Climategate

[Guest]

I think it is unfortunate that yet even more worthless 'spinning' of this issue will ensue with the release of those email. I don't see a conspiracy - I see peers discussing aspects of analysis AND reporting.

we can be better stewards of the planet, but let's stick to real science like water quality air pollution.
or we can make some meaningless gestures to reduce CO2 that will result in less wealth and a lower quality of life.

In agreeing with you, I would frame your perspective as such:

Every call to action costs money - and that pot of money needed to address the many calls to action that are being made is not only finite but it is realistically shrinking. When it comes to climate change, I do not doubt that the climate is changing. It has been changing throughout recorded history and even geological history. The point of absurdity in my opinion is that one can deduce that the rate of change (for the positive or negative) can be reliably predicted with the curren information we have at hand. I think frazil is right in saying leave climate change to the climate scientists but I offer that there needs to be a modicum of scrutiny placed on the assumptions placed in this change, especially with respect to the what is driving the system.

The other point I offer is: let's accept, for a moment, that climate change is being spurred by increased level of greenhouse gases and particularly carbon dioxide. I have yet to see how anyone can reliably describe how the climte system is behaving, namely, the notion that there is a critical criteria at which things will become 'undone'. I have seen several reports that suggest a critical concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as well as calls that suggest 'emissions' by industrialized countries need to be reduced to offset the impending crisis. I don't see how anyone can prescribe a level of reduction of such concentrations that will rehabilitate the impending apocalypse even if there is a valid causality between greenhouse gas emissions and 'catastrophic' climate change.

I think Al Gore had one point right in this debate. Addressing issues pertaining to climate change is a moral issue, on a personal level. It all comes down to how the changes in climate will ultimately affect each soverign nation's ability to endure the attendant problems with the change in climate (e.g. rise in sea level, loss in arable land, reduced food production, strong storm systems, etc.). If one pegs this impending, catastrophic change on our industrialization and the conveniences we expect from our accepted way of life then it is going to take a moral, global consciousness to accept rationed resources. Ultimately, that's where this comes down - do you want to give up your higher standard of living? Do you want to be held morally culpable for this escalation in climate change and effectively pay reparations through the dismantling of our fossil-fuel generated power capacity? Do you want to artificially constrain the rate at which your country's economy can grow and potentially flourish by onerous environmental regulations? Do you want to do all of this without really understanding the cause and effect?

I, personally believe that political solutions are not going to prevent the onset of any global calamity. When it becomes a matter of your 'nationlized' interests at stake, I do not get a warm, fuzzy feeling about our country being auctioned off in the name of global warming.

I'm in the power business and it's staggering how much regulation is costing, and is being passed on to the consumer - billion$. And for what? To reduce emissions, not to solve regional problems which I believe in, but to solve global issues where that emission reduction sums to be percents of a percent of the natural emissions of the planet.

I am also in the power business and I can promise that the white house estimate that the propose climate bill will have on the average utility consumer is $15/month/household is an outright lie. This estimate assumes that a comparable, cleaner technology will be produced and implemented to be able to provide for baseload capacity. It is very foolhardy, IMHO, to assume a suitable, cleaner, equivalent cost alternative will be developed in the short term, near future.

The plan as it has been laid out is to make fossil fuel generation more expensive through added regulation in order to make other technologies seem more palatable. In terms of cost, I offer the following costs to produce energy by fuel source:

fossil fuel: $45/MW

wind: $100/MW

solar: $500/MW

What is even more tragic is that these costs ARE passed on to the customers since the costs are recovered thru rate cases. A utlity does not make or lose money based on the cost of fuel. The added costs of regulation are not costs born by the utility, they are ultimately born by the consumer of the power.

My personal study has led me to the conclusion that complex multivariable systems in homeostasis, like the Earth, are NOT fragile. We are not teetering. It's unfathomable to me how a system as vast and complex as the Earth can be driven into instability. The planet has absorbed meteor strikes and volcanic eruptions with hardly a wobble and we're worried about cow farts? Give me a break.

Interesting point - I have wondered about the ability to adequately model such a complex system when there are so many different variables that react in an 'uncoupled' way (e.g. not directly dependent).

I saw a graph one time about how much of the US would be devastated if the glaciers melted and the ocean rose 10 meters. It accompanied an article that declared the oceans were rising at a break neck pace of 2 millimeters per year. That's 5000 years. And that's assuming a linear progression, not taking into account that rising oceans would cool the planet and refreeze the glaciers.

I believe it is far easier to 'react' to changes in climate rather than try to pay to prevent those changes when you can't predict those changes reliably.

But then everything is linear if plotted log-log with a fat magic marker.

I just used that Akin's analogy yesterday to prove an absurd point!

JR

 

[Master slacker]

The stuff that has come out of my body today, going into the ocean to kill a baby seal ultimately makes more sense than the garbage being heaped on us by tree huggers.

Recycling is bullsh*t

****

 

[picusld]

When a scientist/climatologist can predict accurately the highs and lows of the weather tomorrow, then maybe I will start to believe that they have the ability to predict what it will be farther in the future.

My 2 cents

 

[Chucktown PE]

I have been saying that about hurricanes for about 5 years now. Every year some ********* out in Colorado predicts the number of hurricanes we're going to have in a given year. Maybe he ought to get his *** down to Florida and that will help but he doesn't appear to know ****. The last two years he has come out in September and "revised" his forecast to say that there won't be nearly as many as he thought there would be a month ago. But they can predict how hot it will be in 100 years. Give me a f-ing break.

 

[TouchDown]

Cow Farts.

That is all.

 

[MGX]

When a scientist/climatologist can predict accurately the highs and lows of the weather tomorrow, then maybe I will start to believe that they have the ability to predict what it will be farther in the future.
My 2 cents

That's the division between meteorologists and climatologists. Meteorologists use weather models to make predictions and climatologists are more likely to examine the geologic record for climate indicators since reliable measurements only go back a few hundred years.

Meteorology is still in its relative infancy while climatology is more solid.

/spend many an hour at the national weather center listening to the weather nerds slap fight over this stuff

 

[Dleg]

I have been saying that about hurricanes for about 5 years now. Every year some ********* out in Colorado predicts the number of hurricanes we're going to have in a given year. Maybe he ought to get his *** down to Florida and that will help but he doesn't appear to know ****. The last two years he has come out in September and "revised" his forecast to say that there won't be nearly as many as he thought there would be a month ago. But they can predict how hot it will be in 100 years. Give me a f-ing break.

Hey now ... I took atmospheric science 301 from that ********* (Dr. Gray, right?). But I don't think you can compare the tropical cyclone guys to the climate change guys. They aren't usually the same people, but one of the meteorologists on Guam, who works with the Colorado "*********" and the Navy on tropical cyclone predictions, does give me his occasional opinion. He's a humans-are-causing-climate-change skeptic, but he fully agrees the data is there that the climate is indeed changing. He gave an interesting talk to us recently about sea levels and temperatures and such. The interesting thing is the fluctuations - sea levels rise for a while, then they fall. And they rise in some places in fall in others. I have no idea how that can be.

BUT - to fall back on the defense of my old professor - the typhoon predictions for the western Pacific were very accurate this year. I think they're doing a might fine job.

And to echo the complaints above - those of us in the traditional environmental fields, aimed at preventing people from getting sick, are feeling a little abandoned by the EPA right now with all the money and emphasis on green energy now. GUYS!!!! We still don't have 24-hour, potable water out here yet!!!!! First things first!

 

[wilheldp_PE]

GUYS!!!! We still don't have 24-hour, potable water out here yet!!!!! First things first!

Seriously, when have you ever needed potable water at 3 in the morning?

 

[Chucktown PE]

Hey now ... I took atmospheric science 301 from that ********* (Dr. Gray, right?). But I don't think you can compare the tropical cyclone guys to the climate change guys. They aren't usually the same people, but one of the meteorologists on Guam, who works with the Colorado "*********" and the Navy on tropical cyclone predictions, does give me his occasional opinion. He's a humans-are-causing-climate-change skeptic, but he fully agrees the data is there that the climate is indeed changing. He gave an interesting talk to us recently about sea levels and temperatures and such. The interesting thing is the fluctuations - sea levels rise for a while, then they fall. And they rise in some places in fall in others. I have no idea how that can be.
BUT - to fall back on the defense of my old professor - the typhoon predictions for the western Pacific were very accurate this year. I think they're doing a might fine job.

They suck for predicting hurricanes in the Atlantic

And to echo the complaints above - those of us in the traditional environmental fields, aimed at preventing people from getting sick, are feeling a little abandoned by the EPA right now with all the money and emphasis on green energy now. GUYS!!!! We still don't have 24-hour, potable water out here yet!!!!! First things first!

Now that's just crazy talk. We need to study wind turbines off the shore of Nova Scotia before you can get potable water 24 hours a day.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

They suck for predicting hurricanes in the Atlantic

yeah, they do, but I believe it is a lot harder to do in the Atlantic because of the vast differences in water temp and atmospheriic conditions.

The Pacific is a lot biggger and, from what I've been told, more uniform in temps.

 

[Chucktown PE]

Just my point, yet somehow some ********* is predicting what is going to happen with the climate 100 years from now. They all say we're going to have increased hurricane activity as a way to scare us all.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

This site contains some of the emails....

http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2009/11/rolo...e-verdades.html

 

[Dleg]

Just my point, yet somehow some ********* is predicting what is going to happen with the climate 100 years from now. They all say we're going to have increased hurricane activity as a way to scare us all.

The U of Guam guy thinks this may actually reverse. The west Pacific just went through the three quietest years in history (until this year which is back to normal or above) for tropical cyclone activity. He calls it "The Big Nothing" and is telling people in his lectures that the world after climate change may actually be milder and more homogenized, but no one can possibly say that with any accuracy. He just likes to point out that so far the dire warnings about super storms are not coming true, and if anything, the opposite is occurring.

 

[cement]

I've been driving my prius in circles trying to help, it looks like it's working!

 

[Supe]

I've been driving my prius in circles trying to help, it looks like it's working!

:Locolaugh:

 

[Dleg]

^Well, it really depends on whether he was driving it clockwise or counterclockwise. He could actually be hurting things, depending on which hemisphere he lives in.