Antarctic Ice Sheet Collapse

[ainwood]

I suggest you take a look at Singer's body of work with a critical scientific eye. The guy may hold a degree and a Phd, but his work is not scientific, it is loaded with political rhetoric and makes argument by rhetorical, not scientific means.

So you'll be the first lobbying the IPCC to keep the bureaucrats out and let the scientists write the reports?

 

[Berzerker]

Baerzerker:

Singer is and was paid to say that mankind does not affect the climate. That's what he did.

Where did he say mankind doesn't affect climate? And yes, he was given money - so are the people doing studies for the government, Greenpeace, etc. I dont know why you assume Singer is a sellout but people taking government money are unbiased and honest. I'm a bit dubious of any study when the funding and issue are controversial, but the study is still there to be scrutinized...it speaks for itself.

Sagan used a named body of scientific work to come to a conclusion, he certainly overstated (and by quite a way i'll grant you) but he went about the issue in a scientific manner.

You said that before and it still doesn't mean anything. How did Sagan's "correct" use of the science lead him astray while Singer's "fraudulent" use of the science lead him to the truth?

Singer claimed to have done some calculations showing more or less the exact opposite. Since when do you do 'a few calculations' about climate? Climate modelling requires you to book time on a supercomputer, or at least it certainly did back in 1991. I doubt Singer had the resources, or even the professional credibility to obtain such services. His entire purpose was to downplay the significance of the fires as much as he could, whether or not such speculation was backed up by science.

He was right, Sagan was wrong... Remember the big Yellowstone fire, I think it was '89. The heat and smoke were so intense the fires did "literally" dominate local weather. The Kuwaiti oil fires were nothing like that... As for your knowledge of Singer's use of science, that looks like another smear. You accuse him of bad science but dont link or analyze his reports. Well, I'll repeat - he was right, Sagan was wrong.

I suggest you take a look at Singer's body of work with a critical scientific eye. The guy may hold a degree and a Phd, but his work is not scientific, it is loaded with political rhetoric and makes argument by rhetorical, not scientific means.

I suggest you post evidence to support your accusation or refrain from smearing the guy. Right now he's coming up roses and you're the one stinking to high heaven of partisanship.

 

[BasketCase]

There's a considerable amount of irony in that comment you may not be aware of...

Oh no, I was entirely aware of it.

Seriously: avoid doing zingers. You're awful at them.

 

[Pokurcz]

But is that really what environmentalists want?

Or do they already have their guns trained on automobiles and factories? Are they trying to stop global warming, or is global warming just a high-yield missile aimed at getting people to do what they want?

This is not a new thing. I've seen anti-nuclear activists do this as well. Back in the 80's, when I spent every day of my life wondering if World War III was about to start, and when the idea of SDI was brand-new, the anti-nuclear wingnuts campaigned AGAINST the SDI program. Yes, anti-nuclear activists campaigning against a system to shoot down nuclear warheads before they hit anything. Why? Because their goal was not to prevent cities from going kaboom. Their STATED goal was to get rid of nuclear weapons, and they were willing to place the entire human race at risk in order to do it. SDI got in the way of their agenda. The threat of total destruction was their weapon--a weapon of fear, aimed at us in an attempt to get us to disarm. Strategic defense was saving the human race in the wrong way, and with anti-nuclear activists, it was not about what was done, but how.


What is it you global warming alarmists actually want?

The misunderstanding of the situation of your anology is a good anology of your failiure to comprehend the question of global warming.

The problem of the SDI program was not that it lowered the threat of nuclear anihilation in the "wrong" way. The problem was that it actualy elevated the threat of nuclear war.

The cold war existed in a brittle balance of assured mutual annihilation, if one side atacked the other side had time to retaliate and assure the atackers destruction before they themselves got destroyed by the initial atack.

The SDI program gave one side an advantage over the other in that its own anihilation was less assured, and in a game allready saturated with suspicion it elevated the mistrust of the other side. Because a lesser feeling of threat could allow people to lower their guard and do something stupid.

If global warming is actually a problem, we should be worrying about reducing greenhouse gas levels in the planet's atmosphere. We should not be worrying about how--except, of course, that I'm pretty sure we all agree that exterminating two-thirds of the human race to cut our emissions is not an acceptable solution.

Reducing the existing greenhouse gas levels in the planets atmosphere by artificial means is a futile swipe after a fart, you might catch a whiff of it but most of it will be out of your grasp. And face it, that is not what those facilities are meant fore, they are supposed to stop CO2 to reach the atmospere in the first place.

The building of the facilities for trapping CO2 in the earths crust only produce more CO2 from its production, and it is a temporary solution.

To stop the emission of CO2 is a much more long lasting solution.

In stead of wearing shoes with thicker and thicker soles, because of more and more glass and sharp metal on the pavement, why not stop the littering?

 

[Grey Fox]

Guys, you do know that the end result of Global Warming might be a new ice age. So don't go and state that unusual cold in some places in proof of Global Warming's nonexistance.

 

[BasketCase]

The SDI program gave one side an advantage over the other in that its own anihilation was less assured, and in a game allready saturated with suspicion it elevated the mistrust of the other side. Because a lesser feeling of threat could allow people to lower their guard and do something stupid.

That's exactly what the anti-nuclear radicals were saying back when people actually worried about World War III.

The gradual reductions in American and Soviet nuclear arsenals produced what?

A lesser feeling of threat.

An SDI system that can actually prevent the bombs from hitting produces what?

A lesser threat.

Side note: right now the U.S. has exactly the upper hand that you fear most. The nuclear balance has been broken. The U.S. still has the same arsenal it always had--the Soviets do not. It is now known to be partially in disrepair and poorly secured.


Carbon sequestration does what? Removes CO2 that's already in the planet's atmosphere.

Solving the problem your way--by preventing that CO2 from getting into the atmosphere--does what? Absolutely nothing, because this solution is not possible. It will not be possible until long after global warming becomes a devastating reality (if it ever does).

Feel free to lie to me--you will never admit it, but you know the above is truth from present-day politics. Major polluters will not reduce their emissions significantly unless you threaten war against them, and someone as far left of center as you doesn't have the stomach to do that.

Sequestration will work in spite of present-day politics. If the U.S., China and India refuse to reduce their emissions, you can build your own sequestration facilities yourself, and solve the problem anyway. And that's what we need. Something that will work even if your method fails.

 

[brennan]

...the study is still there to be scrutinized...it speaks for itself.

It certainly does, shall we take a look?:

"From the very beginning, the IPCC was a political rather than scientific entity, with its leading scientists reflecting the positions of their governments or seeking to induce their governments to adopt the IPCC position." ...I find it quite amusing that this political hatchet job is clumsy enough to suggest it's a bad thing for the scientists to drive government policy on science, or is it the other way around, they can't seem to decide?

"Another reason for the IPCC’s unreliability is the naive acceptance by policymakers of ‘peerreviewed’ literature as necessarily authoritative"...no, really, it actually says this. Peer reviewed science is bad science folks, you heard it here first.​

...Question: What are you if you are skeptical of the science of global warming?

Answer...you are one of the "Global warming ‘skeptics’", aw, how heartwarmingly reasonable.

conversely if you support the science is there a non-loaded term for you? Of course there is, you are one of the "global warming fearmongers," lmao.

And just top make sure it's absolutely clear who the hypocrites are:​

"We regret that many advocates in the debate have chosen to give up debating the science and now focus almost exclusively on questioning the motives of ‘skeptics,’ name-calling, and​

​

ad hominem attacks."...priceless.​

So you'll be the first lobbying the IPCC to keep the bureaucrats out and let the scientists write the reports?

"The IPCC’s three chief ideologues have been (the late) Professor Bert Bolin, a meteorologist at Stockholm University; Dr. Robert Watson, an atmospheric chemist at NASA, later at the World Bank, and now chief scientist at the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and Dr.John Houghton, an atmospheric radiation physicist at Oxford University"​

...That's some more of the Heartland Institute's 'science' btw, apparently calling scientists 'ideologues' when you are paid to disagree with them is some new form of error analysis.

Oh no, I was entirely aware of it.

Of course you were

 

[skadistic]

"The IPCC’s three chief ideologues have been (the late) Professor Bert Bolin, a meteorologist at Stockholm University; Dr. Robert Watson, an atmospheric chemist at NASA, later at the World Bank, and now chief scientist at the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and Dr.John Houghton, an atmospheric radiation physicist at Oxford University"​

I'll take that failure to answer the simple question as a no.

But scientists can't be ideologues unless you disagree with them. Then that's exactly what they are and they are also hacks.

 

[brennan]

What question?

Please do not try your usual tactic of refusing to post the alleged question and accusing me of laziness.

Berserker. There is a line in that wiki page that clearly states the Oil Well fires Dominated local weather patterns, and you are seriously using another event that dominated local weather patterns to contrast with it, that's the same bloody phrase for crying out loud?!?

 

[skadistic]

What question?

Please do not try your usual tactic of refusing to post the alleged question and accusing me of laziness.

The one you your self quoted right above the text I just quoted. It was Ainwood's question. Here since you are having so much trouble I'll quote the question again just for you.

So you'll be the first lobbying the IPCC to keep the bureaucrats out and let the scientists write the reports?

Yeah good luck trying to make look foolish. You may find you are to busy doing it to your self.




And you have me mistaken for some else. Since you don't know what my usual tactics are.

 

[Pokurcz]

That's exactly what the anti-nuclear radicals were saying back when people actually worried about World War III.

The gradual reductions in American and Soviet nuclear arsenals produced what?

A lesser feeling of threat.

An SDI system that can actually prevent the bombs from hitting produces what?

A lesser threat.

Side note: right now the U.S. has exactly the upper hand that you fear most. The nuclear balance has been broken. The U.S. still has the same arsenal it always had--the Soviets do not. It is now known to be partially in disrepair and poorly secured.

Of coars the gradual reduction produced a lesser feeling of threat, it was not unilateral, after the Soviets lost the cold war, so there was no reason to feel threatened. Duh!

And as I wrote, the SDI system was a unilateral thing. In the middle of the cold war, giving one side an advantage. So as I stated before the threat level rose. As was evident by Soviet rethorik in answer of the US development of SDI.

Do you have problems understanding things reguralily or do you just play the dumbass for fun?

Carbon sequestration does what? Removes CO2 that's already in the planet's atmosphere.

There is far mor CO2 in the atmosphere and being produced for any man made industrial method to make the slightest dent in the atmosphere. Only plants stand a chance to do it. That and Megamaid from Spaceballs.

How could you not grasp my fart anology?

Solving the problem your way--by preventing that CO2 from getting into the atmosphere--does what? Absolutely nothing, because this solution is not possible. It will not be possible until long after global warming becomes a devastating reality (if it ever does).

You need only lower emisions to acceptable levels, it is the only method. What you propose is physicaly impossible, while what I propose is politicaly difficult. What the method of of pumping CO2 in to the crust was ment for was to return carbon from the ground (coal) to the ground, basicaly conected to powerstation/factory chimneys.

Feel free to lie to me--you will never admit it, but you know the above is truth from present-day politics. Major polluters will not reduce their emissions significantly unless you threaten war against them, and someone as far left of center as you doesn't have the stomach to do that.

Sequestration will work in spite of present-day politics. If the U.S., China and India refuse to reduce their emissions, you can build your own sequestration facilities yourself, and solve the problem anyway. And that's what we need. Something that will work even if your method fails.

Feel free to stop thinking in black and white absolutes. The world is a gray area of possibilities. No need to go all doomsday.


I thought all Capitalists only thought of the growing economies of tomorrow, or has the downfall af the Dollar and US monetary market strung a sad tune at your heart?

Soon China and India will take over the world economy anyway, lets just hope that the USA wont blow up the rest of the world with them old nukes just in spite. The crazy rednecks...


Just get yer hed out of yer arse, will ya?

Moderator Action: Trolling / Flaming - warned. Keep it civil, please
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Ayatollah So]

Carbon sequestration does what? Removes CO2 that's already in the planet's atmosphere.

Not in practice. Existing sequestration works at point sources like power plants, capturing CO2 from flue gases or from fuels before burning. It only captures 90% or so, but that's a lot better than nothing. And it's affordable.

Capturing directly from air is possible in principle but it'll cost ya big time. Ballpark cost for capture-from-air is $100/ton, ballpark cost for fossil fuel plants is ~ $1/ton.

I think sequestration (at power plants) is a great idea, provided that it's real: not a tiny demonstration plant at one location to provide political cover for 15 non-sequestering coal-fired plants being built elsewhere.

 

[BasketCase]

Feel free to stop thinking in black and white absolutes. The world is a gray area of possibilities. No need to go all doomsday.

Stopping human greenhouse gas emissions is an impossible goal, and it will fail. We must take a different approach. This issue IS black and white.

But the Doomsday part isn't going to happen.

Just get yer hed out of yer arse, will ya?

Why should I?? There's more brains in there than there are out here.

POW!!! Ohhhhh, YEAH, baby!!!! That is MY BEST BURN EVAR!!!!!!

(I think I just flamed everybody in CFC, but it was totally worth it..... )

 

[BasketCase]

Of coars the gradual reduction produced a lesser feeling of threat, it was not unilateral, after the Soviets lost the cold war, so there was no reason to feel threatened. Duh!

Yet the actual threat was still there. And in fact it still is--other countries are developing nukes as fast as they can. The only way to deal with it is to either make sure nobody develops nukes (and all attempts at this have utterly failed) or to develop a defense that can shoot nukes down.

And as I wrote, the SDI system was a unilateral thing. In the middle of the cold war, giving one side an advantage. So as I stated before the threat level rose.

Nope. It went down. When you're sure to lose, you're gonna avoid playing the game. So the Soviets tossed in their cards.

The truth hiding in the middle of all this SDI crap is that people have in the past been willing to lie in order to advance an agenda (in this case the anti-nuclear agenda).

I don't give half a crap about scaring people into doing the right thing. For the last four years I've been getting Darwin Awards books under the Christmas tree. They're favorites of mine. You can't scare people into doing the right thing, they're too stupid. I want to know the truth. I want to know if global warming is actually going to happen and how severe it's going to be if it does.

Now quit wasting my time trying to promulgate an agenda and post something about whether global warming will happen and how severe it will be if it happens. Sheesh.

 

[BasketCase]

I think sequestration (at power plants) is a great idea, provided that it's real: not a tiny demonstration plant at one location to provide political cover for 15 non-sequestering coal-fired plants being built elsewhere.

Well, guess what--that's how new technologies get started. You build a test rig in ONE place to see if it works.

 

[ainwood]

Ballpark cost for capture-from-air is $100/ton, ballpark cost for fossil fuel plants is ~ $1/ton.

I wouldn't put too much stock in those figures, having screened CCS projects myself. That is order of magnitude for direct energy operating costs (only). It (likely) excludes maintenance costs, and definitely excludes capital costs.

Problems with CCS is that you can't just do it anywhere - you need to inject it into a reservoir that can be guaranteed to seal - old gas / oil reservoirs are suitable. Drilling costs are not cheap - for an onshore well, I believe its around $5-10 million as a typical number (roughly $US 300k / day). The processing equipment for CO2 capture isn't cheap either.

If you don't have a reservoir near-by to your emitter, then you need to pump the CO2 via pipeline to the reservoir. Not sure what the cost in the $US is, but I believe a good 'rule of thumb' is $US70k / inch-mile. Ie a hundred mile-long 10" pipeline will cost you 70,000 * 100 * 10 = $US70 Million (actually, that number sounds low, compared to some pipeline costs I've seen....)

There are also the safety risks. Liquid CO2 has the nasty habit of expanding remarkably when heated; thermal expansion which means that you need pressure relief on your pipelines to prevent them bursting from over-pressure, and other precautions which add cost.

And the acid test on those figures:
If it really did only cost $1 / tonne, then with carbon credits currently trading at $20-30 / tonne, then this would be a licence to make an exceptionally huge amount of money. In fact, it would be a big enough incentive to distort the market and get it to move to even more carbon-intensitive schemes so that money could be made in "cutting" emissions.

(which, ironically, is probably what Enron had in mind when they proposed a carbon trading scheme and lobbied congress to get them to sign-up to Kyoto...)

 

[Berzerker]

brennan

It certainly does, shall we take a look?

That doesn't sound like a study of the Kuwaiti oil fires, it doesn't even mention them. So what are you doing? Why are you passing off these quotes as if they are a study of the oil fires?

Berserker. There is a line in that wiki page that clearly states the Oil Well fires Dominated local weather patterns, and you are seriously using another event that dominated local weather patterns to contrast with it, that's the same bloody phrase for crying out loud?!?

Of course its the same bloody phrase, glad you noticed. The Yellowstone event dwarfed the kuwaiti oil fires and did dominate the local weather and I am contrasting the two fires because it would be misleading to say the Kuwaiti oil fires AND the Yellowstone fires dominated local weather, the former aint even in the latter's ballpark). The oil fires were far too spread out whereas at Yellowstone the wall of fire was so hot and consuming it drove wind patterns. You haven't cited the study that claims the oil fires dominated the local weather. I'd like to see what that means.

 

[Mark Young]

As a point of interest, do any of the people who have contributed to this thread actually have any professional involvement in the field of Climatology or any other climate/scientific field?

 

[BasketCase]

Probably not. Unless they have a problem with culture flips in a Civ 4 game and come to this web site to pick up a few tips......

 

[Berzerker]

I'm not paid to learn about the subject if thats what you mean. Thats kinda why we're debating the claims of those who are in the field (was that Carl Sagan, brennan?)

We here at CFC also debate military matters without serving in the military, foreign affairs without the corresponding doctorate, and politics without running for office. But now that you've shown up we can talk about the knighthood