriously talked about abiotic oil. Is it a scary thought that oil can run out?

 

Who are these people? They look like an organization of politicians (Green Party) and financiers out to make money off the theory of peak oil. They don't produce any, Michaelangelica referenced a company that has continued to increase oil production and expects to continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

 

It appears they're German academics and scientists, part of a group founded by this man:

 

Hans-Josef Fell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

However, I don't read German, unlike some of the members on the board might. My Google searches on the biographies of the main researchers and compilers of the report turned up many webpages in German. But a quick look on Google Scholar showed me that W. Zittel is active in publishing papers on alternative energy, climate change, etc. and has papers published in famous and prestigious journals like Science. For example, this one:

 

Air Pollution and Climate-Forcing Impacts of a Global Hydrogen Economy -- Schultz et al. 302 (5645): 624 -- Science

 

A quick search on Google Scholar shows that J. Schindler appears to be active in writing textbooks and research articles for solar and other alternative energy sources. I don't know the extent of his publications, however, having at least one scientist who's had publication in Science lends some seriousness and credence to the report based on his credentials. Thus I think it's premature to dismiss them simply as "politicians" or "financiers."

 

Currently, as it is, every gallon of ethanol is subsidized by $0.51 of our tax dollars. I don't mean to be overly simplistic, if farmers are using labor and land producing ethanol instead of food, the price of food increases. I call this evil, I don't call the proponents, farmers or taxpayers evil, only the outcome, starving people for fuel production. Fossil fuel are a unique resource, no living organism uses them but man. Why burn food when we have a perfectly good source of energy dense fuel for transportation?

 

Call it what you will, you make it too simplistic. We have members on the forum who are farmers and growers. Maize into ethanol is a bad idea as it's currently done and I don't believe it's sustainable. Energy is stored and lost in crop waste/residues and lost in the fermentation to produce ethanol, and this does not include the energy and resources used on irrigation, fertilizer/pesticide, planting, harvesting, transportation, etc. The EROEI on ethanol from maize appears to be negative to slightly positive in the best cases. Many biofuels have serious problems with them. There are ways to alleviate or reduce some of the problems involved in producing biomass, boosting crop production, reducing fertilizer, pesticide, and land use, using different crops than standard food crops like soy and maize (which don't appear to make good biofuel crops), etc. More research, serious thinking, and better practice, efficiency, and cost reduction are needed.

 

But the discussion on biofuels neither begins nor ends with maize into ethanol. It is so much more.

 

Why turn to biofuels? Because when you're running out of the easy stuff and choking to death on pollution, the alternatives begin to look appealing. I don't believe biofuels can solve all transportation and energy problems (or may not even supply a majority of the needs), but I do believe there are significant and profitable uses for them, especially as nonrenewables run out. The problem is that in the production and manufacturing of biofuels, we need to take care we don't destroy or deplete other nonrenewables or fragile resources as well, like water, land, air, or mineral fertilizers. Changes in farming, land use, etc. can be guided toward more productive and sustainable paths, I believe to the benefit of both farmers and consumers. I believe biofuels will increasingly play a role in a broader and diverse alternative energy future. (And that probably includes nuclear, whether I like it or not.)

 

Furthermore, there need to be changes in types and amounts of energy used and efficiency down the line. We may not have the luxury of building highways out to the middle of nowhere, flying across the world for a few hundred dollars, hauling in mangos, bananas, and papayas from distant tropical lands, or driving a shiny SUV to pick up the kids from soccer practice and take them to piano lessons, while living 1-2 hours away from work in our cushy bedroom communities and suburbs. The sprawl has to end somewhere, somehow. I think we're living on borrowed time.

[BrianG]

... Is it a scary thought that oil can run out?...

 

Running our of oil isn't scary, giving up looking is. There's been a ban on expanded offshore exploration and drilling for more than 27 years. If exploration is banned, how do we know we're running out?

 

Your source isn't from petroleum engineers unlike Exxon's forecast of continued increased production until at least 2030. Your source has a vested interest in running out of oil, Exxon doesn't.

 

...Why turn to biofuels? Because when you're running out of the easy stuff and choking to death on pollution, the alternatives begin to look appealing.

 

Can you back show me why you believe the claim we are, "choking to death on pollution"?