'O'ministration conceals environmental report

[billvon 2,436]

>Global warmers use that dramatic footage of glaciers growing to prove
>that they are shrinking.

Just as deniers use dramatic pictures of the sun baking a desert to "prove" that it's all the sun's doing - even though the sun's output has been lower than normal this solar cycle. So? That's proof that both sides use drama to make their points.

>You point to folks who are losing beach front as proof, yet if I were to
>point to the cooler than normal temps in the Northeast, you would call me
>a knuckle-dragging denier . . .

I don't think you're a knuckle-dragging denier. I think you've just noticed a cold snap. (And yes, when it gets to be 120 degrees somewhere this summer, that's not proof of global warming either.)

>You discount recent and more accurate data and expand or contract your
>time window to fit your beliefs.

Nope. I am happy to accept any data at all.

>FYI, I am an environmentalist who started out believing in AGW, but
>became alarmed at the ferver with which it was defended. Shakespear
>comes to mind... "Methinks thou dost protest too much."

The "I used to be an environmentalist" angle is second only to the "I used to be a democrat but now that Obama has been elected I must sadly change my party" angle. Excellent drama without any meaning.

>No black helicopters here; just open-minded thinking.

Well, there's a lot to be said for 100% open thinking. It gave us the "Moon landing hoax", the second shooter, the 9/11 conspiracy theories and the latest "Obama will grab your guns." It can be fun indeed.

Unfortunately, nature is not much swayed by "open-minded thinking."

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>You discount recent and more accurate data and expand or contract your time window to fit your beliefs.

Nope. I am happy to accept any data at all.

So long as said data doesn't come from some 'denier' source, sure.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,436]

>So long as said data doesn't come from some 'denier' source, sure.

Nope, again, I am happy to accept data. I just don't always accept the denier's interpretations of it. For example, your favorite example - the Martian southern polar ice cap. It's been decreasing in size for three years per orbiter observations. Great, add that bit of data to the sum total of our knowledge, and we know a little bit more about the universe.

But some make the conclusion "therefore, there is only one possible cause - the sun is increasing its output!" Which is as stupid as seeing Uranus cool and deciding that the only possible explanation is that the sun is decreasing its output.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>So long as said data doesn't come from some 'denier' source, sure.

Nope, again, I am happy to accept data. I just don't always accept the denier's interpretations of it. For example, your favorite example - the Martian southern polar ice cap. It's been decreasing in size for three years per orbiter observations. Great, add that bit of data to the sum total of our knowledge, and we know a little bit more about the universe.

I wasn't talking about the polar glacier, Bill, and that's exactly my point. You have a VERY strong inclination to automatically dismiss anything that doesn't fit your preconcieved AGW theories. You assumed you knew what I was talking about, and when it didn't fit in, you automatically dismissed it as 'denier' claptrap.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[brenthutch 388]

"I am happy to accept data. I just don't always accept the denier's interpretations of it. "

Yep I am with you on that. That is why I dont believe in eveolution. I see all of the data but I dont accept the interetation of it by the deniers

[brenthutch 388]

TEN MYTHS of Global Warming



MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.


MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.



MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.



MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.


MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.


MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.



MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.

FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.


MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.



MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.


MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

[billvon 2,436]

How to talk to a "climate skeptic":


1. EVIDENCE THAT THE EARTH’S TEMPERATURE IS GETTING WARMER IS UNCLEAR

Warming is unequivocal. Weather stations, ocean measurements, decreases in snow cover, reductions in Arctic sea ice, longer growing seasons, balloon measurements, boreholes and satellites all show results consistent with the surface record of warming. The urban heat island effect is real but small; and it has been studied and corrected for. Analyses by NASA for example use only rural stations to calculate trends. Recently, work has shown that if you analyse long-term global temperature rise for windy days and calm days separately, there is no difference. If the urban heat island effect were large, you would expect to see a bigger trend for calm days when more of the heat stays in the city. Furthermore, the pattern of warming globally doesn’t resemble the pattern of urbanisation, with the greatest warming seen in the Arctic and northern high latitudes. Globally, there is a warming trend of about 0.8C since 1900, more than half of which has occurred since 1979.

2. IF THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WAS RISING, IT HAS NOW STOPPED

1998 was an exceptionally warm year because of the strong El Nino event. Variability from year to year is expected, and picking a specific warm year to start an analysis is “cherry-picking”; if you picked 1997 or 1999 you would see a sharper rise. Even so, the linear trends since 1998 are still positive.

3. THE EARTH HAS BEEN WARMER IN THE RECENT PAST

There have been many periods in Earth history that were warmer than today – if not the MWP, then maybe the last interglacial (125,000 years ago) or the Pliocene (three million years ago). Whether those variations were caused by solar forcing, the Earth’s orbital wobbles or continental configurations, none of those causes apply today. Evidence for a Mediaeval Warm Period outside Europe is patchy at best, and is often not contemporary with the warmth in Europe. As the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) puts it: “The idea of a global or hemispheric Mediaeval Warm Period that was warmer than today has turned out to be incorrect”. Additionally, although the Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than in the following few decades, it is now warmer still.

4. COMPUTER MODELS ARE NOT RELIABLE

Models are simply ways to quantify understanding of climate. They will never be perfect and they will never be able to forecast the future exactly. However, models are tested and validated against all sorts of data. Over the last 20 years they have become able to simulate more physical, chemical and biological processes, and work on smaller spatial scales. The 2007 IPCC report produced regional climate projections in detail that would have been impossible in its 2001 assessment. All of the robust results from modelling have both theoretical and observational support.

5. THE ATMOSPHERE IS NOT BEHAVING AS MODELS WOULD PREDICT

Lower levels of the troposphere are warming; but measuring the exact rate has been an uncertain process, particularly in the satellite era (since 1979). Readings from different satellites need to be tied together, and each has its own problems with orbital decay and sensor drift. Two separate analyses show consistent warming, one faster than the surface and one slightly less. Within the uncertainties of the data, there is no discrepancy that needs to be dealt with. Information from balloons has its own problems but the IPCC concluded this year: “For the period since 1958, overall global and tropical tropospheric warming estimated from radiosondes has slightly exceeded surface warming”.

6. CLIMATE IS MAINLY INFLUENCED BY THE SUN

Solar variations do affect climate, but they are not the only factor. As there has been no positive trend in any solar index since the 1960s (and possibly a small negative trend), solar forcing cannot be responsible for the recent temperature trends. The difference between the solar minimum and solar maximum over the 11-year solar cycle is 10 times smaller than the effect of greenhouse gases over the same interval.

7. A CARBON DIOXIDE RISE HAS ALWAYS COME AFTER A TEMPERATURE INCREASE NOT BEFORE

This is largely true, but largely irrelevant. Ancient ice-cores do show CO2 rising after temperature by a few hundred years – a timescale associated with the ocean response to atmospheric changes mainly driven by wobbles in the Earth’s orbit. However, the situation today is dramatically different. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere (35% increase over pre-industrial levels) is from human emissions. Levels are higher than have been seen in 650,000 years of ice-core records, and are possibly higher than any time since three million years ago.

8. LONG-TERM DATA ON HURRICANES AND ARCTIC ICE IS TOO POOR TO ASSESS TRENDS

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment project notes that systematic collection of data in parts of the Arctic began in the late 18th Century. The US National Hurricane Center notes that “organised reconnaissance” for Atlantic storms began in 1944. So although historical data is not as complete as one might like, conclusions can be drawn. And the IPCC does not claim that global warming will make hurricanes more frequent – its 2007 report says that if anything, they are likely to become less frequent, but more intense.

9. WATER VAPOR IS THE MAJOR GREENHOUSE GAS; CO2 IS RELATIVELY UNIMPORTANT

Water vapor is essentially in balance with the planet’s temperature on annual timescales and longer, whereas trace greenhouse gases such as CO2 stay in the atmosphere on a timescale of decades to centuries. The statement that water vapour is “98% of the greenhouse effect” is simply false. In fact, it does about 50% of the work; clouds add another 25%, with CO2 and the other greenhouse gases contributing the remaining quarter. Water vapour concentrations are increasing in response to rising temperatures, and there is evidence that this is adding to warming, for example in Europe. The fact that water vapour is a feedback is included in all climate models.

10. PROBLEMS SUCH AS HIV/AIDS AND POVERTY ARE MORE PRESSING THAN CLIMATE CHANGE

Arguments over the Kyoto Protocol are outside the realms of science, although it certainly will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions as far or as fast as the IPCC indicates is necessary. The latest IPCC Working Group 2 report suggest that the impact of man-made climate change will on balance be deleterious, particular to the poorer countries of the tropics, although colder regions may see benefits such as increased crop yields. Investment in energy efficiency, new energy technologies and renewables are likely to benefit the developing world.

[penniless 0]

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Top10.warmest.doc

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

Altho' suggested as a fact, that seems to be less than completely factual. Sea levels at Tuvalu have been found to be rising at a rate of 0.8 and 1.2 mm/year relative to the land.

That data (0.8 - 1.2 mm/yr) doesn't say anything specific w/r/t the cause (& one can hypothesize on it), but it does suggest some skepticism, at least in my mind, w/r/t the veracity of "myths and facts" posted.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[brenthutch 388]

What about nuclear power? France gets about 80% of its electrical power from nuclear power. Surely we can do as well as France. If global warmers were interested in cutting down on CO2 they would clearly support this. If we could take all of the money we have yet to spend on the economic stumululs we could build about 50 power plants, put people to work cut down on our dependance on forgin oil and greatly reduce our co2 foot print. Can I get a hell yeh from Bill?

[billvon 2,436]

>Can I get a hell yeh from Bill?

Sure. I'm all for nuclear power plants as baseline generators. There are a lot of options:

PBMR's are about as safe as they come, and can be built anywhere.

CANDU reactors are almost 100% proliferation proof since they can run on natural (unenriched) uranium.

Thorium reactors require very little fuel, and breed their own fuel as they operate. The fuel is cheap and plentiful; you need only a tiny amount of seed uranium to start the reaction.

AP600 designs, which are traditional PWR and BWR reactors with inherently safe failure modes.

Lead cooled fast reactors could provide power for small cities in out of the way locations with almost no maintenance and no refueling (once every 20 years.) Heck, put one of these next to a wind tunnel, run the tunnel (or several) and sell the excess.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Sure. I'm all for nuclear power plants as baseline generators. There are a lot of options:

PBMR's are about as safe as they come, and can be built anywhere.

CANDU reactors are almost 100% proliferation proof since they can run on natural (unenriched) uranium.

Thorium reactors require very little fuel, and breed their own fuel as they operate. The fuel is cheap and plentiful; you need only a tiny amount of seed uranium to start the reaction.

AP600 designs, which are traditional PWR and BWR reactors with inherently safe failure modes.

Lead cooled fast reactors could provide power for small cities in out of the way locations with almost no maintenance and no refueling (once every 20 years.) Heck, put one of these next to a wind tunnel, run the tunnel (or several) and sell the excess.

You know as much as i am happy New Zealand is Nuclear free, we have the luxury of using hydro electric dams to generate the lions share of our power.

This is not the case for the rest of the world however so I am inclined to agree here, I am interested though about the residue/waste produced by these new fandangle reactors?

It seems nuclear energy is a good answer but with inherent dangers and repercussions?

Are we getting any closer to cold fusion?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[billvon 2,436]

>This is not the case for the rest of the world however so I am inclined to
>agree here, I am interested though about the residue/waste produced by
>these new fandangle reactors?

They all generate waste; I'm just not as concerned about it. Build a big concrete pad in the desert, vitrify the waste and put it in dry cask storage. Or reprocess it. Or transmute it. It's a lot better than just exhausting nuclear waste into the atmosphere or dumping it on the ground, which is what coal power plants do.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

>This is not the case for the rest of the world however so I am inclined to
>agree here, I am interested though about the residue/waste produced by
>these new fandangle reactors?

They all generate waste; I'm just not as concerned about it. Build a big concrete pad in the desert, vitrify the waste and put it in dry cask storage. Or reprocess it. Or transmute it. It's a lot better than just exhausting nuclear waste into the atmosphere or dumping it on the ground, which is what coal power plants do.

I know this has been discussed before, but could we simply incinerate it in a much larger reactor?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

>This is not the case for the rest of the world however so I am inclined to
>agree here, I am interested though about the residue/waste produced by
>these new fandangle reactors?

They all generate waste; I'm just not as concerned about it. Build a big concrete pad in the desert, vitrify the waste and put it in dry cask storage. Or reprocess it. Or transmute it. It's a lot better than just exhausting nuclear waste into the atmosphere or dumping it on the ground, which is what coal power plants do.

I know this has been discussed before, but could we simply incinerate it in a much larger reactor?

And the waste from the much larger reactor goes where?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

And the waste from the much larger reactor goes where?

Chicago, I think. Nothing good has ever come out of that place anyway.


(well, aside from I-65 South)

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

And the waste from the much larger reactor goes where?

Chicago, I think. Nothing good has ever come out of that place anyway.


(well, aside from I-65 South)

Plagiarism! And plagiarising an alcoholic three time loser too!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,436]

>I know this has been discussed before, but could we simply incinerate it in a
>much larger reactor?

Yes, that's transmutation. Bombardment of nuclear waste transmutes most of it to lower level waste. But it's energy intensive and hard to do without fusion.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

What about nuclear power? France gets about 80% of its electrical power from nuclear power. Surely we can do as well as France.

Approximately 1 out 10 lightbulbs in the US is supplied with electricity generated using down-blending fissile material from former Soviet nuclear weapons (highly enriched uranium specifically ... courtesy of Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs).

Even if one magically removed requirements for safety/security/reduction of risk, magically had the ‘perfect’ site, or separated out politics, the manufacturing capacity for reactor vessels is inadequate.

Japan Steel Works is the only supplier of 600MT castings that are required for reactor vessels. They produce 4-6 per year and aim to increase to 10-12 per year. There’s a line. Japan Steel Works charges to *get* in line; countries/companies are selling their spot in line to high bidders. A couple South Korean firms make smaller ones. The last US manufacturer closed its doors over a decade ago, i.e., we lost that domestic manufacturing capability.

In the US, B&W (who manage DOE’s Y-12 as part of consortia) is looking to upscale capability but even the best scenarios would not have the manufacturing capacity for at most 10 reactors in the next 5 years … & that’s a very optimistic scenario.

Even though each additional nuclear power plant obviates the need for six coal plants, on average by reasonable estimates, in the long-term nuclear energy will not provide the required energy. Need other increases in efficiency and alternative energy sources (wind, geothermal, hydro) – including fusion – and ultimately – unless the world and the US catastrophically changes energy demands – need solar. Everything else is just re-arranging oil barrels & windmills on OPEC supertankers. And no, we still have very few good ideas on what to do with nuclear waste; Yucca Mountain has a closed sign on it now. Effectively we're ignoring that issue and leaving it for our children, grandchildren, etc.

The ultimate solar energy conundrum really isn’t cost of cells or efficiency, imo; it’s the fact that it’s really hard to make money selling sunlight. It's free. It's hard to build a business plan selling something that's free. Once someone figures out a way to make money off of selling sunlight, it will be a gold mine. It’s not a knock on capitalism; it’s tragedy of commons.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

>This is not the case for the rest of the world however so I am inclined to
>agree here, I am interested though about the residue/waste produced by
>these new fandangle reactors?

They all generate waste; I'm just not as concerned about it. Build a big concrete pad in the desert, vitrify the waste and put it in dry cask storage. Or reprocess it. Or transmute it. It's a lot better than just exhausting nuclear waste into the atmosphere or dumping it on the ground, which is what coal power plants do.

I know this has been discussed before, but could we simply incinerate it in a much larger reactor?

In addition to Bill's comments, there is another technically viable option: incinerate nuclear waste in the sun, which is a much larger reactor.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[1969912 0]

technically

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[brenthutch 388]

not to beat a dead horse, but here is another link that further illistrates the point that some in the global warming comunity are not interested in science
that questions their views

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html