 | Sustainability, Energy Independence and Agricultural Policy | The Oil Drum | A Growing Military Concern... |  |
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
TOD:Europe
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
- The 2008 IEA WEO - Production Decline Rates
- The EU Strategic Energy Review: maybe not so depressing after all
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“No civilization can survive the physical destruction of its resource base.”
—Bruce Sterling
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
First of all, the pollution control devices you mention do nothing to prevent the release of greenhouse gases. They prevent smog and acid rain, but not climate change. To prevent climate change the CO2 would have to be sequestered, which isn't happening today.
Second, the persistance of climate change effects from the greenhouse gases is a matter of some debate. Some of what I've read (sorry, no links at the moment) suggests that while a portion of the greenhouse effect is permanent (until the carbon is recaptured), some effects last only on the scale of 100 years or so. Only!! : ) Nevertheless, if it is inevitable that all the fossil fuels will be consumed, it would be less damaging to spread the consumption out over as long a period of time as is possible.
I guess the best answer is to begin to use biodiesel created from algae. The carbon is sequestered back in the algae, which has a high lipid count and is a good source for biodiesel (the best).
However, I remain unconvinced that carbon emissions from internal combustion engines and fossil fuels has a huge impact on the global climate.
See here:
I could have sworn that there was carbon in that table... and it's not even Friday.
I guess we should get a biodiesel from algae program running... we just need to build all of our electric utilities on the edge of deserts...
In any case, ALL of the fossil fuels will certainly be built unless we develop some alternative - and of course, none is in sight unless you believe in zero point or some other magic.
On a side note... nitrous oxide smells funny.
>>cymbal crash<<
:-)
OK. Say, for sake of argument, that CO2 is a major contributor to global warming - is it a 90% contributor, a 60% contributor, or what? We have no idea. The models are neither accurate enough nor proof.
We have built massive hot urban megapoloises, cut down masses of trees, expanded deserts; are you saying that these have no effect? Are you saying that the million of other factors, which we are totally ignorant of, and which have changed in the last 50 years, have no effect.
The statement that CO2 causes Global warming may be good politics - it is bad science. We do NOT have enough proof.
Continental drift was a new, somewhat radical hypothesis when I was first in college. It gained credibility as it became more understood, more was learned about ocean bottoms and rift zones, and it was put to the test. Additional data supported the hypothesis and it gradually became accepted.
The way consensus developed with continental drift is similar to how it has developed with global warming. The consensus initially was very skeptical, it didn't start with a consensus. The consensus built as one test after another further supported the hypothesis and each test strengthened rather than contradicted the case.
He changed his mind, of course, and long before he died. He says the objections to continental drift were based on mechanism - how can continents move like that? When a mechanism was presented - plate tectonics - objections melted away. Mainly because there was so much evidence.
From time to time, decisions have to be made. When a paper is submitted to a scientific journal, the editorial board has to decide whether to publish it. Somebody might come up with some device that uses some unusual effects to achieve some useful function, and various potential investors have to decide whether to commit resources. A physician and patient need to decide on a course of treatment.
My point here is that science thrives on diversity and disagreement. As far as science itself goes, there is never a need to force any kind of winner-take-all final battle. It's when action is required that we get stuck making a decision, casting our vote, placing our bet, reaching a verdict, etc. But all this is outside science - really it is some kind of political process.
Nobody ever gets to rely on the level of certainty involved in a mathematical proof when making decisions about how best to act in the real world. The scientific evidence might be quite strong in support of direction A, but it isn't hard to find situations in history where it turned out that the strong scientific argument was based on fundamental errors and in fact direction B was the much better path.
If you're the person making the decision, and it's just your personal business, you get to pick the theory you like. If there seems to be a wide scientific consensus one way or the other... well, sometimes there is a fortune to be made by bucking the trend!
If, however, the decision involves lots of people, e.g. an editorial board or a legislative body, then usually the decision making process is codified to some degree, and usually involves some kind of consensus. Wasn't it the Indiana state legislature that passed a law that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter was 22:7? Codified consensus doesn't have to respect mathematical proof!
"CO2 causes Global warming" may not reach the level of scientific consensus that would make you comfortable as the basis for a highly consequential decision, but I sure don't think "CO2 does not cause Global warming" has any better consensus behind it!
It's a fine pickle, really!
The whole climate or geochemical system of which CO2 forms one part - that is complex to an utterly overwhelming degree. To what extent there is a significant warming trend and to what extent human burning fossil fuels causes that... it's too politically charged for any decently clear scientific verdict to emerge, but any effective argument will have to be far more involved than your 1-2-3 syllogism.
Here's an analogy to see how your reasoning might not hold. Do you know what a trim tab is, on a ship's rudder? To get the ship to turn right, you basically turn the trim tab to the left. If the rudder were fixed to the hull, the ship would indeed slowly turn left. But because the rudder is movable, the trim tab just pushes the rudder over, and the ship turns right.
So, for example, while CO2 itself has a greenhouse effect, maybe it also affects plant growth somehow in a way that in turn affects water vapor, and that indirect effect could be much stronger that the direct greenhouse effect from the CO2. That is the kind of alternative theory about how burning fossil fuels affects the climate that climate scientists have to work through and eliminate.
It seems like the evidence, after a considerable amount of scientific work to eliminate such alternatives, does point to a connection between fossil fuel burning and a global warming trend. But the connection is much more difficult to establish than the simple syllogism you propose.
There is a danger that folks who doubt the burning-warming link will hear such a syllogism and might get the idea that the scientific argument is that flimsy, which would encourage their skepticism. Of course, a certain amount of skepticism is still appropriate. But not that much! So I would encourage you not to induce that inappropriately high level of skepticism! Which is why I am trying to help you understand the flimsiness of the syllogism.
built=burned
(Posts pea-brained chart suitable for convincing 8th graders)
Can you give us a pointer to some of your research publications? Peer-reviewed journals only please. What, you don't have any? My God man get busy, the world's scientist need to here from you immediately. We will all be grateful when you have pointed out their mistakes.
By the way, How's that cure for cancer coming?
Also can you please share your ideas for advancing nuclear fusion?
Heracles: This is an issue that has an overwhelming consensus across the world's scientific community. Do you really believe that vast amounts of carbon, sequestered in fossil fuels for millions of years, would have no effect at all on our thin sliver of atmosphere when we release billions of tons of the stuff in a mere 150 years? Your position is simply not logical, nor is it supported by the data.