Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

[cancat]

Semantics aside (I'll address those after work tonight), this is simply a false statement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity

Geez, not this again

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Geez, not this again

What? Where you make false claims that get shown to be false? You've got no one to blame for that but yourself.

When Gillard, Flannery and co. talk of "clean energy" they are making a attempting to convey a contrast to dirty carbon. When of course alternative energy sources are designed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, which is a colourless, odourless, non-toxic gas.

You've never seen soot from a combustion engine or coal-fired power plant then? Again, I'm going to ignore some of the more inane semantic quibbling (like whether there are other examples where the word 'clean' is in common usage in relation to things that aren't inherently dirty in the most simplistic and child-like interpretation of the word, which I'm sure there would be were I to dedicate more than a few seconds considering your point), fossil fuel energy come from burning **** and when you burn **** you get 'dirty' **** coming out of an exhaust somewhere, of which CO2 is but one component. That is such an elementary function of combusted energy that I don't know why I have to explain this. Renewable energy, on the other hand, does not burn **** and does not create dirty ****, hence it is clean where fossil fuels are dirty.

¿Comprende?

What does it acheive? To sell their message to the voters of course. It's propaganda.

And let's just assume that you're right, because I have no doubt that 'clean energy future' was a complete artefact of a focus-group, as is pretty much everything the ALP do and/or stand-by, if voters find 'clean energy' easier to comprehend than 'sustainable' or 'renewable' energy then what's so inherently bad about that? Why is it that politicians selling a message only becomes something sinister when it relates to something that you see through a prism of some grand conspiracy of fraudulent behaviour?

 

[cancat]

What? Where you make false claims that get shown to be false? You've got no one to blame for that but yourself.

CBF going over that one again.

You've never seen soot from a combustion engine or coal-fired power plant then? Again, I'm going to ignore some of the more inane semantic quibbling (like whether there are other examples where the word 'clean' is in common usage in relation to things that aren't inherently dirty in the most simplistic and child-like interpretation of the word, which I'm sure there would be were I to dedicate more than a few seconds considering your point), fossil fuel energy come from burning **** and when you burn **** you get 'dirty' **** coming out of an exhaust somewhere, of which CO2 is but one component. That is such an elementary function of combusted energy that I don't know why I have to explain this. Renewable energy, on the other hand, does not burn **** and does not create dirty ****, hence it is clean where fossil fuels are dirty.

¿Comprende?

That's right Upton, the behemoth known as the IPCC was set up to combat the world's soot problem

 

[Upton Sinclair]

CBF going over that one again.

That's right Upton, the behemoth known as the IPCC was set up to combat the world's soot problem

Interesting you mention the IPCC, as far as I can tell the AR4 only refers to 'clean energy' once, and in an interesting context, considering the thrust of your argument:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch8s8-7-1.html

8.7.1 Health and climate protection: clean energy

There is general agreement that health co-benefits from reduced air pollution as a result of actions to reduce GHG emissions can be substantial and may offset a substantial fraction of mitigation costs (Barker et al., 2001, 2007; Cifuentes et al., 2001; West et al., 2004). In addition, actions to reduce methane emissions will decrease global concentrations of surface ozone. A portfolio of actions, including energy efficiency, renewable energy, and transport measures, is needed in order to achieve these reductions (see IPCC, 2007c).

In many low-income countries, access to electricity is limited. Over half of the world’s population still relies on biomass fuels and coal to meet their energy needs (WHO, 2006). These biomass fuels have low combustion efficiency and a significant, but unknown, portion is harvested non-renewably, thus contributing to net carbon emissions. The products of incomplete combustion from small-scale biomass combustion contain a number of health-damaging pollutants, including small particles, carbon monoxide, polyaromatic hydrocarbons and a range of toxic volatile organic compounds (Bruce et al., 2000). Human exposures to these pollutants within homes are large in comparison with outdoor air pollution exposures. Current best estimates, based on published epidemiological studies, are that biomass fuels in households are responsible annually for approximately 0.7 to 2.1 million premature deaths in low-income countries (from a combination of lower-respiratory infections, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer). About two-thirds occur in children under the age of five and most of the rest occur in women (Smith et al., 2004).

Clean development and other mechanisms could require calculation of the co-benefits for health when taking decisions about energy projects, including the development of alternative fuel sources (Smith et al., 2000, 2005). Projects promoting co-benefits in low-income populations show promise to help achieve cost-effective, long-term protection from climate impacts as well as promoting immediate sustainable development goals (Smith et al., 2000).

So, as far as the IPCC is concerned, the 'clean' in 'clean energy' refers to the flow-on benefits of reducing very real and very dirty pollutants through reducing GHG emissions. Throughout the rest of the report it refers to 'renewable energy' or 'nuclear energy', but not 'clean energy', except in this context.

Funny that.

 

[The Goon]

Interesting you mention the IPCC, as far as I can tell the AR4 only refers to 'clean energy' once, and in an interesting context, considering the thrust of your argument:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch8s8-7-1.html



So, as far as the IPCC is concerned, the 'clean' in 'clean energy' refers to the flow-on benefits of reducing very real and very dirty pollutants through reducing GHG emissions. Throughout the rest of the report it refers to 'renewable energy' or 'nuclear energy', but not 'clean energy', except in this context.

Funny that.

Whereas you care about something, Cancat is simply trolling. What the hell it gets out of it I can't even fathom, but: Don't. Even. Bother.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Funny stuff. Andrew Bolt severs ties with his denier-in-arms, the Gallileo Movement, over their anti-Jewish banking family conspiracy theories

http://www.desmogblog.com/andrew-bo...nt-over-alleged-anti-jewish-conspiracy-theory

Bolt then asked to be removed from the list of the Galileo Movement's advisers, which is a veritable who's who of climate science denial, listing the likes of Lord Christopher Monckton, Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, Bob Carter, Ian Plimer and the Cato Institute's Pat Michaels. Popular Sydney radio host Alan Jones is Galileo's patron. Will any of them feel the need to follow Bolt?

In the comments section, Roberts claimed his words were not anti-semitic and that "Some of my friends and those who I respect, admire and value enormously for their achievements are Jewish." But Roberts then offered to educate Bolt on "major international banking families", "cabals" and pushes for "global governance".

Bolt's defection does put him in something of an awkward position, not least because one of the people who Roberts recommends to Bolt for more on his banking theories is David Evans, who is one of Bolt's favourite skeptics. For example, Bolt cites Evans here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and, well, you get the picture.

Evans, the husband of climate sceptic blogger JoNova, once outlined his thesis in a 2009 paper published by the Science and Public Policy Institute titled Manufacturing Money, and Global Warming. Naming the "Rothschilds", Evans writes

The banking families don’t work for a living in the normal sense, like the rest of us. They avoid scrutiny and envy by blending in and make themselves invisible. Since they own or influence all sorts of media organizations, it isn’t too hard. There are unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories, but nobody can really credibly say how much wealth and influence they have.​

​

One of Bolt's other favourite "experts" to cite is Christopher Monckton who, like Evans and Nova, is also an adviser to the Galileo Movement. Bolt cites Monckton enthusiastically here, here, here and here and probably lots of other places.

Desmogblog(http://s.tt/1kawU)

 

[medusala]

Funny stuff.

Yep, that blog quotes Hansen on its front page. He of the death trains and lover of handcuffs.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Christ almighty, Meds, it's not even eleven o'clock in the morning in London, you're not making any sense, are you hitting the Pernod already? Get some help, man!

 

[medusala]

Christ almighty, Meds, it's not even eleven o'clock in the morning in London, you're not making any sense, are you hitting the Pernod already? Get some help, man!

Upton, we are in furious agreement, no sense at all.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal

• James Hansen
• The Observer,Sunday 15 February 2009
  

The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death

 

[Upton Sinclair]

The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death

I see freight trains full of coal roll past my office window at least three times a day, I regularly have the very same thoughts as the good Dr. What exactly is the point you were trying to make again?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Oh, and I was perusing some of your old material this evening and this caught my attention. That bit_pattern guy you guys keep going on about was quite the cad, wasn't he? His writing style was littered with mistakes and spelling errors but, gee, he was one sharp fella. Certainly showed you up on more than the odd occassion, from what I see in this thread:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...esult-of-fraudulent-statistics.639001/page-10

And whatever happened to that Ripper guy? By my summation he owes that bit_pattern guy a slab of beer.

This moment was an apparent highlight. Ohn what heady days they must have been!

http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2009/10/ian-plimer-is-con-artist-one-of.html

One of the important things happening on the Internet is that people are communicating with each other. While this multiplies nonsense, it lets other use common sense to follow up on the con jobs. Unlikely forums have become important venues for much of this. At the Bigfooty Forum, Bit Pattern, a distinguished senior member, wrote to NOAA about one of the stranger Plimies, (weirdly an Aussie Rules Football discussion spawned this discussion) but one that has made many guest appearances on blogs including this one (Eli finds blogosphere sophmoric and undistinguished. He would not want to belong to such an organization). In particular, Plimer wrote:

It's a pity the forum no longer has deniers of Hawkamania or Ripper's calibre (oh, I can almost imagine bit_pattern wincing at the thought!), certainly made for a more vigorous and less formulaic approach to the debte, of the sort we've seen repeated ad nauseum in this thread.

What ever happened to Ripper anyway? Did he die or something?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

And yet another round of recent research. I guess we have to assume that the legions of dissenting scientists with all their raw data and instrumental records are just waiting carefully, biding their time, for just the right moment to strike with some revolutionary study that will once and for all sweep away the international socialist conspiracy of the intellectual elite that is the IPCC (we all know it really stands for the International Politburo of the Climate Conspiracy). Any day now. Any day.

• Arctic sea ice loss has created negative NAO-like conditions to atmospheric circulation The atmospheric response to three decades of observed Arctic sea ice loss – Screen et al. (2012)
• Small decline in total cloud cover over land areas since 1971 A 39-Year Survey of Cloud Changes from Land Stations Worldwide 1971-2009: Long-Term Trends, Relation to Aerosols, and Expansion of the Tropical Belt – Eastman & Warren (2012)[FULL TEXT]
• Sea level is predicted to rise at least 80cm by 2100 and continues to rise at least 200 years after that Lower bounds to future sea-level rise – Zecca & Chiari (2012)
• Ocean circulation promotes methane release from gas hydrate outcrops Ocean circulation promotes methane release from gas hydrate outcrops at the NEPTUNE Canada Barkley Canyon node – Thomsen et al. (2012)
• Climate in Romania has become warmer during the last decades Changes in daily extreme temperatures in the extra-Carpathians regions of Romania – Croitoru & Piticar (2012)
• Antarctic sea ice variability and trends, 1979–2010 Antarctic sea ice variability and trends, 1979–2010 – Parkinson & Cavalieri (2012)[FULL TEXT]
• Arctic sea ice variability and trends, 1979–2010 Arctic sea ice variability and trends, 1979–2010 – Cavalieri & Parkinson (2012)[FULL TEXT]
• Decrease in biomass burning after year 1500 is similar in duration and timing to Little Ice Age Climatic control of the biomass-burning decline in the Americas after AD 1500 – Power et al. (2012)[FULL TEXT]
• Domestic tourism increases in northern Spain and decreases in southern Spain with climate change Climate change and summer mass tourism: the case of Spanish domestic tourism – Bujosa & Rosselló (2012)
• Satellite measurements of soil moisture A method to improve satellite soil moisture retrievals based on Fourier analysis – Du (2012)
• Heat waves have increased in western Turkey Summer heat waves over western Turkey between 1965 and 2006 – Unal et al. (2012)
• Snow cover is expected to decrease in China with climate change Projection of snow cover changes over China under RCP scenarios – Ji & Kang (2012)
• Using satellite measurements in mosquito population dynamics studies Satellite microwave remote sensing for environmental modeling of mosquito population dynamics – Chuang et al. (2012)

 

[Upton Sinclair]

The Climate Commission has released a new report on international efforts to decouple emissions from economic growth.

http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-commission-global-climate-action-gathers-momentum-8943

Ninety countries representing 90% of the global economy are committed to reducing their greenhouse emissions and are taking action to do so.

This is one of the take-home messages from the Climate Commission’s report “The Critical Decade: International Action on Climate Change”, released today. The report is based on a comprehensive survey of what is being done in Australia and the rest of the world to reduce carbon emissions.

The report explodes the myth that Australia is going it alone on climate change, or is leading the world in taking action. Not only are the world’s wealthy countries taking action, but large developing countries like China and India are moving on emission reductions.

Although China’s overall emissions are still growing, they have already come a long way in decoupling their emissions from economic growth. The country is also positioning itself to become a world leader in renewable energy technologies, and by 2011 had more installed renewable energy generation capacity than any other country in the world.

Many of the world’s wealthiest countries have been taking effective action on climate change for more than a decade. Over that period 12 of the world’s wealthy countries – Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Japan, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Sweden and the United States – have all reduced their emissions of carbon dioxide while their economies have continued to grow.

 

[Windhover]

On their ABC's 730 program last night http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/series/7.30 (after the Surcurrency scandal) Chris Toolman interviewed Greg Hunt. Leigh Sales excitedly introduced the interview by asking, pertinently, given the Noalition has the same emissions target as the ALP, how would it in government cut carbon emissions if it did away with the carbon tax (sic) (she meant "pricing carbon).

On to the interview. Question 6 was the first relevant question. After this question and several others questions that Hunt evasively answered with noalition "talking points" Toolman went in for the kill and asked: All this comes at a cost, providing cleaner energy?
Hunt's answer: The noalition has budgeted $300M, $500M and $750M over the first 3 years (presumably 2014-16) from identified savings to provide incentives for reducing carbon emissions.

No follow-up question. NO FOLLOW UP QUESTION? What sort of a prize dickhead is Toolman? Did it cross his mind to ask the obvious question: What is the accounting/scientific evidence upon which you rely to indicate/estimate/guesstimate what, if any, reduction in carbon emissions will be generated by this $1.55B handout. And what controls (i.e. bureaucracy) will be in place to ensure the money is spent where it is planned?

Apparently not. His final questions enabled Hunt to say the noalition would abolish the Carbon Commission (well it doesn't reduce carbon emissions, does it) and rationalise 9 public servant departments into one (or something). Those job losses are probably the savings identified for the $1.55B.

Call that an interview? Give me a break.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

The ABC Breakfast interview with Hunt was worse, sycophantic almost. It's sad how far the ABC has fallen over the last half decade

 

[Upton Sinclair]

On how reduced Arctic sea ice cover is effecting extreme weather in the mid latitudes:

Jennifer Francis, Rutgers University, 25 January 2012.

The "Arctic Paradox" was coined during recent winters when speculations arose that the dramatic changes in the Arctic may be linked to severe snowstorms and cold temperatures in mid-latitudes, particularly along the U.S. east coast and in Europe. Recent studies have illuminated these linkages. Evidence is presented for a physical mechanism connecting Arctic Amplification -- the enhanced warming in high northern latitudes relative to the northern hemisphere -- with the frequency and intensity of several types of extreme weather events in mid-latitudes, such as droughts, floods, heat waves, and cold spells.

Also check out Dr. Francis' full presentation:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg an the related paper:http://marine.rutgers.edu/~francis/pres/Francis_Vavrus_2012GL051000_pub.pdf

 

[Upton Sinclair]

And yet another round, I'm running out of gags. Dan26 where is all this "sceptic" research that supposedly supports you hare-brained conspiracy theories?

• Year-round mid-tropospheric warming and spring and summer lower stratospheric cooling have occurred over Antarctica Half-century air temperature change above Antarctica: Observed trends and spatial reconstructions – Screen & Simmonds (2012)
• Global patterns of tropospheric nitrogen dioxide trends observed from satellite A global single-sensor analysis of 2002–2011 tropospheric nitrogen dioxide trends observed from space – Schneider & van der A (2012)
• European ecosystems might be unlikely to contribute to mitigating the effects of climate change The European land and inland water CO2, CO, CH4 and N2O balance between 2001 and 2005 - Cao et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]
• Lumberjacks to blame for the collapse of Mayan civilization? Pre-Columbian deforestation as an amplifier of drought in Mesoamerica – Cook et al. (2012)
• Best skill in decadal climate prediction in Indian Ocean due to low internal to external forcing ratio The Indian Ocean: the region of highest skill worldwide in decadal climate prediction – Guemas et al. (2012)
• Sunspot minima contribute to cold winters in central Europe Solar influence on winter severity in central Europe – Sirocko et al. (2012)
• Significant climate effects occur within days of a stepwise increase in atmospheric CO2 or solar irradiance
• Climate response to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and solar irradiance on the time scale of days to weeks – Cao et al. (2012)[FULL TEXT]
• Strong mass loss at low elevations has had dynamic impact on the entire Greenland ice sheet
• Dynamic inland propagation of thinning due to ice loss at the margins of the Greenland ice sheet – Wang et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]
• Ice regimes in thermokarst lakes of northern Alaska shifting from bedfast ice to floating ice Shifting balance of thermokarst lake ice regimes across the Arctic Coastal Plain of northern Alaska – Arp et al. (2012)
• There might be a threshold in atmospheric carbon dioxide beyond which the Hadley circulation shrinks drastically Drastic shrinking of the Hadley circulation during the mid-Cretaceous Supergreenhouse – Hasegawa et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]
• Finally evidence for 8.2 ka event related glacier advance from Alps The 8.2 ka event—Calendar-dated glacier response in the Alps – Nicolussi & Schlüchter (2012)
• Incidence of extreme floods in New Zealand and the UK has been largely asynchronous during the Holocene New Zealand and UK Holocene flooding demonstrates interhemispheric climate asynchrony – Macklin et al. (2012)
• Observed trends in climate indices cannot be explained by natural forcings alone Evaluating global climate responses to different forcings using simple indices – Drost & Karoly (2012)
• Brightening of the global cloud field by nitric acid might be important factor in aerosol cooling Brightening of the global cloud field by nitric acid and the associated radiative forcing – Makkonen et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]
• Glaciers are shrinking in Big Naryn basin in Central Asia Glacier changes in the Big Naryn basin, Central Tian Shan – Hagg et al. (2012)
• Elevated carbon dioxide may affect hydrological cycle by decreasing plant respiration Deep-time evidence of a link between elevated CO2 concentrations and perturbations in the hydrological cycle via drop in plant transpiration – Steinthorsdottir et al. (2012)
• Record low temperature minimums decreasing and record high maximums increasing in United States Trends in record-breaking temperatures for the conterminous United States – Rowe & Derry (2012)
• Early 20th century abruptly ended a 1500-year period favoring Castle Creek Glacier expansion Late Holocene glacier expansion in the Cariboo and northern Rocky Mountains, British Columbia, Canada – Maurer et al. (2012)
• Satellite observations of Antarctic sea ice thickness and volume Satellite observations of Antarctic sea ice thickness and volume – Kurtz & Markus (2012)

 

[Breeder Reactor]

Upton is an organic spam bot. He can't help himself.

 

[Breeder Reactor]

Threat levels from human emissions of CO2 currently stands at what level?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

And we haven't even reached the end of the summer melt period yet.

Arctic sea ice breaks lowest extent on record
Posted on 28 August 2012 by John Hartz

This article is based on a media advisory posted by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) on Aug 27, 2012.

Arctic sea ice cover melted to its lowest extent in the satellite record yesterday, breaking the previous record low observed in 2007. Sea ice extent fell to 4.10 million square kilometers (1.58 million square miles) on August 26, 2012. This was 70,000 square kilometers (27,000 square miles) below the September 18, 2007 daily extent of 4.17 million square kilometers (1.61 million square miles).

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

What exactly is the point you were trying to make again?

An oft-forgotten question is this. But an important one nevertheless.

Upton is an organic spam bot. He can't help himself.

Quoted for irony.

 

[Windhover]

Threat levels from human emissions of CO2 currently stands at what level?

" Threat levels" from human emissions of CO2 are at "threat levels". What else could they be? You answered your own question - it just wasn't much of a question.

 

[Breeder Reactor]

" Threat levels" from human emissions of CO2 are at "threat levels". What else could they be? You answered your own question - it just wasn't much of a question.

CO2 levels are no cause for concern. And never will be. Human life and life on this planet has nothing to worry about when it comes to carbon dioxide.

 

[Windhover]

CO2 levels are no cause for concern. And never will be. Human life and life on this planet has nothing to worry about when it comes to carbon dioxide.

I am sorry for you BR. There is a whole world of scientific understanding which is, apparently, completely inaccessible to you. Just try reading some of the papers Upton usefully links and when you do, try to assume that the writers actually think that what they are writing is as accurate as they can make it. Try NOT to assume that they are part of a world-wide conspiracy out to destroy your extravagant and selfish lifestyle (just guessing on that one).

 

[evo]

And we haven't even reached the end of the summer melt period yet.

Yeah, i have been watching that the last 6 weeks or so - it looks like making record lows.

It will be interesting to see how much the methane measurements rose as a result of melting permafrost.