Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:24:52 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:24:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a
faster rate at any time in the last 600,000 years.
Ahem...
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png
**Er, 1978 ~ 2010 is not 600,000 years. Not even close. However,
this graph may provide a little more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
Not quite 600,000 years, but considerably more than 30.
I don't have a huge amount of time to take apart the graphs. So, I
selected just the one above. The first thing I noticed is that there
are no vertical grid lines, making it difficult to determine whether a
CO2 peak caused warming, or whether it was the other way around. So,
dragging out GIMP photo editor, I added vertical grid lines. I also
reversed the graph so that time goes from left to right. Today is on
the right.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg
Note the circled peaks. Note that the temperature peak precedes the
CO2 rise in all 3 visible peaks. I'm not quite sure what to do about
the most recent peak. If I get ambitious, I'll grab the raw data and
expand just that section. It kinda looks like temp rise precedes CO2
again, but I can't be sure on such a wide scale.
**I've studied the graphs in some considerable detail over the years and
have noted that CO2 rise sometimes precedes temperature rise and sometimes
it lags. This fits in well with current theory on how temperature changes
have occured in the past. Not all have been caused by CO2 rise. The most
important factor to note, however, is that CO2 levels and temperature levels
track each other very closely. When one goes up, the other does too.
(skipping down....)
Fundamentally, the way I see it is like this:
* If we spend a few Bucks today to mitigate CO2 emissions, we may be
able to avert the 95% probability of disaster.
According to the trend lines, we should now be heading into another
ice age.
**We SHOULD have entered an ice age quite a long time ago. But we didn't.
The temperature of the planet is rising. Our production of CO2 has prevented
the ice age from occuring.
If true and we reduce CO2 emissions, my guess is that we'll
create our own disaster.
**There's the rub: If we reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (by some
means, not specified), then we may precipitate an ice age. However, reducing
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is an extremely unlikely possibility.
The VERY BEST we can hope for is to reduce emissions to zero. If we do that,
then CO2 levels would stabilise at the present level. That ain't gonna
happen. The most likely scenario is that CO2 levels will continue rising at
a faster rate than at any time in the last several hundred thousand years.
Temperatures are likely to follow (with 95% certainty).
* If we don't spend the money today, then it is highly probable (95%
certainty) that the cost will escalate with each passing year, to a
point where we will be unable to fund mitigation.
True. By limiting the shrinking list of acceptable solutions, only
the most expensive CO2 reduction schemes will be left. For example,
extensive expansion of nuclear power is becoming increasingly
expensive due primarily to government oversight.
**That is a political issue. I'm discussing science.
* If the scientists are wrong and we spend a few Bucks now, then
it's cost us some money.
"Few" bucks?
**Yeah. A few Bucks. Here is a reasonably comprehensive analysis of the
costs of action and the potential costs of inaction.
I can't think of any C02 reduction scheme that is cheap.
Switching to CFL and LED lighting might be cost effective because the
cost is spread over maybe 50 years. Same with hybrid vehicles.
However, large scale reductions in CO2 reduction, such as eliminating
coal generated electricity, has huge associated costs.
**That would depend on what you consider to be "huge". I consider that a
temperature rise of (say) 6 degrees C (which is possible under some of the
more pessimistic estimates) is of far more concern than a (say) doubling of
electricity costs today.
* If the scientists are right and we don't spend the money, our
civilisation will not likely survive.
Apocalyptic predictions of the demise of civilization have
traditionally accompanied such changes. I recall reading one from the
ancient Greeks. While the risks of inaction are high, the probability
of disaster is quite low. Like the predictions of a Y2K disaster, the
modern alarmists have their limitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse
**You're mixing up religion with science. The science that has been
presented is just that - science. It is based on many thousands of man-hours
of investigation and a great many of measurements. It is not wild
speculation. I leave that to guys like Roy Spencer.
Make no mistake: I did not say that humans will be wiped out. Many
will survive. Anarchy is loking like a real probability.
Well, since we're doing a disaster movie here, I suggest you do a back
of the envelope calculation. If we assume that the energy consumption
and greenhouse gas production per person remains constant at today's
western world levels, what would the population of the planet need to
be in order to produce a greenhouse gas stable environment? I think
you might be amused by the result.
**Not at all. 500 million is my best guess. I've said it in the past and
that is the figure I'll stick with.
Incidentally, I just bought an EcoSmart LED lamp for $10 at Home
Depot. 40 watt equivalent, 9 watts consumption, 429 lumens, 3000K, 46
year life. Works with my light dimmer. The color accuracy 85 is not
very good.
http://www.homedepot.com/buy/lighting-fans/light-bulbs/ecosmart/led-a19-40-watt-equivalent-light-bulb-39632.html
Prices seem to be getting down to reasonable. One nice feature is
that the plastic "bulb" and aluminum base look sufficiently strong to
survive being dropped, something that CFL bulbs can't do.
**I'll post some pics of my latest find a bit later. They are amongst the
most impressive LED arrays I've ever used:
http://www.dealextreme.com/p/12w-350...p-12-14v-80310
Almost double the light output, compared to an 11 Watt, T5 fluoro.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au