Real World Event Discussions

In the interest of fairness about climate change

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Thursday, February 23, 2012 00:43
VIEWED: 2732
PAGE 1 of 3

Sunday, February 19, 2012 6:01 PM

Just to screw up those who call me a die-hard liberal and whatever other left-wing pejoratives they can come up with, I offer this:

Quote:

Smoke and Mirrors in the Climate Debate

A new book by an executive at a major German power ultility claims we aren't facing a climate catastrophe and rejects current mainstream ideas on global warming. Both climate change skeptics and those who warn of global warming profit from such controversies -- so who should we believe?

Science can be so easy -- at least when it is stripped of its nuances. Fritz Vahrenholt and his colleague, geologist Sebastian Lüning, say the world isn't facing a climate catastrophe. The two are peddling precisely the kind of theory that generates publicity and allows both sides of the debate to profit. But it also leaves people wondering who they should believe.

The authors both work for German electric utility company RWE, where Vahrenholt is an executive. In their book "Die Kalte Sonne" ("The Cold Sun"), they claim that important research about climate change has been kept under wraps and that cries of an impending climate catastrophe are misleading. Their book arrived in book stores in Germany last week, with considerable media attention.

Following their statements, newspapers like the conservative tabloid Bild are dismissing what they call the "CO2 lie." This camp says it's not greenhouse gases that are behind the problem. It's the sun that determines climate change, they argue.

The book is the latest salvo in the ongoing debate over global climate change. It's a perpetual conflict that leaves people asking questions like: What's really going on with the climate? What kind of picture can you draw from current research? The most reliable source on the topic is the climate report produced by the United Nations. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) puts together a report every few years about the state of knowledge in the field. The report documents in detail where researchers are unsure or just don't know. Contrary to what many IPCC critics say, however, the report reads like a book filled with doubts. But there's also a "summary for political decision makers" section, which is put together by civil servants rather than researchers, and which can appear to be biased in places.

Feeding the Conspiracy Theorists The ideas espoused in Vahrenholt and Lüning's book can also be found in the UN climate report. Yet the two still accuse the IPCC of concealing the true facts. By spreading that claim, they are further fueling conspiracy theorists.

The fact that the IPCC has come to different conclusions than the two authors is simply because its report contains not only the theory being promoted by Vahrenholt-Lüning, but also myriad others. Indeed, judgments about climate change cannot be reached as easily as the two RWE authors would have one think. In an attempt to justify himself, Varenholt told SPIEGEL in an interview he wanted to "revitalize the deadlocked debate."

Vahrenholt and his allies have jumped headfirst into an emotionally charged debate between those who warn of climate change and those who are skeptical of it. The problem is that both sides profit from the conflict -- at the expense of the general public and scientific credibility. On the one side are the scientists, lobby groups and commentators who are constantly talking about a "consensus" among climate researchers. But for many important questions, this supposed consensus never even existed. On the other side are critics like Vahrenholt and Lüning, with their extreme theories.

An Old Theory with Little Evidence

The case of Vahrenholt and Lüning is a clear-cut one: They've handpicked the theories that best back their thesis -- the primary one being that the sun has been getting weaker since 2005 and will continue to do so in the coming decades. Together wit

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2012 6:19 PM

Again, both sides have their motivation.

Is Venice deeper under water than before?
Is there less ice in the Arctic?
Are storms more unpredictable than ever before in your lifetime?
Can you make as many snowmen recently as you could when you were a kid?

You don't even need the so-called experts. If you have half a brain, you know what's happening.
Now if you want to haggle over the *CAUSE*, be my guest. I don't really care, since it isn't a thing that can be stopped, nature-caused, man-made, or some combination.




The not-so-much-laughing-anymore Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2012 6:35 PM

Quote:

Is Venice deeper under water than before?


Hello,

That's a bad example, I think. Venice's construction is responsible for its sinking, not the global water level.

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2012 9:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Now if you want to haggle over the *CAUSE*, be my guest. I don't really care, since it isn't a thing that can be stopped, nature-caused, man-made, or some combination.



Pretty much my view.

If it's not man-made, there's no way to stop it and efforts should be made to prepare for the effects.

If it is man-made, there's probably still no way to stop it, as folks in China and India (and sooner or later, Africa) are gonna want their A/C and TV and cars too, and aren't going to give them up because the folks who've already got them ask nice. So once again the only thing to do is prepare for the effects.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2012 9:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Again, both sides have their motivation.



Well heyall yeah they do ! MY motivation is massive socio/economic taxes, rules and regulations which will yield to exactly ZERO in " solving " the climate issue.

Because there IS no climate issue. There certainly is no crisis. Man adapts to climate,it does not adapt to man.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2012 10:22 PM

Anthony; I agree. When we were in Venice way back in the early '60s, they had planks all over the place because of the water rising...it's the construction and, depending on the water level, it endures floods. That's been an issue for eons, they can just never figure out/agree on how to "fix" it.

Gee whiz, I guess water doesn't "adapt" to man either, nor air, nor land, so we can ignore all the air, water and land pollution around us, 'cuz it's just natural. You betcha.

Oh, wait, isn't air "climate" too?

Think I'll go find more entertaining things to do now, and leave Alt.Univ. to live his life here. Those who want to stay and argue his absurd points are welcome to do so. Keeps him busy, anyway.


NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2012 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:

Oh, wait, isn't air "climate" too?




And folks make fun of things Sarah Palin says ?

Crassic.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2012 4:37 AM


Hey, did anyone see The Age of Stupid starring Pete Postlethwaite?
It's set in the future. A historian looks back on Now.


"All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2012 5:30 PM

As Chris said, there are all kinds of "right now" events which demonstrate that the globe is warming, and there are others (ocean acidification) which point the finger at carbon dioxide. (Carbon dioxide dissolved in water create acid).

Aside from "right now", there is another causal indicator, which the Great Dying

Quote:

the Earth's most severe extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct. It is the only known mass extinction of insects.Some 57% of all families and 83% of all genera became extinct. Because so much biodiversity was lost, the recovery of life on Earth took significantly longer than after any other extinction event. This event has been described as the "mother of all mass extinctions."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event

There was a geological event which occurred back then: the formation of the Siberian Trappa (Traps, Stairs).

Quote:

The Siberian Traps (Russian: Сибирские траппы Sibirskie trappi) form a large region of volcanic rock, known as a large igneous province, in the Russian region of Siberia. The massive eruptive event which formed the traps, one of the largest known volcanic events of the last 500 million years of Earth's geological history, continued for a million years and spanned the Permian–Triassic boundary, about 251 to 250 million years ago....
Vast volumes of basaltic lava paved over a large expanse of primeval Siberia in a flood basalt event. Today the area covered is about 2 million km² – roughly equal to western Europe in land area

It was, as the geology books tell us, the largest volcanic event in Earth's history that we know of- larger than the formation of the Deccan Plateau, larger than any "super-volcano" that we've found (like Yellowstone, the last eruption a piddling 60 miles wide).

The unique feature of the Siberian Trappa was that the lava rose through vast coal fields. Massive amounts of methane and carbon dioxide were released over a million years, acidifying the ocean and turning it anoxic (without oxygen), which some scientists theorize expalins why so many ocean-based life forms died off.

The latest research which support this theory is the detection of coal flyash in ocean sediments from that time.

Quote:

The remains of these eruptions, called the Siberian Traps, now cover about 2 million square kilometers of Russia. ... over 1,000 Gt (Gigatonnes) of magma were released during the eruptions that created them, and they are thought to have put material into a plume that rose over 40 kilometers into the atmosphere.

Some researchers... have focused on a secondary effect of the eruptions: burning coal. There is evidence that the hot magma intruded into large deposits of coal found in Siberia and set it alight. Some estimates suggest that over 3 trillion tons of carbon could have been placed into the atmosphere through the burning of coal alone (that's in addition to the carbon dioxide released by the volcanism proper). That release would come in the form of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Methane is rapidly oxidized into carbon dioxide, which could then contribute to ocean acidification.

As if all of that weren't enough, the new paper, published in Nature Geoescience, indicates that the Siberian Traps eruptions might have added another insult to the oceans: toxic coal ash. The authors examined deep ocean sediments from a site that was off the west coast of the supercontinent at the time. To get there with the prevailing winds, material from the eruption would have to travel around the globe, a distance the authors estimate as more than 20,000 kilometers. And yet the sediments contain organic material that, under the microscope, looks remarkably similar to coal ash obtained from a modern power plant.

The authors were able to detect three pulses of this material derived from coal burning in the half-million years

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2012 5:44 PM

Hello,

Quote:

Some estimates suggest that over 3 trillion tons of carbon could have been placed into the atmosphere through the burning of coal alone (that's in addition to the carbon dioxide released by the volcanism proper)


Quote:

(From wikipedia) one tonne of atmospheric carbon is equivalent to 44/12 or 3.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide).


Quote:

(From wikipedia) The burning of fossil fuels produces around 21.3 billion tonnes (21.3 gigatonnes) of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year


Based on this evidence, and my discalcula, the prehistoric coal burning event would have produced 11.1 trillion tons of carbon dioxide.

Thus the prehistoric coal burning event described is equivalent to 521 (modern) years of fuel burning.

Unless I misplaced a decimal point. Which I do from time to time.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME