Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 895
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

Post 13 Sep 2011, 11:16 am

Just to make it fair to Danivon this summer I'll take the opposite side of things and give him a better chance of making the right call. I'll predict we'll see a record low arctic ice pack by the end of this summer. :grin:

I blame this on rickyp, he had to be right just this one time and now look he's brought on climate change.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 13 Sep 2011, 12:11 pm

It's a bit close to the lowest extent to be taking bets isn't it? We did it several months before that last time.

It certainly appears that if this year does not see a record low of sea ice, it will be close. It's already well below the second lowest level.

The NSIDC graph suggests it may miss out on a record, http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ but also report that the University of Bremen algorithm shows that 2011 is already lower than 2007.
User avatar
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 895
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

Post 14 Sep 2011, 11:40 pm

In regards to the science and politics of climate there still just doesn't seem to be anything coherent coming of it.
(1) BRIC nations are on such a rapid trajectory of growth fueled by energy, farming expansion, and population growth, that serious reductions by the West couldn't even begin to offset the difference.
(2) We know that we are on the long end of coming out of an ice age. It's hard to say when that starts reversing especially given the human population, but we know that regardless of much time we eek out of our carbon energy supply it will be gone in 100-200 years. So does that mean for all the trouble in the end it will be the cold that gets humanity?
(3) If the government is empowered globally to confiscate trillions of dollars in capital and allocate it for 'Climate' can we really expect a positive result? Think Solyndra times a 1000.
(4) Take Japan as a model: With an aging population and a decreasing birth rate, how do the most developed economies divert significant capital to 'Climate' when they are already facing an economic catastrophe in the way they are presently structured?

If we were all excited about tackling Climate Change, is it truly feasible? As it looks carbon energy coming to an end may be the bigger problem.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4965
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 15 Sep 2011, 6:32 am

Re #2, based on the trends on solar efficiency, I would think that solar will be economically competitive in 25 years and be able to replace all hydrocarbons in 75.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 15 Sep 2011, 6:48 am

neal
We know that we are on the long end of coming out of an ice age

You have a citation for this?
Climate changes due to forcing events .... Our ice ages were caused by forcing events...

A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so therefore humans cannot be causing global warming now. Interestingly, the peer-reviewed research into past climate change comes to the opposite conclusion. To understand this, first you have to ask why climate has changed in the past. It doesn't happen by magic. Climate changes when it’s forced to change. When our planet suffers an energy imbalance and gains or loses heat, global temperature changes.
There are a number of different forces which can influence the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. These effects are referred to as external forcings because by changing the planet's energy balance, they force climate to change.
It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can’t cause climate change is like arguing that humans can’t start bushfires because in the past they’ve happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth’s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate.
Looking at the past gives us insight into how our climate responds to external forcings. Using ice cores, for instance, we can work out the degree of past temperature change, the level of solar activity, and the amount of greenhouse gases and volcanic dust in the atmosphere. From this, we can determine how temperature has changed due to past energy imbalances. What we have found, looking at many different periods and timescales in Earth's history, is that when the Earth gains heat, positive feedbacks amplify the warming. This is why we've experienced such dramatic changes in temperature in the past. Our climate is highly sensitive to changes in heat. We can even quantify this: when you include positive feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 causes a warming of around 3°C.
What does that mean for today? Rising greenhouse gas levels are an external forcing, which has caused climate changes many times in Earth's history. They're causing an energy imbalance and the planet is building up heat. From Earth's history, we know that positive feedbacks will amplify the greenhouse warming. So past climate change doesn't tell us that humans can't influence climate; on the contrary, it tells us that climate is highly sensitive to the greenhouse warming we're now causing
. http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... period.htm

I suspect that there are significant changes ocurring today that will impact energy use, and therefore CO2 emissions. For instance LED technology will probably replace flourescent technology for light bulbs over the next 10 to 15 years. The savings in electrical power use that this will generate will be enormous. I don't think there is any particular magic bullet, nor does it make sense for government to manage all the change. Today, the market is largely driving a lot of this change. (Building owners seekling ways to reduce electrical use and save money on power and maintenance. Electric cars gaining a foothold in the market as gas prices rise.... .)
However, we are already witnessing significant effects from a warming climate. The idea that we know how to mitigate all the effects, or even could is probably folly. But the first step to being able to adapt to the change is admitting thats it happening. In the high arctic its already happening as far north communities look at things like moving to "air ships" (we used to call them dirigibles but now they have a great deal more structural integrity) for communication as ice roads become undependable and shipping remains seasonal.. Corporations and business is moving ahead of governments on this, which is a good thing since some governments are incapable of acting effectively.
The biggest worry is how to deal with rising oceans. Shore front Erosion will be and already is increasing as a problem in many parts of the globe.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/artic ... ays-report

It was interesting to read the backlash on Michelle Bachmans campaign statements about drilling in the Florida Everglades. Apparently a non-starter and she's stepped it back to qualify as "If we can drill responsibly." I agree with her...And I'd apply the same statement to offshore drilling or any other kind of energy scheme.
To me thats always the question. What is "responsible"? Its obvious that Deepwater Horizon wasn't responsible. Given a regulatory environment where they were left to their own judgement on the methods they were employing... they chose the cheaper more risky options.
Unfortunately, without effective third party (government) oversight of "responsible behaviours, private enterprise will often act with more risk then potentially affected stakeholders would prefer. (For Horizon that would be derrick workers, the fisheries and tourism. )
It would be intersting to hear what Bachman thinks can guarantee "responsible drilling"...in the everglades or anywhere.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4965
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 17 Sep 2011, 12:03 pm

Neal:
As it looks carbon energy coming to an end may be the bigger problem.


There's a great article in today's WSJ by Dan Yergin. Some interesting stats:

A total of 1 trillion barrels of oil have been produced since the beginning.

There are 1.4 trillion barrels in the ground that are currently considered to be technically and economically accessible.

There are an additional 3.6 trillion barrels that are in the ground which are not considered to be technically and economically accessible.

Oil production has been steadily increasing since the the 1900's (with just a couple of blips downward). It is up 30% in annual production since 1978.

His expectation is that the current production of 92 million barrels per day will increase to 110 million barrels a day by 2030.