David Attenborough disappointed with and sick of the USA's head in the sand attitude to global warming

[TrashMan]

More sticking ones head in the sand?

 

I've been researching global warming for months. It's friggin happening. We do have a pretty big impact.

[Zoraptor]

 

Venus has 98% CO2 atmosphere, not .04%, and it's closer to the sun. roofles!

 

 

And therein lies the problem. You say "show me the evidence for runaway feedback", you're shown- albeit with some snark- and it doesn't count because the situation ain't exactly equivalent. The situation can never be exactly equivalent, all we know is that Venus is roughly earth sized, in a 'temperate' planetary zone where it ought to be theoretically of habitable temperature yet the temperature there is enough to melt lead, and that is excellent evidence for runaway feedback.

 

All the basic evidence points to increased CO₂ meaning more retained heat, all of it. So much so that in a scientific sense the burden of proof may actually be reversed since denialists (coldists? don't know what dismissive term I'm meant to use and that makes me feel funny) keep saying that basic observable phenomena just don't count because. That's an abuse of scientific principle- you have to assume basic observable phenomena apply or else you end up with every experiment trying to take account for the possibility of gravity not working, this time.

 

I don't even think there's much point to carbon limiting laws anyway. Big emitters will avoid doing anything because the economic damage will be too great and smaller ones doing anything simply won't be enough. Humans gonna human.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Venus has 98% CO2 atmosphere, not .04%, and it's closer to the sun. roofles!

And therein lies the problem. You say "show me the evidence for runaway feedback", you're shown- albeit with some snark- and it doesn't count because the situation ain't exactly equivalent. The situation can never be exactly equivalent, all we know is that Venus is roughly earth sized, in a 'temperate' planetary zone where it ought to be theoretically of habitable temperature yet the temperature there is enough to melt lead, and that is excellent evidence for runaway feedback.

 

It's not any kind of evidence, because no one knows what happened on Venus. Are the sulfuric acid clouds it's covered with also result of global warming? For that matter, if the CO2/warming feedback is positive, how come earth never run away, we've had a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past and it's been a whole lot warmer as well, yet earth is nothing like Venus. Edited May 20, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[Walsingham]

I'm not against research into cheap, robust, reliable alt power. I don't begrudge a penny of my taxes which goes towards cold fusion. High risk, high reward. But I begrudge every broken button which goes towards technologies which are not economical and are unsustainable. The numbers have to add up. And they currently don't.

 

I'm not anti-green. I'm anti-idiot.

If you want to have laser eye surgery these days, it will cost you about 500 bucks per eye

If you wanted to have laser eye surgery 15 years ago, it would have cost you about 20.000 bucks.

But the only reason the cost went down is because we invested in it.

if you're anti idiot, then you should be anti-short term thinking, which is what you're doing by dismissing these technologies.

Of course it will be expensive at first. Prototyping costs money.

 

I'm anti solutions which window dress, like the buiofuels you yourself mention. I'm anti solutions which only apply to the 10% of the World that can afford to indulge its conscience. I'm anti solutions which defy mathematical logic. But most of all I'm anti solutions which take longer to deliver than the problem they are meant to solve.

 

And my understanding at present is that warmists are telling me I need to make a three second jump using a twenty second parachute.

then you're understanding is flawed, we got the means to address the issue now. THAT's the tragedy.

 

 

The problem with most green power 'solutions' is not that they need prototyping. They are very mature technology. Windmills and water giving energy are hundreds of years old. That's the problem. Your only leverage is subcomponents and control systems. Subcomponent design of things like axles is already getting as much as it can because it's a contributor to so much. The only other leverage is the context you put them in, but everyone already knows we could have more effective solar from space or up mountains. The trouble is getting the energy back to civilisation.

 

My considered assessment is that squeezing existing technology has as much hope of delivering the energy we need as a prop driven aircraft has of breaking the sound barrier.

 

_If I am correct_ then spending money and effort on existing technology like wind and wave is squandering both economic and political capital.

 

I would also point out that this discussion is in my top ten sane discussions on the subject, and that alone makes me give up on any prospect of a rational effort addressing the problem.

[alanschu]

 

 

For that matter, if the CO2/warming feedback is positive, how come earth never run away, we've had a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past and it's been a whole lot warmer as well, yet earth is nothing like Venus.

 

We'd have to examine what other variables existed to ascertain whether or not a runaway greenhouse would occur.

 

The first evidence I found of the previous highs for CO2, however, figure it was probably about 3 million years ago when they reached this level, and sea levels were about 30 feet higher. (source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm/ )

 

 

Now, to shift gears somewhat, isotope analysis lets us see what types of CO2 emissions are in the air, and we can see a higher concentration of CO2 that is a consequence of fossil fuel burning.  I am reasonably convinced that the spike of CO2 in the atmosphere is probably influenced in large part by human activity.  I do agree that runaway greenhouse is among the worst case, and probably unlikely as a result.

 

I'm curious how much effect reforestation would have.  There's a measurable decrease in CO2 every year with the spring and summer, as plants work their thing.  I wonder what other sort of carbon sinks could be explored.

[Gfted1]

I wonder what other sort of carbon sinks could be explored.

 

 

Iron Fertilization.

 

 

[Rostere]

The argument that "only a dictatorial world government could do something against global warming" is rather stupid actually. I mean, right now we have the possibility to do something. If anything about global climate change is true, we WILL see a dictatorial world government if we don't do something.

 

It's like if you know you're going to crash against a wall -  you might try to slow down or at least not accelerate.

 

It's crystal clear that we are changing the atmosphere dramatically by increasing the amount of CO2. What is up to discussion is exactly what effects this will have.

[Zoraptor]

Usually if you're going to crash into a wall you don't have people convinced that the wall doesn't exist or that the car can take any crash impact in its stride trying to control the car as well as yourself though. Ignoring it is of short term economic benefit, and politicians love short term economic benefit because it gets them re-elected or keeps the ruled quite and subservient, and they simply don't care if everything goes to the brown stuff decades down the track. It's the climatic equivalent of sub prime mortgaging.

 

 I do agree that runaway greenhouse is among the worst case, and probably unlikely as a result.

 

Runaway feedback on earth is pretty much impossible as there are too many buffering systems. It mainly comes up because Venus makes a convenient example (the convenient example, even) of atmospheric insulation. Even there it isn't a continuous positive feedback, it is not still getting warmer but has stabilised, albeit at a point that is bad from the perspective of life.

[Walsingham]

JFSOCC, I may need to look into my earlier statement. Not confirmed I need to revise, but according to the CIA world factbook China and many developing nations relate favourably to Europe on use of renewables and hydro as a percentage of total electricity consumption. It doesn't excuse them from being part of the solution but it may mean we aren't excused either.

 

No time to revise properly before mid June. Unless you'd care to hack the numbers before then. I advise NOT using any source I will regard as biased if you want to change my mind.

[alanschu]

 

 

Runaway feedback on earth is pretty much impossible as there are too many buffering systems. It mainly comes up because Venus makes a convenient example (the convenient example, even) of atmospheric insulation. Even there it isn't a continuous positive feedback, it is not still getting warmer but has stabilised, albeit at a point that is bad from the perspective of life.

 

I agree, and it certainly was not my intention to indicate that a runaway greenhouse situation is the only bad situation.  I actually think that the runaway greenhouse scenario weakens the climate change arguments, because people end up focusing more on it and feel that, by breaking down the runaway greenhouse, they invalidate all concerns about climate change.

[Zoraptor]

Venus isn't really intended as a scientifically rigorous example, it's more of a layman's example to make a point, and it's fine so far as that point goes. Any sensible discussion of it has to admit that it is a limited example as there are (as WoD noted) significant differences- no magnetic field, very slow rotation period/ long days, no moon; all things which might have significant effects and are not consistent between Earth and Venus.

 

In short, it's fine as an illustration that more greenhouse gasses = lots more retained heat on a generally earth like planet, it doesn't explain how it got to that state and whether there's anything to learn from that process for here.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

For that matter, if the CO2/warming feedback is positive, how come earth never run away, we've had a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past and it's been a whole lot warmer as well, yet earth is nothing like Venus.

 

We'd have to examine what other variables existed to ascertain whether or not a runaway greenhouse would occur.

 

The first evidence I found of the previous highs for CO2, however, figure it was probably about 3 million years ago when they reached this level, and sea levels were about 30 feet higher. (source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm/ )

 

 

Now, to shift gears somewhat, isotope analysis lets us see what types of CO2 emissions are in the air, and we can see a higher concentration of CO2 that is a consequence of fossil fuel burning.  I am reasonably convinced that the spike of CO2 in the atmosphere is probably influenced in large part by human activity.  I do agree that runaway greenhouse is among the worst case, and probably unlikely as a result.

 

I'm curious how much effect reforestation would have.  There's a measurable decrease in CO2 every year with the spring and summer, as plants work their thing.  I wonder what other sort of carbon sinks could be explored.

 

There's actually some debate on whether the CO2 record from ice cores is correct.

Here's an anti-warming web site which discusses a lot of the issues brought up here: http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate4.htm#is_CO2_from_fossil_fuel But as Gifted's example points out, even if there is a dangerous degree of warming, there are several geoengineering proposals to counteract it, such as injecting aerosols into upper atmosphere or making clouds more reflective.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[JFSOCC]

so your example of debate is an anti-warming website.

 

oH and walsingham, I don't intend to ignore you but I'm taking a small break from this argument, it was taking up a lot of my time. I'll get back to you.

[Walsingham]

so your example of debate is an anti-warming website.

 

oH and walsingham, I don't intend to ignore you but I'm taking a small break from this argument, it was taking up a lot of my time. I'll get back to you.

 

No worries.

[pmp10]

 

 

For that matter, if the CO2/warming feedback is positive, how come earth never run away, we've had a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past and it's been a whole lot warmer as well, yet earth is nothing like Venus.

 

We'd have to examine what other variables existed to ascertain whether or not a runaway greenhouse would occur.

 

The first evidence I found of the previous highs for CO2, however, figure it was probably about 3 million years ago when they reached this level, and sea levels were about 30 feet higher. (source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm/ )

 

 

Now, to shift gears somewhat, isotope analysis lets us see what types of CO2 emissions are in the air, and we can see a higher concentration of CO2 that is a consequence of fossil fuel burning.  I am reasonably convinced that the spike of CO2 in the atmosphere is probably influenced in large part by human activity.  I do agree that runaway greenhouse is among the worst case, and probably unlikely as a result.

 

I'm curious how much effect reforestation would have.  There's a measurable decrease in CO2 every year with the spring and summer, as plants work their thing.  I wonder what other sort of carbon sinks could be explored.

 

There's actually some debate on whether the CO2 record from ice cores is correct.

Here's an anti-warming web site which discusses a lot of the issues brought up here: http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate4.htm#is_CO2_from_fossil_fuel But as Gifted's example points out, even if there is a dangerous degree of warming, there are several geoengineering proposals to counteract it, such as injecting aerosols into upper atmosphere or making clouds more reflective.

 

Let me get it straight: you shoot down investment in renewables as wasteful but your alternative is making clouds more shiny?

[alanschu]

There's actually some debate on whether the CO2 record from ice cores is correct.

Here's an anti-warming web site which discusses a lot of the issues brought up here: http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate4.htm#is_CO2_from_fossil_fuel But as Gifted's example points out, even if there is a dangerous degree of warming, there are several geoengineering proposals to counteract it, such as injecting aerosols into upper atmosphere or making clouds more reflective.

 

 

I'm not sure what they are addressing with this point:

 

"It also suggests that the residence time of CO2 in air is no more than a few months rather than years, because in 4 summer months nearly all of the increase of the whole year, is undone. But isotope analysis suggests 5-14 years, most likely 5 years. The IPCC says several centuries."

 

The residence time of CO2 would be irrelevant if an isotope analysis is saying "hey, there's manmade CO2 in the air."  There's nothing stopping a CO2 molecule from in fact remaining in the atmosphere for several centuries.  Residence time just measures the flow, and as the site says (and emphasizes with a "fact" statement), man made CO2 is not found in plants until recently, so therefore plants are capable of using the man made CO2.  This seems to be a bit of an aside and not really relevant to the discussion as to whether or not man made CO2 emissions are a statistically significant contributor to rising CO2 levels.  Nor does it seem to debunk isotope analysis.

 

It does a fine job of discussing other aspects of CO2 transmission, but I am not sure it supports your conclusion that CO2 records from ice cores is suspect.

Edited May 22, 2013 by alanschu

[Zoraptor]

Residence time typically just measures the period of the carbon cycle- it's almost completely irrelevant for CO2 in a CC context. For some other stuff (eg methane) it's highly relevant though- methane is a far better insulator than CO2, but it breaks down in air fairly quickly. That is relevant because there have been various attempts to introduce 'fart taxes' on agriculture which is stupid andor money grubbing* in most cases since methane doesn't last long, breaks down into CO2 and the animals are eating feed which, wait for it, are made from atmospheric CO2 in the first place. Pure carbon cycling. The only case it isn't stupid is when you are burning fossil fuels to transport the food, and if that is necessary to tax in some way then a fuel tax is perfectly fine.

 

*Ultimately I think that is what does most damage to Climate Change acceptance, when it's subverted into political expedience. Government wants extra money, looks around for politically acceptable method, goes for something they can justify as 'green'. Anyone with knowledge knows their reasoning is flawed, sceptics point and laugh at another example of pseudoscience.

[Wrath of Dagon]

so your example of debate is an anti-warming website.

You generally have to look at both sides for a debate. I wasn't trying to prove there's a debate, just provide info for those interested.

 

 

Let me get it straight: you shoot down investment in renewables as wasteful but your alternative is making clouds more shiny?

Yes, it would be much cheaper, like tens of trillions of dollars cheaper. 

 

 

There's actually some debate on whether the CO2 record from ice cores is correct.

Here's an anti-warming web site which discusses a lot of the issues brought up here: http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate4.htm#is_CO2_from_fossil_fuel But as Gifted's example points out, even if there is a dangerous degree of warming, there are several geoengineering proposals to counteract it, such as injecting aerosols into upper atmosphere or making clouds more reflective.

 

I'm not sure what they are addressing with this point:

 

"It also suggests that the residence time of CO2 in air is no more than a few months rather than years, because in 4 summer months nearly all of the increase of the whole year, is undone. But isotope analysis suggests 5-14 years, most likely 5 years. The IPCC says several centuries."

 

Probably just pointing out that there us still some unanswered questions.

 

The residence time of CO2 would be irrelevant if an isotope analysis is saying "hey, there's manmade CO2 in the air."  There's nothing stopping a CO2 molecule from in fact remaining in the atmosphere for several centuries.  Residence time just measures the flow, and as the site says (and emphasizes with a "fact" statement), man made CO2 is not found in plants until recently, so therefore plants are capable of using the man made CO2.  This seems to be a bit of an aside and not really relevant to the discussion as to whether or not man made CO2 emissions are a statistically significant contributor to rising CO2 levels.  Nor does it seem to debunk isotope analysis.

 

It does a fine job of discussing other aspects of CO2 transmission, but I am not sure it supports your conclusion that CO2 records from ice cores is suspect.

I didn't say it's my opinion ice cores are suspect, I said not everyone agrees with their accuracy, and this is referred to elsewhere on that website, not the statements you quoted. The strongest argument for CO2 increase being man made is simply that since CO2 concentration started being directly measured reliably in 1958 there's a very strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 increase and the amount produced by man. This may appear strange given the small percentage of man made CO2 in the overall carbon cycle, but it's hard to argue against that conclusion so long as the correlation stays so strong. Edited May 23, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[TrashMan]

Yes, it would be much cheaper, like tens of trillions of dollars cheaper.

 

 

It's also a short-term, band-aid solution...because you're still going run out of an unrenewable energy resource, and life on the planet still needs sunlight.

[alanschu]

 

 

I didn't say it's my opinion ice cores are suspect, I said not everyone agrees with their accuracy, and this is referred to elsewhere on that website, not the statements you quoted. The strongest argument for CO2 increase being man made is simply that since CO2 concentration started being directly measured reliably in 1958 there's a very strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 increase and the amount produced by man. This may appear strange given the small percentage of man made CO2 in the overall carbon cycle, but it's hard to argue against that conclusion so long as the correlation stays so strong.

 

I must have misunderstood.  That section was what was linked to in the link I provided, so I was under the assumption that that part specifically was relating to the point you made on the previous line.  Sorry.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Yes, it would be much cheaper, like tens of trillions of dollars cheaper.

 

 

It's also a short-term, band-aid solution...because you're still going run out of an unrenewable energy resource, and life on the planet still needs sunlight.

 

Good enough for at least a hundred years, by then there will probably be other options. Edit: didn't understand your sunlight comment before, it wouldn't eliminate all sunlight, just a tiny fraction, like a volcanic eruption does sometimes.

 

EU leaders back shale revolution: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/23/newsbytes-eu-leaders-back-shale-revolution-roll-back-climate-policy/

Edited May 23, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[Walsingham]

No time to brief on this at the minute, but found some facts on China that may make me revise my earlier analysis slightly. The bottom line remains that China and the developing world hold the key, not us. But I may have been unfair about how hard they are trying.

[JFSOCC]

I certainly believe China can do more, and regulation is the key. Right now their business are destroying their environment at a faster rate than any other place on earth. Strip mining, mercury binding, no regulation on dumping chemical waste in their major rivers, no regulation on the **** coming out of their chimneys. And as a result: Desertification, soil toxicity, undrinkable water, smog. they've got a full house of bad **** going on.

Their three gorges dam, while a fantastically impressive feat of engineering, truly a marvel, has ended fish-runs, stagnated fierce rivers into seasonably dry rivers, and flooded some of the most fertile land on earth. It's a contributor to desertification.

That's the problem of making decisions before you did the research.

China, however, has an impressively powerful government (for good or evil) and if any country has the power to enact change, it's China.

 

Yes, it would be much cheaper, like tens of trillions of dollars cheaper.

TENS OF TRILLIONS!

 

"It also suggests that the residence time of CO2 in air is no more than a few months rather than years, because in 4 summer months nearly all of the increase of the whole year, is undone. But isotope analysis suggests 5-14 years, most likely 5 years. The IPCC says several centuries."

This has to do with tipping points.

The Ocean can take up, and does take up a large aount of carbon from the atmosphere, this increases the temperature and volume of the water however, and also increases the acidity levels of the water. The ocean can not take up co2 forever though, and once it's saturated, any carbon in the atmosphere will need to find different sinks.

[Gfted1]

U.S. Carbon Emissions Lowest Since 1994.

[Gromnir]

The real problem here is human lifespan. We don't care enough about what the world will look like for our grandchildren to make hard choices right now.

well, we will say that we don't care what david attennorough thinks 'bout the matter.  his expertise is that he has narrated and produced nature documentaries for a long time? am aware that he is some kinda national treasure for folks from the UK, but am thinking he is only slightly more persuasive on the matter than would be Morgan Freeman or James Earl Jones. if we is gonna sit and listen to proselytizing by some namby-pamby know-it-all, we at least want 'em to sound like darth vader or the guy who drove ms daisy. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps peter o'toole doing his ratatouille character would be ideal for this kinda thing. disdain made fun. send a memo to the bbc on our behalf.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Gromnir