Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Nothing at all. My reference to civil law applied to my views of the abortion debate, which I regard as an equally absurd legal/political issue on both sides.

As to charity and concern for 'the least among us' -- those unfortunates have far more to fear from the Malthusian proponents of the AGW cult than they do from me (or the Rotweiler Pope, for that matter).

Steve,

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal outlined Boeing's latest quarterly results. Profits are up by 27% and new orders already in hand will fill production capacity for well over two years and make Boeing the world's leading producer of commercial transport aircraft for the next several years - at a minimum. It wasn't long ago that you and others were confidently forecasting Boeing's impending doom because it had not unequivocally invested in super large passenger aircraft. You may recall that my response then was that the competitive issue between Boeing and Airbus was more complex than you represented it to be, that there was reason to doubt the assumed superiority of investment in larger (as opposed to more fuel efficient) aircraft, and that both companies were likely to survive and compete in a continuing struggle for marginal advantage.

The passage of time has rather clearly demonstrated the flaws in your analysis of that issue, and the rightness of mine. I believe there are useful analogies here to our discussion of global warming.

In the first place I am not denying the science at all. It is you who are doing that. My graduate education was in theoretical fluid mechanics (Cal Tech), and my dissertation & research topic involved the then ambitious attempts underway to develop useful numerical models of the dynamic equations of viscous fluids for various applications ranging from meteorology, to aircraft design, implosion blast wave analysis for nuclear weapons warhead design, as well as basic analysis of what was regarded to be the last unsolved problem in Newtonian mechanics - turbulent fluid flow.

There was intense activity and lots of government grant money going into this research then and there are a number of practical and theoretical results produced that still influence our lives today. One of these results was the global numerical weather model that, together with satellite and other automated data sources has replaced the somewhat less effective and much more expensive system it replaced. However the chief theoretical (and as it turns out, practical) result produced was an understanding of the mathematical phenomenon called Chaos which is inexorably present in all coupled, non-linear dynamic systems and the mathematical representations we create for them. Yo may wish to consult any of the many texts on this subject.

Basically it involves what is called the "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" that makes both the real physical systems - as well as the mathematical representations and numerical models we use to represent them - subject to major variations over time resulting from even miniscule variations in the assumed initial conditions. These variations grow rapidly over time, severely limiting the accuracy of all predictions. What is worse, inherent to this sensitive dependence, is the fact that the variations in the real physical system are not related to those that occur in the numerical model used to represent it. The key result has been that numerical weather forecasts are limited in their utility to but a few days. After that the resuts produced - though they often look reasonable and like familiar weather patterns, bear no relationship to what accurately happens.

This problem infects all attempts to numerically forecast the future dymamic behavior of fluid systems. A good example is the 'El Ninho' current in the South Pacific. It is known to historically follow a cycle with period ranging from about 10 to 20 years. However, despite the explosion in computer power and science of the past decades we are still unable to accurately predict the timing of its next cycle. The various papers published dourly predicting the long term collapse of the Atlantic Conveyor current (that carries tropical heat to the North Atlantic ) due to AGW and ice cap melting are based on exactly the same models that are already known to fail to predict the observed variations in El Ninho.

You are suggesting that the world should be made to reallocate about one fifth of its resources on the basis of an analysis of this kind of known unreliability. In view of the many competing and truly immediate problems competing for these same resources, how can you (or anyone) rationally argue for this?

Humans are notoriously unable to deal rationally with questions involving the small risk of horrific outcomes, particularly those involving risks unseen and outside of our daily experience. We grossly exaggerate some and blithely ignore others. We know beyond doubt that, absent AGW, the natural planetary cycles have yielded repeated ice ages in the temperate zones; repeated collapses and reversals of the earth's magnetic field; repeated episodes of extensive volcanism related to plate movements; and repeated large asteroid impacts, some probably associated with mass extinctions. Given all these geological facts, it is, at best, strange to observe the contemporary fascination with this imagined new problem.

Sometrimes I wonder if all those ubiquitous security cameras under which the British live their lives are not having some undetected impact on psycholoigical behavior.

Although I'm not an admirer of the present Pope at all - you seem to have little to no knowledge about what churches' environmental groups do and what support they get by whom, George.

You suggested the pope has no appropriate voice in this discussion because it is a scientific matter. That was your category error. His argument is not a scientific argument. Ninny.

Besides, he's a European, and they are all crazy.

georgeob1 wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:

This is a joke George.

No joke. It is science and mathematics. The numerical models used as the basis for the various calamaty theories being put forward are known to be subject to chaos and meaningless as forecasts.

The joke is your credulity - your willingness to believe that the science that knowingly cannot accurately predict the weather in two weeks in the UK, can somehow predict a global calamity in a century.

I can assure you it was a joke George, because I meant it as a joke. When I talked about dino sceptics saying the meteorite will probably miss...that was a joke. It may not be the best joke I ever came out with, but it was a joke, that is not meant to be taken seriously.

As for my credulity, I would like to know exactly what calamity in a century or so I am supposed to believe in.

Let me ask you this; as you are so sceptical about science, what alternative guide to our actions do you propose? Guesswork? Toss a coin? Hope For the Best? Or are we to rely on the imminent Second Coming when Jesus will sort it all out at minimal cost?

Well, you have a good example in Alberta, where, with energetic encouragement by both the national and provincial governments they are burning two BTUs of energy from tar sands to extract one BTU equivalent of useful fuel from them (to be burned later).

[...]


Sector by sector

Transport
Despite breakthroughs in cleaner options, such as hybrid cars, the sector is the fastest growing source of emissions, the report says. It highlights emerging technologies such as cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells and biofuels. Some campaigners warn that increasing use of biofuels could worsen problems such as food shortages, as farmers scramble to meet demand. The IPCC suggests this could be eased by a switch to biofuels made from waste cellulose. The report says government policies such as mandatory carbon dioxide emission standards are crucial, but that hikes in car tax, fuel duty and moves such as road pricing will be less effective as incomes rise. Better public transport can make a significant contribution.

Potential saving by 2030 (million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent): 3,200

Industry
Industry offers the largest potential savings, although the report acknowledges: "Their implementation requires a stable policy environment that is respecting international competitiveness and includes measures for stimulating technology uptake." The IPCC suggests new controls on industrial pollutants such as methane, nitrous oxide and the chemicals HFCs and PFCs, all potent greenhouse gases. It also says there are big savings for firms who invest in more efficient use of fuels, materials and electricity, combined heat and power systems, and recycling. Heavily polluting industries could benefit from new process technologies that avoid carbon and are expected to come on-stream beyond 2015, it says.

Potential savings: 6,500

Energy supply
More efficient supply, renewable sources, shifts from coal to less polluting gas and nuclear power will play a role in the short to medium term, the IPCC report says. Managing such a transition requires "active policy involvement" such as reducing subsidies for fossil fuels while helping cleaner technology with renewable quotas for power companies and subsidies. The EU has pledged to generate 20% of all energy from renewable sources by 2020. The report says concern over energy security, combined with the development of power infrastructure in the developing world, creates an opportunity to reduce emissions cheaply.

Potential savings: 5,100

Agriculture and forestry
Soils, trees and vegetation provide an important carbon store, and the report says improved land and forestry management offer some of the easiest and cheapest emission savings. "Many options are immediately deployable, do not reduce productivity and have co-benefits," it says. More efficient fertiliser use and better care of crop and grazing land are good too. On forestry, some 65% of the potential carbon savings are in the tropics, and the report says a "combination of afforestation, avoided deforestation and agro-forestry" is the best approach. One major sticking point is whether developing nations such as Brazil and Costa Rica should be paid not to chop down their virgin rainforest.

Potential savings: 6,000

Buildings
Low-cost measures to improve the energy efficiency of buildings could save greenhouse gas emissions and money, the report says. It recommends countries should follow the examples of Germany and Switzerland and force through policies to cut emissions from housing. Appliance standards, building codes, better labelling and procurement procedures for the private sector have worked to cut pollution. Geoffrey Levermore, buildings expert at Manchester University who helped write the report, said: "There's no blue sky technology to revolutionise this industry by giving us a little matchbox that will provide all the energy for your house, but if the right policies are implemented, there are some real savings to be made."

Potential savings: 4,400

Waste
The IPCC says post-consumer waste, such as plastic bags, generates less than 5% of global emissions, but that the rubbish sector can still help to tackle global warming. Recovering methane from landfill sites in the developing world generates more than 15% of carbon credits traded under the Kyoto protocol. Waste management is a key component of wider moves toward sustainable development, it says. Unlike some sectors, the technologies available to reduce emissions from waste are "mature and readily deployable". It adds: "Recycling and waste minimisation provide indirect greenhouse gas mitigation benefits via the conservation of raw materials, and energy from waste offsets fossil fuel consumption."

Potential saving: 1,250

You know, that must be it.

I also must admit that some of us are crazy too. Consider Blatham.

[Mr. Horner is also associated with the European Enterprise Institute.
http://www.european-enterprise.org/items/executive/

george wrote :

Quote:
Well, you have a good example in Alberta, where, with energetic encouragement by both the national and provincial governments they are burning two BTUs of energy from tar sands to extract one BTU equivalent of useful fuel from them (to be burned later).


of course in canada farmers are also planting
TWENTY pounds of potatoes for a harvest of TEN pounds of potatoes .
i assume that's what they are teaching americans about canada ?
hbg

(will get back later - have to plant TWENTY pounds of potatoes first -
i want to harvest TEN pounds this summer)