Earth's Mantle Affects Long-Term Sea-Level Rise Estimates

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

I take it that you agree that a climate model is a hypothesis...

Sure.

One problem here is that in science we recognize that we can only know when a hypothesis is false, when the outcome of controlled experiments disagrees with the predictions of the hypothesis. We can never know for sure that a hypothesis is correct, so instead we substitute statistical tests and provisionally accept a hypothesis based on (usually) 95% confidence intervals (or sometimes 99%, depending on issues such as sample size, number of replicates, etc). That implicitly recognizes a 5% (or 1%) chance that our hypothesis is actually false, and we got our results by statistical fluke (like flipping a coin and getting heads 100 times in a row, improbable but not impossible). If you consider the inherent variability of the weather, one needs to have a very large deviation from historical averages before you can say with 99% confidence that temperature/rainfall/whatever is different from what it used to be. If you consider the uncontrolled nature of the experiment we are doing with atmospheric CO2, it will always be possible for deniers to claim that observed changes in climate are due to mysterious or unknown "natural cycles", and so reducing CO2 emissions will always be argued to be futile. One way around the dilemma would be to reduce atmospheric CO2 by stopping emissions and increasing carbon sinks, then increase CO2, then decrease it, and apply a time-series analysis to see if temperature or other climate measures track with CO2 levels. It would be a good idea to start this experiment now by making the effort to reduce CO2, but we both know that won't happen. The whole system is tailor made to allow the deniers to either deny that anything is happening, or deny that human activities have anything to do with it, in perpetuity.

You seem to be arguing that we should wait for 100% (or 99.9%) certainty before starting to do anything. That would be appropriate if we were talking about an esoteric theory with no impact on day to day life. We are not, though. Leaving aside the hyperbolic rhetoric about "the end of the planet" (which won't be what happens), we could be talking about relatively rapid changes resulting in the displacement of large numbers of people and major disruption of crop production. For example, shifting agriculture north would mean shifting it up to the Canadian Shield, where the glaciers scraped the land down to bare bedrock. Northern Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba will never be the new breadbasket of America, because you can't grow wheat (or anything else) without soil, no matter how many frost-free days you may have. Sure, there have been major changes in the climate in the geological past, but those changes were not superimposed on dense human populations. Is it ethical to wait until you are 99.9% certain that change is happening and is at least largely due to anthropogenic inputs before taking any action, if you know that those changes will be irreversible (on any practical time scale) and are likely to have dramatically adverse impacts on a significant fraction of the human population?

Another thing that worries me is that past greenhouse driven climate events have not been simple linear relationships between CO2 and temperature. For example, the end-of-the-Permian event that resulted in the extinction of about 95% of the species in both terrestrial and marine ecosystems proceeded by a series of step-like increases. The process was initiated (it is currently thought) by volcanoes erupting through a large coal field in present-day Siberia, igniting the coal deposits and resulting in release of large amounts of CO2 and methane. As the deep oceanic water warmed, deposits of methane hydrides on the sea floor turned to gas, turning the oceans anoxic (as the methane displaced dissolved oxygen) and increasing atmospheric methane, further exacerbating the greenhouse temperature increases leading to more ocean warming, more methane release, and so on. So it may not be safe to assume that climate change will necessarily be a smooth, gradual, and reversible process.

How does one balance the desire for certainty before taking action with the risk that delaying too long will unleash sudden and irreversible climate jumps? How much risk is it ethical to take? How does one do a cost/benefit analysis under such circumstances?

Increasing energy efficiency, substituting nuclear for coal generated electricity (as StreetScooby suggests), deploying efficient solar power systems, improving mass transit: what is the downside? A few less people employed in coal mining, I suppose, but hopefully that will be balanced by increased jobs in new energy-related industries. My great grandfather's hay business went bankrupt when cars replaced horses for day to day transportation, but few would argue we should have protected the hay industry and kept cars at bay. Indeed the auto industry employs many more people than hay farming ever did. And, we could stop shipping vast amounts of money to the Middle East in exchange for oil. Getting unchained from the Saudis would be a great thing in it's own right.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[lawrocket 3]

I think you make some fantastic points.

[Reply]The whole system is tailor made to allow the deniers to either deny that anything is happening, or deny that human activities have anything to do with it, in perpetuity.

[billvon 2,402]

>You asked "where is the downside?" That's the problem - there are hundreds of
>thousands of people who rely on petrochemical for their livelihoods. Ask them, "where's
>the downside?" They'll tell you. And their concerns are real and legitimate. But it's like
>they are just flippantly put aside as unworthy of actual consideration.

Yes, as were the hay farmers, the stable hands, the sanitation workers (horse poop was big business in cities) etc. And they watched as the government paid for the roads, traffic cops and bridges that would guarantee the car would drive them out of business.

Were their concerns legitimate? Of course. Should the government have refused to build roads to keep them in business?

>I think that by not just brushing aside the concerns of people who DO face a pretty big
>downside, there can be progress. There is no such thing as "best for everybody." The
>downsides are there.

Of course. However, both the auto and oil industries have a long history of claiming that any regulatory change will bankrupt them, put them out of business, require everyone to drive sub-sub-compacts, reduce safety on the roads etc. And they have pretty much always been wrong. So when I see the latest "OMG fuel efficiency standards will lead to carnage on the road and kill your kids!" announcement I take it with a grain of salt.

[lawrocket 3]

Right. Because roads were a detriment to stagecoaches. Turns out that autos were less expensive to maintain and operate than horses. It wasn't the government that did that anymore than a ban on whaling sparked the kerosene industry.

If market forces destroy an industry (like whale oil or punch cards) then I have no problem. If the government stamps out an industry (I.e. Nuclear power) then I have a problem - especially when it is done on the basis of a rhetorical panic. Like nuclear power.

Nuclear power is a perfect example of short-sighted rhetoric. Fearmongering policy. That is now being questioned.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Stumpy 256]

lawrocket

I'm glad to see some recognition that deniers aren't so much "anti-science" as having legitimate questions about the evidence/conclusions. It's actually an important step in dispute resolution - a recognition of legitimacy and that reasonable minds can differ.

That depends entirely on the denier. You (and a small number of others) generally come out with some valid, reasonable points that raise excellent questions and need to be answere scientifically.

Others, a very vocal group, are excellent at completely misinterpreting anything they read to fit what is often a pretty transparent energy shill's viewpoint. Unfortunately this loses the message from those better informed and educated such as yourself. To a certain extent, this happens on both sides however the consensus of research sits heavily on the pro AGW side. That doesn't mean it's all correct, however it does mean that the deniers need to be very careful and just about faultless in their methodology, otherwise they come across in the same vein as as flat earthers, or young earth creationists, denying everything.

(Which always reminds me of the "deny everything baldrick" moment in blackadder )

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Increasing energy efficiency, substituting nuclear for coal generated electricity (as StreetScooby suggests), deploying efficient solar power systems, improving mass transit: what is the downside? A few less people employed in coal mining, I suppose, but hopefully that will be balanced by increased jobs in new energy-related industries. My great grandfather's hay business went bankrupt when cars replaced horses for day to day transportation, but few would argue we should have protected the hay industry and kept cars at bay. Indeed the auto industry employs many more people than hay farming ever did. And, we could stop shipping vast amounts of money to the Middle East in exchange for oil. Getting unchained from the Saudis would be a great thing in it's own right.

+1

None of these require increased government control over our lives, or increased taxation. If anything, government should get out of the way and let the market work.

We are all engines of karma

[rushmc 18]

Stumpy

*** I'm glad to see some recognition that deniers aren't so much "anti-science" as having legitimate questions about the evidence/conclusions. It's actually an important step in dispute resolution - a recognition of legitimacy and that reasonable minds can differ.

That depends entirely on the denier. You (and a small number of others) generally come out with some valid, reasonable points that raise excellent questions and need to be answere scientifically.

Others, a very vocal group, are excellent at completely misinterpreting anything they read to fit what is often a pretty transparent energy shill's viewpoint. Unfortunately this loses the message from those better informed and educated such as yourself. To a certain extent, this happens on both sides however the consensus of research sits heavily on the pro AGW side. That doesn't mean it's all correct, however it does mean that the deniers need to be very careful and just about faultless in their methodology, otherwise they come across in the same vein as as flat earthers, or young earth creationists, denying everything.

(Which always reminds me of the "deny everything baldrick" moment in blackadder )

It is posts like yours here, posts that eviscerated and denigrate those you call deniers, that get you to offhand flippant reply’s. Regardless of facts and opinions other than those you approve of, statements/lies like some in your post are oft repeated as if the gospel.

When I do try and reply with info I have read elsewhere, either I, or the source, or both, are off handedly dismissed and insults or questions of education or understanding are spewed at posters who dare disagree. Example? Ooohhhhh, he works for an evil energy company. WAFJ. I disagree with the places my company wastes (IMO) money. Like on wind generation. It is not built because it makes sense. It is built for political gain only. And that is a sad waste of money. But it is a fact of doing business because of people who think as you do

In the end, your post here is a perfect example of that which your say you dislike


BTW
You post is also an attempt to silence dissent by doing those things I list above

Good luck with that
I am not going anywhere

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Stumpy 256]

Thankyou for making my point for me

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[rushmc 18]

Stumpy

Thankyou for making my point for me

You had already made mine
Just returning the favor

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[StreetScooby 5]

Just to add some levity to the thread...

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 2,402]

>If market forces destroy an industry (like whale oil or punch cards) then I have no
>problem. If the government stamps out an industry (I.e. Nuclear power) then I
>have a problem - especially when it is done on the basis of a rhetorical panic. Like
>nuclear power.

?? The government stamped out nuclear power? When did this happen? No nuclear power plant I am aware of has been closed by the US government recently. Indeed the Price-Anderson act represents a tremendous amount of subsidy to an industry that would otherwise have trouble getting insurance.

Do you support the Price-Anderson act?

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>If market forces destroy an industry (like whale oil or punch cards) then I have no
>problem. If the government stamps out an industry (I.e. Nuclear power) then I
>have a problem - especially when it is done on the basis of a rhetorical panic. Like
>nuclear power.

?? The government stamped out nuclear power? When did this happen? No nuclear power plant I am aware of has been closed by the US government recently. Indeed the Price-Anderson act represents a tremendous amount of subsidy to an industry that would otherwise have trouble getting insurance.

Do you support the Price-Anderson act?

Regulators have made it nearly impossible to site a plant

So passively, yes, the gov (state and fed) have stopped the nuke industry

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Can't build a nuke plant in CA. By law. Can't build it. There's a statute that prevents the building of a nuke plant until satisfactory disposal of spent fuel is made available. Which probably won't happen - ever. So the law would have to be repealed or superseded.

And yes, I object to Price-Anderson. Let the utilities with their government-imposed monopolies fund the stuff on their own.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,402]

>Can't build a nuke plant in CA. By law. Can't build it.

Can't build a solar power plant in California state forests, either. But I think you'd object if I claimed that therefore the government had "stamped out solar power."

>There's a statute that prevents the building of a nuke plant until satisfactory
>disposal of spent fuel is made available.

That seems pretty . . . sane. Leaving nuclear fuel in reactors forever is, in general, a bad idea.

>And yes, I object to Price-Anderson. Let the utilities with their government-
>imposed monopolies fund the stuff on their own.

Ending Price-Anderson would end nuclear power in the US. Insurance companies simply won't provide the level of coverage that nuclear power plants require. Thus, while nuclear power is currently supplying a significant portion of our power, if your desires were implemented nuclear power would be stamped out.

[billvon 2,402]

>Regulators have made it nearly impossible to site a plant
>So passively, yes, the gov (state and fed) have stopped the nuke industry

There are currently 3 nuclear reactors under construction and 9 are in the planning stages. Of the planned reactors, 2 are sited and have financing, the rest are in the approvals process. All of them rely on the Price-Anderson act to obtain insurance coverage.

You were saying?

[rushmc 18]

And how long has it taken them to get to those points?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,402]

>And how long has it taken them to get to those points?

A long time! It's a nuclear reactor. A lot goes into designing one of those things.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>And how long has it taken them to get to those points?

A long time! It's a nuclear reactor. A lot goes into designing one of those things.

That part I know

How long to get the permits?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Stumpy 256]

rushmc

***>And how long has it taken them to get to those points?

A long time! It's a nuclear reactor. A lot goes into designing one of those things.

That part I know

How long to get the permits?

You are reaching.
How long do you think it should take?

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

How long do you think it should take?

Well, if CO2 emissions are such a big deal,
and we need solutions now,
and the technology is proven (...the French can do it ),
why take years for an approval?

BTW, Cuomo is actually trying to close Indian Point.
It supplies >20% of NYC's power, and surrounding areas.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Nuclear is an excellent baseline solution - AP1000 type designs now, and thorium reactors/PBMR's in the future.

Quote

A long time! It's a nuclear reactor. A lot goes into designing one of those things.

I'm seeing a mismatch here in your own words.
Am I missing something?

We are all engines of karma

[rushmc 18]

Stumpy

******>And how long has it taken them to get to those points?

A long time! It's a nuclear reactor. A lot goes into designing one of those things.

That part I know

How long to get the permits?

You are reaching.
How long do you think it should take?

Not reaching
I know that it can take up to 12 years
I dont know how long those Bill listed have taken and how far along they are

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,402]

>why take years for an approval?

Because it's a nuclear power plant. If there ever was a project that you shouldn't "rubber stamp" it's a nuclear power plant.

[billvon 2,402]

>I'm seeing a mismatch here in your own words.

What mismatch?

A lot goes in to designing a nuclear power plant. The AP1000 is one such design that takes care of the basics. You still need to design the containment building, figure out cooling towers/local cooling resources, transportation for nuclear fuel, figure out evacuation plans etc. That's a bit more complex than getting a building permit for a Wal-Mart.

[StreetScooby 5]

So you're saying that, even with well established designs, taking years/decade to site a nuclear plant is reasonable?

We are all engines of karma