Join Early Retirement Today
View Poll Results: Global Warming is
Real, it is caused by humans, and we should try to do something about it 59 50.43%
Real, it is not caused by humans, and we should try to do something about it 7 5.98%
Real, it is caused by humans, and we should not try to do anything about it 6 5.13%
Real, it is not caused by humans, and we should not try to do anything about it 24 20.51%
Not real, and we should try to do something about it just in case 5 4.27%
Not real, and we should not try to do anything about it 16 13.68%
Voters: 117. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-26-2007, 09:56 PM   #101
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,282
Originally Posted by ERD50
Quote:
And, I keep falling back on the IPCC's own words (as I understand them). If we make *large* improvements regarding fossil fuel usage, we are still left with 80% of the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny View Post
I dont believe the IPCC or any supported credible entity associated with the scientific community has made such a claim.
Yes, you do seem to believe that CFB, but you have not explained this statement (from the IPCC) that I've posted numerous times:


Quote:
# Scenario A1T - * A1T - Emphasis on non-fossil energy sources.
* Sea level rise likely range [20 to 45 cm] (8 to 18 inches)

# Scenario A1FI - * A1FI - An emphasis on fossil-fuels.
* Sea level rise likely range [26 to 59 cm] (10 to 23 inches)

A1T - non-fossil fuel energy sources dominate.
So - (stay focused here CFB) - what *does* that claim mean?


The rest of your post is a 'red herring' to the above, and taken out of context. The IPCC analysis of the causes are embodied in the above statement, and I've already discussed them with you. Doesn't change anything. Focus.

It's appears to be a very fundamental statement. I think it's tough to have any meaningful discussion w/o first understanding it.

I'd be more than glad to discuss the other point (mitigating non-human sources) with you or anyone else - after you answer this one.

-ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 06-26-2007, 11:42 PM   #102
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50
And, I keep falling back on the IPCC's own words (as I understand them). If we make *large* improvements regarding fossil fuel usage, we are still left with 80% of the problem.
Just from your quote, that looks like the message. From a quick peek at the IPCC report (Ch. 3), fossil fuel reduction is only one of many strategies they consider:

Energy conservation and efficiency
Fossil fuel
Renewables
Nuclear
CCS (Carbon Capture Something-or-other?)
Forest sinks
Non-CO2

Does the part you quoted (I couldn't find it quickly) mention what happens if some of these other strategies are used in addition to fossil fuel reduction?
__________________

__________________
bpp3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2007, 07:23 AM   #103
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,071
ERD50:

You said:


I am saying that we need to accept small improvements for what they are (small!). I don't want people to over-estimate the benefit and get lulled into a false sense of security. Fine if we uncover many,many of them, but the math needs to work.

And, I keep falling back on the IPCC's own words (as I understand them). If we make *large* improvements regarding fossil fuel usage, we are still left with 80% of the problem. So we better plan for that 80% (at least), and/or seek out-of-the box solutions. We probably should be doing the fossil-fuel reduction thing also, but we should realize that it solves only a small part of the (GW) problem.

IMO, that is not defeatist at all. It is an attempt to be realistic, and the route to real solutions, not 'feel good' solutions.

Greg, I think that some of your optimism may stem from a lack of understanding of the scope of the problem. Sorry if that sounds condescending, I don't know quite how else to put it, but please let me make a point or two regarding this. A few posts back you discussed a ban on incandescent lights as a 'Wow!' kind of thing. In reality, we found very solid numbers that say 100% adoption cannot reduce energy consumption more than about 2% (and there may be some unintended consequences there also - more to come). Maybe well worth doing, but 'Wow!' overstates it a bit, no?


I know my head has seemed a bit asskew regarding this subject. But I think for good reason. Many of the arguments on these boards end up basically nowhere after significant go round. And it usually breaks down into a political battle between right and left with such huge fundamental perceptual differences that everyone ends up frustrated and stifled. Then the walkaways start or the anger bubbles up. (And in the worst case about 10-20% of folks turn into libertarians.)

I truly believe that we are currently in a political/childish age sort of, and right now we are at the very bottom of this cycle, compounded by an irrational TV spin that distorts everything and prevents us from focusing on solutions in a mature fashion. But I may be wrong. By example, social security and health care: We, as adults, all know these are in serious trouble, yet are unable to make even minor changes--much due to our possible immaturity and inability to elect rational, cooperative folks (currently our politicians don't get rewarded for being reasonable; they get rewarded/elected for being extreme).

And we just fight back and forth over who is spinning up the most spin--off the real topic/solution many times. Sad and disappointing--to my mind.

Again, by analogy/example: when a young child does some small chore for mom or dad, we, as parents, tend to 'praise up' the accomplishment out of proportion to the actual significance. This is good. We do the same with new employees oftentimes, praising up out of proportion to the accomplishment a new hire's work that if done by a veteran employee would almost be ignored.

So, yes, I'm suggesting a sort of general cheery attitude toward the GW issue and a praising of, and focus upon, the more minor accomplishments that improve things. I see a sort of political negativity in this country that has reached its nadir, with cynicism toward gov't that I have never seen before or could have even imagined ten or twenty years ago. (And, again sadly, much of the cynicism appears justified.) I think I recognize, as you do, the importance of doing something significant and immediate in the near future, not just beating at the edges of it with a stick. But to my mind, these are delicate times. And we need to start accomplishing small, positive things first, before we tackle the larger ones; we have sort of share with others our accomplishment in small before we move on to share in the accomplishment of the medium. I'm worried that we end up doing nothing in our bickering over the large factors and new government just comes in and erases all that the previous gov't does. We need to start sharing and building on what the previous administration and congress do, not just rip up and start anew every four or eight years, which is what I see going on lately. Our politics needs to be feel good AND it needs to accomplish things. It should not be either-or. I don't want things breaking down into a stagnant, putrid mess as so many other important issues have.

So, as I said elsewhere but less explicitly, I see a need for at least some psychology, be it child or adult psychology, to be applied to our current political situation, and GW seems to be a good place to start a transformative, new style of politics of consensus--which is really a politics of a former generation . . . and a conservative approach. And more conservative than Dick Cheney So there!
__________________
Compounding: Never forget! Never not remember!
greg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2007, 09:34 AM   #104
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpp3 View Post
Just from your quote, that looks like the message. From a quick peek at the IPCC report (Ch. 3), fossil fuel reduction is only one of many strategies they consider:

<snip>

Does the part you quoted (I couldn't find it quickly) mention what happens if some of these other strategies are used in addition to fossil fuel reduction?
Thanks bpp3 - that is exactly what I'm trying to determine. It does appear that fossil fuel changes (by themselves?) only get us a 20% reduction. It is less clear (to me) how the other strategies fit in, or what sort of rough numbers (if any at this point) are being associated with them.

And my point in posting this has been to try to get to something like this: OK, if we choose to do fossil-fuel reductions, that helps, but what do we do about the other 80% of the problem? Can some combo of these alternate strategies 'solve' it, or do we still need to move from the coasts or build sea walls?

I'm just trying to break through the 'drive a hybrid, use a CFL, buy an organic cotton shopping bag, think happy thoughts and everything will be OK' mentality that we seem to be getting from the media.

Here are the links to that info. They also have links directly to the IPCC documents, but these wiki summaries are pretty good, and more readable:

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Special Report on Emissions Scenarios - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2007, 09:40 AM   #105
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg View Post
So, yes, I'm suggesting a sort of general cheery attitude toward the GW issue and a praising of, and focus upon, the more minor accomplishments that improve things. .....

I think I recognize, as you do, the importance of doing something significant and immediate in the near future, not just beating at the edges of it with a stick.

So, as I said elsewhere but less explicitly, I see a need for at least some psychology,...
Greg, just a quick note - I've got to run.

With that post, I think we are coming to an understanding. Maybe not agreement in all areas, but there's nothing wrong with that.

Thanks for taking the time on this, I will try for a more detailed reply later.

Regards - ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2007, 08:34 PM   #106
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
TromboneAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,199
Newsweek article on this topic.
__________________
TromboneAl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2007, 11:52 PM   #107
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
And my point in posting this has been to try to get to something like this: OK, if we choose to do fossil-fuel reductions, that helps, but what do we do about the other 80% of the problem? Can some combo of these alternate strategies 'solve' it, or do we still need to move from the coasts or build sea walls?
From your Wikipedia links, that question does not seem to be addressed. According to Jean-Marc Jancovici : climate change - what is an emission scenario ?,
the A1, B1, etc. scenarios are simply passive projections:
Quote:
none of the scenarios corresponds to a world where halting as quickly as possible human induced climate change is at the forefront of any public policy. It is also essential to note that none of these scenarios envisions a brutal breaking down in the current trends (caused by a nuclear war, a massive outbreak, etc), by nature difficult to predict ! These scenarios represent only various exercices of trend extension, with a couple of elementary parameters adjusted a little lower or a little higher.
It would be nice to see an analysis of what it would take to "fix" the problem from a purely technical perspective. I.e., find a cure, then try to sell it. I get the impression that the IPCC report is more at the early "Houston, we have a problem" stage.
Quote:
I'm just trying to break through the 'drive a hybrid, use a CFL, buy an organic cotton shopping bag, think happy thoughts and everything will be OK' mentality that we seem to be getting from the media.
Hm, the media to which I am exposed do not seem to be delivering such a facile message. (Note I'm talking about news here, not advertising -- which is of course not above trying to convince you that buying their product rather then the competitor's will save the world and prevent halitosis.) Is this mentality endemic to US reporting?
__________________
bpp3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2007, 12:15 PM   #108
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
kcowan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pacific latitude 20/49
Posts: 5,720
Send a message via Skype™ to kcowan
Well if it is Canada has also caught it.
__________________
For the fun of it...Keith
kcowan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2007, 03:11 PM   #109
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpp3 View Post
From your Wikipedia links, that question does not seem to be addressed. According to Jean-Marc Jancovici : climate change - what is an emission scenario ?,
thanks bpp3, good link. I may have seen that in one of the background IPCC reports - it's a bit tough to wade through those, but here were a couple intersting points from your link:

Quote:
An example of scenario of the A1T variant : A1T-MARIA the average energy consumption per capita in the world rises to 4,2 ton of oil equivalent in 2100. That's 3 times the present value, or what an average European consumes today.
Although I'm trying to not question their analysis too much ('simply' trying to understand the output), it seems odd to expect the average per capita energy consumption of the world to match Europe's current consumption? Sure, we expect standards of living to rise world-wide, but to average where Europe is seems high - it does seem like maybe not enough emphasis on conservation? OTOH, Europe's consumption is lower than the US, maybe the US is tilting the average?

Looks (very) roughly like they are expecting existing fossil fuel installations to supply power going forward, and nuclear and renewables to provide the additional power required. Wow, that seems like a lot of Nukes. I don't follow that forest number? Are they talking about harvesting the forests?

Quote:
But this scenario also calls on "carbon free" sources in a significant way : it supposes the existence of 11.000 nuclear reactors of 1400 MWe each in 2100, and the use for energy needs of 65% of the total forests in the world (assuming also that the world forest surface remains the same in 2100 as it is today and a net yield of 3 toe per hectare and per year).
I get the impression that the IPCC report is more at the early "Houston, we have a problem" stage.

Pretty much. They are outlining the problem and some numbers around the different scenarios. I think there is more detail forthcoming on implementation plans for those solution scenarios.


Hm, the media to which I am exposed do not seem to be delivering such a facile message.


I should be reading more global news, but IMO (and I may be biased), US news is focused on some little 'feel good' actions.

Here is one well known list. http://www.climatecrisis.net/pdf/10things.pdf

These are all good things, I have no argument, other than I don't think it gives a realistic view of what it accomplishes w/regards to GW. It helps, yes. How much? - a little fuzzy there, IMO.

-ERD50


edit - ooops - I do have one problem - the 'drive less' suggestion. Carpool, mass transit - good (should say combine trips, etc), but walk and ride a bike? Unfortunately (or fortunately?), I've seen some evidence lately that suggests that can be far worse (in terms of carbon footprint), or at least no better than a moderately good mpg car. - that's gonna cause some brain scrunching among some greenies!

Leave the bike in the garage and take that SUV! Uh-oh...
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2007, 09:38 AM   #110
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
TromboneAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,199
Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine - Newsweek Technology - MSNBC.com

A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on.
__________________
Al
TromboneAl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2007, 10:56 AM   #111
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
cute fuzzy bunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,697
There would be some real cost savings to have the same folks also denounce universal health care at the same time.
__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.
cute fuzzy bunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2007, 11:52 AM   #112
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
kcowan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pacific latitude 20/49
Posts: 5,720
Send a message via Skype™ to kcowan
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny View Post
There would be some real cost savings to have the same folks also denounce universal health care at the same time.
The universal health care deniers are already better funded with stronger established lobby groups...
__________________
For the fun of it...Keith
kcowan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2007, 01:10 PM   #113
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: North of Montana
Posts: 2,753
I stumbled across this:Climate change: The Deniers today.
__________________
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate conclusions from insufficient data and ..
kumquat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2007, 01:31 PM   #114
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,071
My spy, the MS, just told me this thread was a active again.

Sunday reading:

Chaos theory progressed more rapidly after mid-century, when it first became evident for some scientists that linear theory, the prevailing system theory at that time, simply could not explain the observed behaviour of certain experiments like that of the logistic map. The main catalyst for the development of chaos theory was the electronic computer. Much of the mathematics of chaos theory involves the repeated iteration of simple mathematical formulas, which would be impractical to do by hand. Electronic computers made these repeated calculations practical. One of the earliest electronic digital computers, ENIAC, was used to run simple weather forecasting models.

An early pioneer of the theory was Edward Lorenz whose interest in chaos came about accidentally through his work on weather prediction in 1961. Lorenz was using a basic computer, a Royal McBee LGP-30, to run his weather simulation. He wanted to see a sequence of data again and to save time he started the simulation in the middle of its course. He was able to do this by entering a printout of the data corresponding to conditions in the middle of his simulation which he had calculated last time.

To his surprise the weather that the machine began to predict was completely different from the weather calculated before. Lorenz tracked this down to the computer printout. The printout rounded variables off to a 3-digit number, but the computer worked with 6-digit numbers. This difference is tiny and the consensus at the time would have been that it should have had practically no effect.

However Lorenz had discovered that small changes in initial conditions produced large changes in the long-term outcome.


Chaos theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My conclusion from the above stuff is that even small efforts made to reduce global warming now MAY very well have a significant and profoundly positive influence on the future.
__________________

__________________
Compounding: Never forget! Never not remember!
greg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Global Warming statistic -- any truth ?? Rick S Other topics 43 06-18-2007 08:46 PM
The Most Intelligent Statement Made on Global Warming (IMO)... gindie Other topics 58 06-16-2007 07:44 PM
Global warming and financial positioning janeeyre FIRE and Money 274 04-18-2007 04:25 PM
global warming real estate investment ideas? winnie Other topics 13 03-15-2007 07:12 PM
A New Global Warming Strategy marty Other topics 3 02-13-2007 08:54 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:21 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.