Sub's Alternative Energy Thread

[shox1989]

My feeling is that it is likely happening, and that it has happened many times before. Is mankind accelerating this cycle? Yeah, maybe. Next?

I think that is where I am at.

[SB Shock]

Not sure how anybody could be suprised...

Capture.JPG

[DUShock]

Climate extremes.

[Kung Wu]

I hate it when my computer takes it upon itself to exaggerate.

[kcshocker11]

More Bullshit from the right

The Mail on Sunday says:
"Back [in 2007], [the IPCC] said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2 degrees Celsius every decade … But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12 Celsius per decade - a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction"
Dr Richard Allan, a climate scientist at the University of Reading, tells us this statement is quite simply wrong. He says Rose has mixed up the numbers in the last IPCC report.
"The main claim by David Rose in the Mail on Sunday is that rate of global warming since 1951 has been halved since the last IPCC report. This is completely incorrect."
In 2007, the IPCC said the rate of warming since 1951 had been not 0.2 but 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade. If the new report says 0.12 degrees Celsius, as the Mail on Sunday suggests, this is a very minor revision of 0.01 degrees.
Professor Myles Allen from Oxford University, who is quoted pretty heavily in the piece, posted a comment below the article pointing out Rose's error. He said:
"Neither the IPCC in 2007 nor the current crop of climate models ever suggested that the world has been, or should have been, warming at 0.2 degrees per decade since 1951. So the headline should have been "Global warming is just 92 percent of what we said it was", on an apples-for-apples comparison."
And Dr Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist at Reading University, tells us:
"The trend over the past 50 years [the Mail on Sunday] says is in [the new IPCC report] is almost identical to the [last report in 2007] so the article's headline and premise that global warming is half of what was said ... is incorrect."
So where does the 0.2 degree per decade figure come from? Richard Allan tells us it does appear in the last IPCC report, but refers to a 15-year period in the run up to the report's release, not the warming per decade since 1951. He says:
"The 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade figure relates to an observed warming over the period 1990-2005 which clearly cannot be compared with the period since 1951".
So the two figures Rose compares are not measuring the same thing. As the Met Office's Richard Betts tweeted yesterday: "Rose created a headline by misrepresenting [the 2007 IPCC report]."

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-09-16/news/42114350_1_climate-scientists-carbon-dioxide-climate-change

NEW DELHI: Climate scientists are more certain that ever before that global warming is being caused by human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels. A leaked draft of the first of three reports comprising the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report states that it is "at least 95% likely" that human activities are the main cause of climate change since the 1950s.

[pinstripers]

More bullshit from the left

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-09-16/news/42114350_1_climate-scientists-carbon-dioxide-climate-change

[kcshocker11]

Ok, back to reading your Rupert Murdock pin

[pinstripers]

Don't read him. You can head back to Paris/KC/Lawrence.

[Kung Wu]

More Bullshit from the right


http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-09-16/news/42114350_1_climate-scientists-carbon-dioxide-climate-change

But buried at the bottom of your article it says:

The draft report takes cognisance of the fact though global temperatures have been rising that the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998 to 2012) is smaller than the trend since 1951. The draft IPCC report states that the slowdown in the warming rate could be on account of natural variations in weather, and other factors like greater than expected quantities of volcanic ash, a decline in heat from the sun during a current 11-year solar cycle, more heat being absorbed by oceans.

So when temperatures are rising, a UN organization blames it on "fossil fuels". Imagine that, a convenient way to attack the oil industry. Ohhhh, but since the rate of temperatures is SLOWING even though we are consuming more fossil fuels than ever, well THAT must be due to "natural variations in the weather". How convenient.

[ABC]

From the WSJ, "Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change"


The new report will say that this change is "likely" to be 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius and "extremely unlikely" to be greater than 3 degrees. This again is lower than when last estimated in 2007 ("very likely" warming of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius, based on models, or 1 to 3.5 degrees, based on observational studies).

Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html?KEYWORDS=global+warming

[wsushox1]

Regardless of whether anthropogenic causes are behind climate change, or even whether it exists or not...how can one be against renewable energy?

The same people that whine about national debt being passed down to future generations are the same people that do not think renewable or alternative energy is a solution needed in the future and pass the energy burden on too future generations.

[pinstripers]

When crude oil goes to $400, then all the renewables become cost-competitive. Otherwise they cost far too much to even day dream about.

[wsushox1]

The main thing going for both sides of the climate debate is that if you pick a small or large enough time scale you can prove that Climate Change exists, or that Climate Change does not exist.

The majority of the general, uninformed public doesn't realize this (not you guys).

[SubGod22]

Regardless of whether anthropogenic causes are behind climate change, or even whether it exists or not...how can one be against renewable energy?

The same people that whine about national debt being passed down to future generations are the same people that do not think renewable or alternative energy is a solution needed in the future and pass the energy burden on too future generations.

Nobody is against renewable energy. Most are actually for it. They just don't think it should be so heavily subsidized and it's not valuable until it's cost efficient. One side tries to force the issue and make everyone else pay a lot more for their energy because they feel "it saves the environment from all those evil fossil fuels".

Many on the right have been saying that renewable energy is great in addition to what we're already using. And when it reaches the point that it's efficient and cheaper than it should be used on a wider scale. Many conservatives believe in an all of the above approach where some of the more liberal types think oil is the devil and even if alternative energies cost 10x more that everyone should use them to combat man made global warming that they're convinced is 100% going to ruin the planet and it's not up for debate.

The main thing going for both sides of the climate debate is that if you pick a small or large enough time scale you can prove that Climate Change exists, or that Climate Change does not exist.

Nobody says climate change doesn't exist. Climates change, it's part of the natural evolution of things. The argument is if man is the cause or not. Some think we're the devil and others believe it's a natural cycle that we do very little or nothing to contribute to the effects on the weather.

[SubGod22]

I think the other issue that some have is that it's now Climate Change when a handful of years ago it was Global Warming. Once the numbers came out to show the earth wasn't continuing to warm like they thought they changed the terminology. And some 40 or so years ago these same people were claiming that Global Cooling was going to be the destruction of the planet and man was at fault.