Global warming

[Xenus]

What are you talking about? The increase in severity of storms is something rather definitive that has been measured.

Yes but he's pointing out that correlation is not causation. Too many people are throwing tangential things that seem to correlate with AGW but may not be caused by AGW. When this is proven false it looks bad on the whole AGW theory cause if they keep changing their minds about what it causes etc. They are better off to keep their mouths shut on that kind of stuff till they can prove more than just correlation cause it weakens their stance on AGW which people will start to doubt if they spout off random stuff about what it causes due to correlation only to proved wrong.

 

[rpg.314]

You can start by stopping breathing, or someone will make you when you try to pass that tax.

You fool, the tax is on co2 emissions from fossil fuels, as only that contributes to agw.

 

[rpg.314]

In science you need evidence to prove that AGW exists, you don't need evidence to disprove it.

Yes. And the evidence in favor of agw is bursting at the seams atm. Just because you could not be bothered to read it or couldn't understand it even if it you in the head with a brick doesn't mean it's invalid - or less valid.

Too many fudging around with variables and not having a control group for experiments since we don't have a second Earth casts a lot of doubt on the results of such studies.It's not lab tested,

Plenty of stuff isn't. Like astronomy or geology or economics (in a strict interpretation of your words). Should we reject those as well?

Science works on predictions. Control groups are one way of getting them right, but not the only ones. If your computer models can recreate real data, you can be VERY sure that they are right. If their predictions match up, then they ARE right.

so I just don't think what climate scientists find is as valid as what the CERN people find, or what drug testing on animals finds, etc...

How many times have you done computational science? If you did any of it, may be you would appreciate it more.

 

[KimB]

US won't get a CO2 tax, you can count on that. If we put tariffs on Chinese, maybe they'd just stop buying bonds and devalue the US Dollar overnight. Energy costs solved right away since fossil fuels would automatically become more expensive, and we didn't have to tax anything.

Not any time soon, obviously. Hopefully the conversation will change in the coming years as the changes become more obvious and more damaging.

But if the Chinese stopped suppressing the value of their own currency, that would increase the demand for US goods and services, which would help us get out of this economic slump. Yes, it would make imported goods, like oil, more expensive. But it would make our goods cheaper to the rest of the world, improving US businesses.

Which is precisely why the Chinese don't want to do it: their practice of undervaluing their own currency with respect to the dollar serves the interests of powerful export businesses within China.

We still need fossil fuels for transportation even if we could produce electricity very cheaply, since there's no good way to store it. Electric cars will never be ready until there's a way for a 5 minute recharge.

This is what biofuels are good for.

 

[KimB]

You can start by stopping breathing, or someone will make you when you try to pass that tax.

That's really really stupid. The carbon exhaled by living organisms comes directly from the air, likely within the past year. Carbon that is released into the air after being burned in fossil fuels has remained buried underground, likely for tens to hundreds of millions of years, and would remain there if we hadn't dug it up. There's a difference.

 

[corduroygt]

This is what biofuels are good for.

Hey, I support biofuels 100%. It's just that corn ethanol is really inefficient, diesel becomes solid at low temperatures, and algae seems to be too costly. Which biofuel do you support?

Also, point taken on carbon emissions from a living organism vs. an energy source that's dug up.

 

[corduroygt]

Plenty of stuff isn't. Like astronomy or geology or economics (in a strict interpretation of your words). Should we reject those as well?

Well, economics is the one I'd say is similar to Climate Science. How accurate is that again, how much will stock A be 5 years from now?

 

[Squilliam]

What are you talking about? The increase in severity of storms is something rather definitive that has been measured.

Im starting to see people(media) saying that disasters are due to AGW, rather than combined with or increased by AGW. I feel that is a dangerous position to have taken and misinformation from any source deserves to get shot down, right?

 

[Grall]

I'm talking about documented snow fall across the state from multiple reporting agencys.

Yeah, and what about it?

If your point is anything along the lines of, "there can't be AGW, because in NJ we had X inches (start using some real measurements already, for gods sake!) of snow last year", then you haven't got a point.

The post was about certian things happening more often or intense , what happens when they are no longer happening more often or intensely as previous.

Err, whuh?

You're speculating about a baseless, ficticious situation when things are no longer the same way they are now...?

 

[Grall]

You can start by stopping breathing, or someone will make you when you try to pass that tax.

You can stop making thinly veiled death threats now.

This is the second time - at least - you've made threats at someone's life over things related to climate change and taxes now, so unless you want the FBI busting in through your front door, chill.

 

[KimB]

Hey, I support biofuels 100%. It's just that corn ethanol is really inefficient, diesel becomes solid at low temperatures, and algae seems to be too costly. Which biofuel do you support?

Algae is the only biofuel source that makes sense in the long term. It may be expensive now, but most of that is in terms of R&D. Once we get good at developing algal biofuels, that cost should come down significantly.

 

[KimB]

Im starting to see people(media) saying that disasters are due to AGW, rather than combined with or increased by AGW. I feel that is a dangerous position to have taken and misinformation from any source deserves to get shot down, right?

Bad science is a problem with the popular media in general. I don't see why scientists should not point out very real effects of AGW that do have impacts on peoples' lives just because the popular media may misconstrue them. The answer, I think, is to do more to get the real information out there, and attack the distortions in the media.

 

[rpg.314]

Well, economics is the one I'd say is similar to Climate Science. How accurate is that again, how much will stock A be 5 years from now?

Once again, you miss the miles between climate and weather. If you wished to compare climate science to economics, you would have asked what would be the state of world economy say 5 years from now. IOW, a broader, larger scale picture.

 

[rpg.314]

Im starting to see people(media) saying that disasters are due to AGW, rather than combined with or increased by AGW. I feel that is a dangerous position to have taken and misinformation from any source deserves to get shot down, right?

Yes.

 

[rpg.314]

Algae is the only biofuel source that makes sense in the long term. It may be expensive now, but most of that is in terms of R&D. Once we get good at developing algal biofuels, that cost should come down significantly.

What's wrong with cellulosic ethanol?

 

[Grall]

What's wrong with cellulosic ethanol?

As originally produced from wood?

Well, you'd need farmland to raise the wood first, which could have been used for other crops instead, and AFAIK the process then relies on bacteria to break down the cellulose and produce ethanol, which is a big net energy loss right there.

If we could develop some catalythic method of producing ethanol out of cellulose without spending a lot of energy during production then maybe. But otherwise it's crap, IMO. Also, ethanol used in combustion engines is less fuel efficient than using petrol. So we'd need a bigger volume of fuel to satisfy the same fleet of vehicles. Doesn't seem like a good strategy overall.

Maybe if there were efficient fuel cells that could oxidize ethanol...

Lotta maybies here! Can't base a future on maybies. Ethanol = dead end, IMO.

 

[KimB]

What's wrong with cellulosic ethanol?

Cellulosic ethanol is quite a bit better than, say, corn ethanol. But it still uses up enough land that it doesn't help with CO2 emissions for a long time, and it just isn't possible to produce in enough volume to supplement the needs of a nation like the US, for instance.

Biofuels that stem from algae, on the other hand, use only a fraction of the land of even the most efficient plant-based biofuels, and it doesn't even have to be arable land! It is rather expensive at the present time, but it is also the only biofuel option that can potentially be produced in sufficient volume to replace gasoline/diesel.

 

[corduroygt]

Once again, you miss the miles between climate and weather. If you wished to compare climate science to economics, you would have asked what would be the state of world economy say 5 years from now. IOW, a broader, larger scale picture.

Let's see how economists predicted the next 5 years of the world economy in 2004 and how accurate they were.

 

[corduroygt]

Algae is the only biofuel source that makes sense in the long term. It may be expensive now, but most of that is in terms of R&D. Once we get good at developing algal biofuels, that cost should come down significantly.

Which one is more likely to happen first though?

1. We'll be able to develop algal biofuels cheaply.
2. We have batteries that are light, don't use rare materials, and can recharge in 5 minutes

Also all this stuff would be at least 20 years out. By then, if rising fossil fuel prices haven't taken care of the CO2 problem, then you can have taxes on it. Having CO2 taxes when there is no other alternative to oil is economic suicide, and it's not going to happen.

 

[Grall]

Economic suicide is still better than the alternative, ACTUAL suicide, which it would be if we wreck the climate of this planet, the only place within reach capable of sustaining human life.