Anthropogenic Climate Change ( title changed ) - Assertion & Denial

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: Climate Change ( 3rd Version ) - Assertion & Denial

Climate change deniers are part of the 0.17% as far as peer reviewed science goes...
http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15...-one-pie-chart

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Climate Change ( 3rd Version ) - Assertion & Denial

(1) there are many ways to increase power, and we aren't close to tapping out. Continuing exponential growth will take centuries to exhaust energy resources.

As I wrote, history shows us that technological breakthroughs have little to no effect on the global trend. When we have more power available, we use it. It may change in the future, I don't know. But I have serious doubts.

For example, modern cars are much lighter than old cars and much more energy efficient. And any of these is more efficient than riding a horse carriage. Yet, none of these led to a reduction in total energy consumption.

And I do not agree that we are far from taping out.

The calculation is simple. In 1 hour, we receive as much energy from the sun as we consume in a year (total energy consumption, not just solar). Sounds good, we can still increase our energy consumption by a factor of:

24 x 365 = 8760

That's our theoretical limit, assuming 100% efficiency everywhere. It's a little ridiculous, because the earth would be covered in solar panels, but whatever. This is our theoretical limit for a sustainable operation.

What about +3%/year exponential energy consumption?

EC = 1.03^n

with EC being the relative energy consumption and 'n' being the number of years from now. How much time before EC reaches 8760? Surprisingly, it's only a bit over 300 years. And I'm making some ridiculously optimistic assumptions here.

For example, we could use only 50% of the incoming sunlight and assume 50% conversion efficiency (much better than currently). With these numbers, we get down to just over 250 years before reaching the limit. Add in a few other assumptions to be more realistic and you rapidly get under 200 years.

Not saying it will happen, just saying that it's an issue we should address now. Not in 200 years.

The main point is not that these are easy or guaranteed to happen. The point is that these are possible and good and necessary. Let's pursue them.

I totally agree with you here. My point is that technology is not the solution to our problem. It's only a way of delaying the issue (see above).

Mathieu

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Climate Change ( 3rd Version ) - Assertion & Denial

Random example: microwave lasers beaming energy through space.

Feel the heat :D



There are real prototypes of a useful energy transport using laser beams not just to fry warheads.

[Alan Baljeu]

Re: Climate Change ( 3rd Version ) - Assertion & Denial

Physics: there is just that much you can do with a certain amount of power... For example, our cars are roughly 20% efficient in terms of converting chemical energy into actual movement. Yes, you can gain a little bit, but not that much. A few generations at best.

Your 'exotic measures', in my view, imply discoveries that would change the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics. Good luck with that.

My point is not about predicting the exact date for a Malthusian apocalypse. Malthus himself was pretty stupid in his assumptions. However, the data clearly shows that we are on an unsustainable exponential growth track. If we don't address this issue, it will be a huge problem at some point in the future. Global warming is, in my view, a very good warning.

You're thinking along different lines than I am. I'm saying
(1) there are many ways to increase power, and we aren't close to tapping out. Continuing exponential growth will take centuries to exhaust energy resources.

(2) We probably are better off if we don't continue exponential growth. There are ways to reduce that curve. For your example of transportation, we can reduce the amount of transportation and the distances required. Dramatically reduce the weight of cars to reduce fuel. Develop local on-demand manufacturing. These steps are each limited measures that offset general growth trends, but they suffice for now.

(3) Exotic measures would be steps taken to mitigate the impact of our resource consumption, not new physics. I don't know what form that will be. Random example: microwave lasers beaming energy through space.

The main point is not that these are easy or guaranteed to happen. The point is that these are possible and good and necessary. Let's pursue them.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Rise of the machines...

http://science.howstuffworks.com/inn...ut.htm#page=10

We had better hide this invention from the Malthusian he man human haters club since the possibility does exist that it could be scaled up if they ever get tired of waiting for their predictions for the end of the world and actually started implementing a strategy to help bring the apocalypse about on an accelerated timetable. Today mice and bugs, tomorrow,... hunting humans...

[Vlad Drkulec]

Safe water for everyone

For those of you worried about global overpopulation and resource consumption it is time to get very worried as one of the key elements keeping populations in check is about to go away. Here is one product (one of several) that promises to give people in the developing world clean water on a very inexpensive basis when compared to the alternatives.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...r-purifier.htm

In the long term this should reduce the rate of overpopulation as people won't be tempted to have ten kids to make sure that two or three survive into adulthood.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Climate Change ( 3rd Version ) - Assertion & Denial

3. Major breakthroughs in production enabled continuing increases in consumption. This is true. To clarify what's different, suppose power production remains stagnant. Technology is coming which will drastically increase what we can do with that same power. Or, enable us to do more with less power. We won't need to grow power production or consumption.

If this is false, we may need to take more exotic measures to sustain things, but such are also becoming feasible.

Physics: there is just that much you can do with a certain amount of power... For example, our cars are roughly 20% efficient in terms of converting chemical energy into actual movement. Yes, you can gain a little bit, but not that much. A few generations at best.

Your 'exotic measures', in my view, imply discoveries that would change the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics. Good luck with that.

My point is not about predicting the exact date for a Malthusian apocalypse. Malthus himself was pretty stupid in his assumptions. However, the data clearly shows that we are on an unsustainable exponential growth track. If we don't address this issue, it will be a huge problem at some point in the future. Global warming is, in my view, a very good warning.

Mathieu

[Alan Baljeu]

Re: Climate Change ( 3rd Version ) - Assertion & Denial

That doesn't make any sense. History shows us that as soon as a cheaper/cleaner energy source comes up, we crave on it and rapidly get back to the unsustainable track.

Do you seriously think that a 10 fold decrease in energy cost/pollution means we can last 10 times longer? False. It means that everybody in the world can now afford our standard of living.

History lesson: Global energy consumption has been following an unsustainable exponential trend (+3%/year) for centuries. Major breakthroughs in terms of energy production occurred over that period and nothing ever changed. Why would it be different now?

1. It does make sense because the book isn't predicting efficiency; it's attempting to plan efficiencies, and not just little bits. We've been doing this with food production for some time. They have concrete ideas for the rest.

2. We're not talking about stagnation in technology nor stagnation in population or quality of life. All will increase, and we need to ensure the technology side is ahead of the consumption side.

3. Major breakthroughs in production enabled continuing increases in consumption. This is true. To clarify what's different, suppose power production remains stagnant. Technology is coming which will drastically increase what we can do with that same power. Or, enable us to do more with less power. We won't need to grow power production or consumption.

If this is false, we may need to take more exotic measures to sustain things, but such are also becoming feasible.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Climate Change

This is a free non-credit online course on climate change that will be starting in the future. I have already signed up for it. I'm suggesting others on either side of the debate might want to do the same. https://www.coursera.org/course/climatechange from the University of Melbourne. I have taken several other courses on Coursera and they have all been quite good.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Climate Change ( 3rd Version ) - Assertion & Denial

That doesn't make any sense. History shows us that as soon as a cheaper/cleaner energy source comes up, we crave on it and rapidly get back to the unsustainable track.

Do you seriously think that a 10 fold decrease in energy cost/pollution means we can last 10 times longer? False. It means that everybody in the world can now afford our standard of living.

So?

History lesson: Global energy consumption has been following an unsustainable exponential trend (+3%/year) for centuries.

That is debateable.

Major breakthroughs in terms of energy production occurred over that period and nothing ever changed. Why would it be different now?

Honestly, I'm not pessimistic and I don't think we'll be in any serious trouble for a while, but our current course IS unsustainable.

Malthus was making that same argument a couple of centuries ago. There have been new wrinkles since his time and it is likely there will be more in the next two centuries.

Our only reliable source of energy is the sun and this implies a physical limitation that we will have to address at some point.

See, for example:

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/...-scale-energy/

Mathieu

Interesting discussion but there are some pretty large assumptions being made to sustain the argument. It is interesting that in some of the comments to that article the Club of Rome is almost deified despite getting every prediction wrong. It takes special skill to get everything wrong.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Climate Change ( 3rd Version ) - Assertion & Denial

Hi Jerry:

Just seeing if some AGW feathers might get ruffled - yes - facetious ( I was quite pleased with the " ironclad " part! ).

Bob A

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Climate Change ( 3rd Version ) - Assertion & Denial

That is, cut resource consumption in half while doubling population and increasing the global standard of living. It's a tall order, but there are organizations actively figuring out the path to achieve this.

That doesn't make any sense. History shows us that as soon as a cheaper/cleaner energy source comes up, we crave on it and rapidly get back to the unsustainable track.

Do you seriously think that a 10 fold decrease in energy cost/pollution means we can last 10 times longer? False. It means that everybody in the world can now afford our standard of living.

History lesson: Global energy consumption has been following an unsustainable exponential trend (+3%/year) for centuries. Major breakthroughs in terms of energy production occurred over that period and nothing ever changed. Why would it be different now?

Honestly, I'm not pessimistic and I don't think we'll be in any serious trouble for a while, but our current course IS unsustainable. Our only reliable source of energy is the sun and this implies a physical limitation that we will have to address at some point.

See, for example:

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/...-scale-energy/

Mathieu

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Climate Change ( 3rd Version ) - Assertion & Denial

Ironclad evidence for the AGW crowd - temperature dropping - their kind of argument: http://www.globaltoronto.com/pages/s...aign=community

You're being facetious right? Normal changes in meterological conditions such as milder or wilder winters do not prove global climate change. However, they also do not provide 'ironclad' evidence that global warming does not exist. Last winter's mild conditions did not prove global warming. This years predicted heavier snowfall and colder winter does not then do just the opposite and in turn disprove global warming. Neither point of view should rely on such shoddy evidence as absolute proof. Prove it one year, disprove it next year depending on which way the snow blows. Not likely. In the first place your time frame of 2 years and geographic frame of our area hardly covers a sufficient time and portion of the earth to prove anything. Far from being the type of argument of the AGW side as you label it. It is the type of argument favoured by those who have a limited appreciation of the issues under discussion. The type of argument the Wiarton Willy crowd would appreciate.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Climate Change ( 3rd Version ) - Assertion & Denial

Ironclad evidence for the AGW crowd - temperature dropping - their kind of argument: http://www.globaltoronto.com/pages/s...aign=community

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Climate Change ( 3rd Version ) - Assertion & Denial

Do you always have to personally attack anyone who disagrees with you in the least? You sure don't sound scientific doing so. Your comments tend much more to personal destruction and dogma than science.

In my opinion this whole topic has gone off the rails since this third thread was started.

He is in pain. His alarmist dream is collapsing around him. I can't take him seriously anymore and don't read what he says. He will say anything to advance his silly AGW religion even if he knows it is not true. I am still waiting for an explanation of the September 30th checkmate of mankind. To be fair to Paul the UN head said we were doomed in six months a couple of years ago.

"Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?"

"You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.
From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz2CmAQaVxy

It may be that the whole global warming thing is bias introduced into the record by the adjustments made to the raw temperature data which is used to create data that supports the central hypothesis of global warming despite any evidence to the contrary.

Circularity of homogenization methods:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/1...ation-methods/