Banning the term climate change won’t stop the reality

[Swerd]

Yes, but they were talking about methods that would release the sulfuric acid several miles up such as occurs during some of the more violent volcano eruptions. Burning coal is different. Later tonite, I'll look for the passage in the book for specifics. I don't even know if it'll work but it's an experiment that's not irreversible.

I see. Kind of like ozone, essential at very high altitudes, but harmful down near the surface.

 

[Swerd]

It comes down to analyzing risk vs. benefit. Of course, this analysis has to be done with a cool head, and all estimates of risk or benefit are at best projections. With the present contentiousness, those with cool heads cannot be heard over the hot heads.

In oncology, the life-threatening nature of various cancers justify exposing patients to toxic drugs or dangerous treatments, such as radiation, which would never be used without a possible benefit. Cool-headed professionals at the FDA make these kind of judgements every day. Unfortunately, no such mechanism exists to assess the risks of ignoring climate change or the possible benefits from attempting to "treat" it.

 

[Chu Gai]

I see. Kind of like ozone, essential at very high altitudes, but harmful down near the surface.

That's my understanding. The proposed costs were comparatively inconsequential. I don't think it would have an effect on rising sea waters as the mecchanisms there from what I can tell aren't well understood. In a way it's almost comical that we seem to have a better understanding of the universe than our own world.

And Gene, china isn't on the moon for He3. They're there to start building the first PF Changs. It'll be a spot to graba bite before heading off to Mars.

 

[KEW]

In oncology, the life-threatening nature of various cancers justify exposing patients to toxic drugs or dangerous treatments, such as radiation, which would never be used without a possible benefit. Cool-headed professionals at the FDA make these kind of judgements every day. Unfortunately, no such mechanism exists to assess the risks of ignoring climate change or the possible benefits from attempting to "treat" it.

We will need to wait until the effects of global warming are "in our faces" such that controversial/desperate measures such as sulfur release or iron seeding are more widely accepted. It certainly makes sense to give ideas like these time to be considered by people who would best understand and foresee possible outcomes before pulling the trigger.
Resistance by environmental groups will wane as the effects of global warming become more and more obvious.
Lucky for the FDA, they have the benefit of cumulative historical data for efficacy of these dangerous treatments.
Countermeasures to global warming have no history. Seems like a small scale localized trial of iron seeding might be useful to have data to work with. I'm inclined to believe (but I am just guessing) the Sulfur approach would need to be done on a larger scale to be useful, since the atmosphere is subject to being blown about.

 

[Swerd]

Lucky for the FDA, they have the benefit of cumulative historical data for efficacy of these dangerous treatments.

The FDA has the benefit of federal law, The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. 109 years ago was a very different time than 2015.

Seems like a small scale localized trial of iron seeding might be useful to have data to work with.

It's already been done 9 times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#Experiments.

I'd never heard of the burning sulfur idea until Chu Gai mentioned it here, so I've no clue if its been tried.

 

[Chu Gai]

Here's a bit more information on the sulphur thing from the freakonomics website. It should clarify their thoughts and position. It's worth noting, that the idea met with rapid objections largely by the places in support of the position of global warming.

http://freakonomics.com/2009/10/18/global-warming-in-superfreakonomics-the-anatomy-of-a-smear/

 

[TheWarrior]

Ooo I wish I could afford to be that patient! We are literally seeing thousands of species dying off every year. But no one cares that Aegolius gradyi was declared extinct, but when sea food becomes scarce, we're already past 'in your face,' we're 'screwed.'

It is very short sighted for anyone to think human influence on 'climate change' is limited to the 'Local on the 8's' Forecast.

 

[Chu Gai]

Reset the world's population. Cap the age expectancy.

 

[Swerd]

Thanks for that article about the sulfur burning. I'm not surprised at the response it got. There are misguided zealots on both sides of this issue, and they should be the last people to guide any efforts to deal with the problem.

The real problem is how do we best prevent the Earth's atmosphere from warming so much that it threatens not only us, but most life as we now know it. Not how do we reduce the consumption of fossil fuels. The two may or may not be directly related. But the solution to the problem may be quite different than merely burning less fossil fuels.

It also seems people have mistaken ideas about the loss of species through extinction. Evolution didn't go on only in prehistoric times. It continues today. As environmental conditions change and species die out, the niche they occupied becomes open for others to move in. This goes on whether the conditions change through natural or man-made reasons. The events that ended the dinosaur age were disasters for dinosaurs, but a boon for small mammals.

Our goal should be selfish – let me define selfish. We want to survive as a species. But we can't do that in isolation. We need an environment that supports many other species as well as ourselves. Of course, what I just said is a broad generalization, and the devil is in the details.

 

[shadyJ]

Reset the world's population. Cap the age expectancy.

Chu, I like the way you think.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Perhaps you've heard of the Keystone XL oil pipeline that our President just vetoed? This is a great example of countries finding their own sources. Except, its not our source, we're just going to spend billions to build it and ravage our own lands to build a pipe so Canada can refine SAND for us. So we'd pay a levy from Canada, and from the owners of the pipeline, which I believe was owned in sections and not as an entirety, to make it even more complicated.

I'm conflicted about the oil sands, as it is a tremendous resource with a great economic impact, but also carries much environmental baggage as I'm sure you're aware. But, the cynic in me sees this:
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-politics-of-emissions-keystone-is-an-easier-target-than-us-coal-fired-power-plants/article8783444/?service=mobile

I can't blame the Obama administration for blocking a pipeline from Alberta. After all, there aren't any voters there that he need concern himself with. It shores up support from the environmentalist sector. And, it allows coal mining and power generation to fly under the radar, even though it has a greater environmental impact than the oil sands. Plus, the current boom in US oil production is a result of fracking - which isn't free from controversy itself.

 

[ski2xblack]

Chu, please pardon me, but that Lindzen fellow is usually trotted out as a prime example of how not to do science. Your spirited defense of him aside, can you cite actual scientists working in actual science venues whose relevant research has withstood peer review that supports your complaints? (Good luck.) Consider for a moment, why don't other scientists cite him as an authority on anything? There is a reason why he publishes his astonishing discoveries on blogs and not in science journals, and other scientists cite him as an example of bad science.

Yes, the answer to all of these problems is simple: if you want to save the world, have a vasectomy. (That's not specifically for Chu but my sarcastic response to the Logan's Run, overpopulation angle.)

In the spirit of discussion on censorship, science, the lack thereof in our policy, and all the internecine squabbling, I submit this little gem.

 

[Chu Gai]

Chu, please pardon me, but that Lindzen fellow is usually trotted out as a prime example of how not to do science. Your spirited defense of him aside, can you cite actual scientists working in actual science venues whose relevant research has withstood peer review that supports your complaints? (Good luck.)

Well, if you're fighting a battle, you look to take out leaders. However, I've found in the past that both Lindzen and Hansen both respond to Emails. If you read the link, you'd find that some of Lindzen's bones of contention have to do with how much of the warming can be attributed to human activity, difficulties in obtaining accurate measurements, lack of perspective, the need to investigate different models, etc. This does not seem to me to be such a bad thing.

Now take a look at this summary of Hansen's work, https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-at-nasa/ and tell me just how there can be any peer review. Stuff is changing all the time

Consider for a moment, why don't other scientists cite him as an authority on anything? There is a reason why he publishes his astonishing discoveries on blogs and not in science journals, and other scientists cite him as an example of bad science.

But they do. Perhaps not the ones you're looking at. As far as his publications over the years, email him.

Yes, the answer to all of these problems is simple: if you want to save the world, have a vasectomy. (That's not specifically for Chu but my sarcastic response to the Logan's Run, overpopulation angle.)

In the spirit of discussion on censorship, science, the lack thereof in our policy, and all the internecine squabbling, I submit this little gem.

If China can't get get population control done, no country can. No UN mandate will ever be agreed to. But with the rapid development of understanding the human genome, tailoring food, creating and modifying viruses, really are we that far away that a group of environmental activists, skilled in the art, could target specific and unique genetic code to turn the average lifetime from whatever it is now to 20 years less, create targeted mass sterility? And IF someone figured out what was happening, it'd be too late.

 

[Rickster71]

......In the spirit of discussion on censorship, science, the lack thereof in our policy, and all the internecine squabbling, I submit this little gem.

Within the site you linked to I found another little gem, as you mentioned:
http://harmful.cat-v.org/science/global_warming

Global warming scaremongering
Anyone that questions that there is global warming is seriously delusional. But anyone who gets their scientific information from a ‘documentary’ by a politician is just as delusional.

While there is no doubt that global warming is real, and there is no doubt either that human activity is at the very least one of the main factors contributing to it, it is not clear at all what the medium/long term consequences of global warming will be.
That is reason enough to be careful, but only fools (or people with other agendas, like politicians and huge subsidized agribusiness ethanol producers) jump into scaremongering.

Of course in the end everyone will believe whatever they want to believe, and reality and science be damned.

There is a reason most scientists hate to speak to the media, they are systematically quoted out of context and manipulated for all kinds of agendas, of course that makes things even worse as most people can’t be bothered to read scientific journals or go to scientific conferences for themselves, or much more importantly, don’t understand how science works at all.

 

[markw]

Reset the world's population. Cap the age expectancy.

Somebody's seen "Logan's Run".

 

[Swerd]

While there is no doubt that global warming is real, and there is no doubt either that human activity is at the very least one of the main factors contributing to it, it is not clear at all what the medium/long term consequences of global warming will be.

That one sentence sums up the problem we face now.

It isn't clear if we must take action now; it isn't clear if action we do take will have any benefit in the future; nor is it clear that action will not make things worse. At the same time, caution and inaction might be irreversibly disastrous.

So which is worse? Our political system now allows these decisions, or lack-of-decisions, to be made by whoever swings the biggest club.

He who hesitates is lost, yet fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

 

[Chu Gai]

Somebody's seen "Logan's Run".

When I saw that movie, I thought to myself what type of calamity must have befallen the world for mankind to have created an environment such as that? Maybe it was in response to something like the speech Agent Smith gave Morpheus about humans being better described as a virus.

Our most noble efforts - organ transplants, medication, artificial insemination, ever increasing lifespans, the fight against cancer and other diseases, etc., carry with it an environmental cost.

 

[Rickster71]

That one sentence sums up the problem we face now.

Frankly, that entire post sums up what we face now.
This is usually about the time I mention Confirmation Bias

It isn't clear if we must take action now; it isn't clear if action we do take will have any benefit in the future; nor is it clear that action will not make things worse. At the same time, caution and inaction might be irreversibly disastrous.

It was very warm in 1100 BC, warm again during the Roman Empire and very warm in 1300 AD. Two of those occurrences warmer than we are now.
Makes we wonder how primitive man pulled us out of that?

I've read where some scientist are researching Solar Radiation and our increase in Sun Spot activity, in relation to warming.

 

[Irvrobinson]

That one sentence sums up the problem we face now.

It isn't clear if we must take action now; it isn't clear if action we do take will have any benefit in the future; nor is it clear that action will not make things worse. At the same time, caution and inaction might be irreversibly disastrous.

The challenge is that such clarity is unlikely to ever be attained. Reasonable actions seem to be called for. Doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in a short period of time seems like something we should try to avoid. I'm no expert at all, but I do wonder if we're fixated on the wrong threat. I worry more about ocean chemistry than I do about warming. Changing the ph of the oceans seems like a really bad idea.

 

[gene]

Frankly, that entire post sums up what we face now.
This is usually about the time I mention Confirmation Bias



It was very warm in 1100 BC, warm again during the Roman Empire and very warm in 1300 AD. Two of those occurrences warmer than we are now.
Makes we wonder how primitive man pulled us out of that?

I've read where some scientist are researching Solar Radiation and our increase in Sun Spot activity, in relation to warming.

No credible science has linked sun spot activity with climate change. That is yet another fallacy to perpetuate the circle of confusion. Next someone is going to cite recent volcanic activity as the cause. Ignorance is bliss.