Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Uncle Ted]

Like on tatooine?

Yes. I'll get a few droids and become a moisture farmer.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Hundreds of types? I ask this sincerely.

Oh yeah. Don't ask me to name all of them (not that I know them all anyway), but a few off the top of my head:

Coral reefs - Starting to see some changes in coral reefs (bleaching) around the world. They are highly sensitive to temps. An increase of a few more degrees would be devastating. http://coralreef.noaa.gov/threats/climate/

Runoff cycles - Snowpack in the rocky mountains is gradually melting earlier in the spring. This changes the manner in which runoff occurs leading to less storage in reservoirs. http://www.gracelinks.org/2380/the-i...ater-resources

Pine beetle - Pine beetles are a parasite in rocky mountain forests. They are traditionally kept in check by cold temps. Just a small change in temps over the winters causes the beetles to survive the winters in greater numbers and the populations explode. Vast swaths of forests are dying over the last few years. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/cw..._are_turn.html

Again, each of these things viewed in isolation proves nothing and could be a random event. But they are all consistent with climate change.

[Uncle Ted]

Runoff cycles - Snowpack in the rocky mountains is gradually melting earlier in the spring. This changes the manner in which runoff occurs leading to less storage in reservoirs. http://www.gracelinks.org/2380/the-i...ater-resources

I think the reason Lake Mead is so low is DH is over watering his lawn but I have heard the fishing there is awesome.

[woot]

Anyone watch episode 9 of Cosmos? It was on a couple weeks ago. It's about the history of the earth, and does a great job providing some perspective about how dramatically the earth has changed and continues to change. It's probably my favorite episode of that series so far. It's a really neat perspective. I also covered normal climate cycles and their causes, as well as a couple times when natural phenomena led to rapid climate change causing mass extinction events. I hear that show isn't doing well, so perhaps nobody else watched it.

In other news, I want one of these: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla_model_s

[Omaha 680]

In other news, I want one of these: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla_model_s

Looks pretty great. The 260 mile range is the best yet, but not ready to replace CNG or gasoline power. I'm sure we will get there eventually, but we will need a lot of nuclear to upgrade the grid to handle the changeover.

The cartoon didn't discuss the economics at all. Model S is 70 grand, which makes it way more expensive to own and operate than a gasoline vehicle even if the electricity were free. And the most important piece of information to me is: how does charging this car every night affect your electricity bill? The cartoon also wasn't clear if the 20 minute supercharge time was from an empty battery. I'm not poo-pooing the electric car as I think it's ultimately the future. We tend to ignore economics in our excitement, though.

Edit: I looked up some stuff myself because I was curious. Tesla has a whole page on the cost of ownership. From what I can tell, you can expect 2.5-3.0 miles/kWh. Assuming gas is $4/gallon and you get 25 mpg, and an average residential electricity cost of $0.12/kWh, the Tesla is about 3.7 times cheaper per mile, considering just fuel costs. That's pretty good. This is a snapshot of current prices, obviously. If people began switching in large numbers, the electricity costs would rise.

[PaloAltoCougar]

In other news, I want one of these: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla_model_s

I've been thinking about getting one but it's a little more than I'd like to spend, and they're also ubiquitous in these parts, which takes away some of the coolness factor. A fairly knowledgeable client thinks I should wait and buy a hydrogen-powered car when Toyota comes out with them in the near future.

[imanihonjin]

Oh yeah. Don't ask me to name all of them (not that I know them all anyway), but a few off the top of my head:

Coral reefs - Starting to see some changes in coral reefs (bleaching) around the world. They are highly sensitive to temps. An increase of a few more degrees would be devastating. http://coralreef.noaa.gov/threats/climate/

Runoff cycles - Snowpack in the rocky mountains is gradually melting earlier in the spring. This changes the manner in which runoff occurs leading to less storage in reservoirs. http://www.gracelinks.org/2380/the-i...ater-resources

Pine beetle - Pine beetles are a parasite in rocky mountain forests. They are traditionally kept in check by cold temps. Just a small change in temps over the winters causes the beetles to survive the winters in greater numbers and the populations explode. Vast swaths of forests are dying over the last few years. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/cw..._are_turn.html

Again, each of these things viewed in isolation proves nothing and could be a random event. But they are all consistent with climate change.

What does this have to do with AGW? The earth has gone through cycles, nobody is disputing as much. What if any impact has man had on these cycles is the question but you act as if people are disputing the cycles rather than the actual cause of the cycles.

[Jeff Lebowski]

What does this have to do with AGW? The earth has gone through cycles, nobody is disputing as much. What if any impact has man had on these cycles is the question but you act as if people are disputing the cycles rather than the actual cause of the cycles.

You clearly aren't following the discussion. There are part of a number of evidences that we are experiencing rapid climate change. I never claimed that these proved that the change is anthropogenic. There are other reasons why almost all climate scientists agree that the change we are seeing is largely human-caused.

[imanihonjin]

You clearly aren't following the discussion. There are part of a number of evidences that we are experiencing rapid climate change. I never claimed that these proved that the change is anthropogenic. There are other reasons why almost all climate scientists agree that the change we are seeing is largely human-caused.

I don't think anybody is arguing whether the climate is changing is or is not....the beef being raised is whether man is the cause....so I guess keep pointing out how the climate is changing.

Also keep stating that "almost all climate scientists agree that the change we are seeing is largely human-caused" mantra and then keep wondering why it is that people bristle at whatever else you have to say after (Weren't you the one who was point out logical fallacies earlier and here you are again employing another one). When you use such hyperbole like "almost all", you lose credibility in anything you have to say afterwords. That is disappointing coming from someone who seems to continually extol science as being something that is based in fact.

[ERCougar]

I don't think anybody is arguing whether the climate is changing is or is not....the beef being raised is whether man is the cause....so I guess keep pointing out how the climate is changing.

Also keep stating that "almost all climate scientists agree that the change we are seeing is largely human-caused" mantra and then keep wondering why it is that people bristle at whatever else you have to say after (Weren't you the one who was point out logical fallacies earlier and here you are again employing another one). When you use such hyperbole like "almost all", you lose credibility in anything you have to say afterwords. That is disappointing coming from someone who seems to continually extol science as being something that is based in fact.

This is what we're talking about we complain about mixing policy and science. Your opinion is interesting when you are talking about policy considerations. Your opinion isn't when you're discussing the level of human impact. Stop mentioning it and stick to the politics.
And yes, just about anyone would consider 97% "almost all".

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't think anybody is arguing whether the climate is changing is or is not....the beef being raised is whether man is the cause....so I guess keep pointing out how the climate is changing.

Also keep stating that "almost all climate scientists agree that the change we are seeing is largely human-caused" mantra and then keep wondering why it is that people bristle at whatever else you have to say after (Weren't you the one who was point out logical fallacies earlier and here you are again employing another one). When you use such hyperbole like "almost all", you lose credibility in anything you have to say afterwords. That is disappointing coming from someone who seems to continually extol science as being something that is based in fact.

Hyperbole? And what logical fallacy am I employing here?

It is a simple, easily verified fact that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe human-produced greenhouse gases are altering the climate. Here is a nice summary of polls and public statements by all of the major relevant scientific organizations on the topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

I linked it before, but it appears you are joining the discussion late.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is what we're talking about we complain about mixing policy and science. Your opinion is interesting when you are talking about policy considerations. Your opinion isn't when you're discussing the level of human impact. Stop mentioning it and stick to the politics.
And yes, just about anyone would consider 97% "almost all".

From the wiki summary:

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming. A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming

97% might be conservative. Whoops. There I go being hyperbolic again.

[byu71]

Hyperbole? And what logical fallacy am I employing here?

It is a simple, easily verified fact that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe human-produced greenhouse gases are altering the climate. Here is a nice summary of polls and public statements by all of the major relevant scientific organizations on the topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

I linked it before, but it appears you are joining the discussion late.

What do the scientists conclude will happen if man quits altering the climate? Will temperatures drop back to a normal accepted level for the world? Will glaciers stay at their historical normal size? Will the intensity of storms return to their normal level.

When that happens do they then project man will be able to produce more and do it more effectively? Will there be less disease?

Have any of the environmentalists or climate change scientists indicated what will be the benefit to man if we get back to normal and man stops having any impact on the climate. I know this can't all be about saving the environment for the horny toad in Nevada.

[ERCougar]

What do the scientists conclude will happen if man quits altering the climate? Will temperatures drop back to a normal accepted level for the world? Will glaciers stay at their historical normal size? Will the intensity of storms return to their normal level.

When that happens do they then project man will be able to produce more and do it more effectively? Will there be less disease?

Have any of the environmentalists or climate change scientists indicated what will be the benefit to man if we get back to normal and man stops having any impact on the climate. I know this can't all be about saving the environment for the horny toad in Nevada.

These are all great questions, questions we can get to answering once we stop muddying the water with baseless objections to the science.

(By the way, these questions are being addressed...but too much energy is being spent reinventing the "man contributes significantly to global warming" wheel.)

[SeattleUte]

Just fyi

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion..._climate_dogma