The Climate Change thread

[nrc]

As suggested, this is The Climate Change thread. Please keep all discussion of climate change in this thread.

[Gnam]

Climate change is total BS.
People who don't believe in climate change are stupid.

wash. rinse. repeat.

[/thread]

;)

[dando]

What's climate change? :gomer: As I noted in a previous thread ;) they are called averages for a reason. This hurricane season is the weakest ever. Mother Nature is going through menopause. :)

[WickerBill]

What's climate change? :gomer: As I noted in a previous thread ;) they are called averages for a reason. This hurricane season is the weakest ever. Mother Nature is going through menopause. :)

:thumbup::thumbup:

But averages don't sell books or carbon offset stocks.

[dando]

Last summer was one of the hottest on record. This summer has been very cool (here), yet it was 95 here yesterday (and a heat index of 101). Nuts. :saywhat:

[TravelGal]

Save the Redwoods League reports that the redwoods AND the sequoias are loving it. Fastest rate of growth since the 300 hundreds. Yes, 300 hundreds, not 1300 hundreds.

[chop456]

:thumbup::thumbup:

But averages don't sell books or carbon offset stocks.

Nothing sells carbon offset stocks. DAMHIK. :yuck:

[dando]

Meanwhile Don Q. has had the Coast Guard called into Boulder/Denver. :saywhat: :gomer: :(

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24077193/boulder-county-flood-emergency-1-killed-streets-impassable

[dando]

Jeebus.

http://ow.ly/i/38O1L

[KLang]

Jeebus.

http://ow.ly/i/38O1L

And Colorado Springs has been under water restrictions for a while due to drought. :saywhat:

Been watching this closely as we are breaking ground on a new house in Colorado Springs later this month.

Edit: BTW, this is weather not climate. :p

[dando]

Edit: BTW, this is weather not climate. :p

Fixed. ;)

[cameraman]

Moving back to all of that CO2...

The Seattle Times has a good web story on ocean acidification.
http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/pacific-ocean-perilous-turn-overview/


Changes come decades faster than expected

Less than a decade ago, scientists expected acidification wouldn’t harm marine life until late in the 21st century. In the past five years, researchers instead have figured out it’s happening now. Here is a timeline of what we thought we knew — and how that changed.

Early 20th century

Scientists begin to understand how carbon moves between the atmosphere and the sea.

1999
A handful of scientists predict rising CO2 emissions may change sea chemistry enough to harm corals (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818198000356) by late in the 21st century.

2003
Atmospheric scientist Ken Caldeira predicts sea chemistry will change more rapidly (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/abs/425365a.html) over the next century than it has in tens of millions of years.

2006
Seattle oceanographer Richard Feely, with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and others discover North Pacific sea chemistry has changed dramatically (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL040999/full) just since they sampled it in 1991.

Top ocean researchers release first major ocean-acidification report (http://www.ucar.edu/communications/Final_acidification.pdf) and brief Congress, highlighting marine changes they fear are possible by century’s end.

2007
Feely and colleagues take an ocean research trip between Canada and Mexico and find enormous stretches of seawater already changing in ways not expected for 50 to 100 years (http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel3087/feel3087.shtml). Because of ocean currents, weather and geography, they figure out, West Coast sea chemistry — unlike oceans at large — will worsen for decades even if fossil-fuel emissions are cut.

2008
Scientists suspect sea-chemistry changes are killing oyster larvae in the Northwest (http://www.seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009336458_oysters14m.html), which would mean acidification is harming marine life at least a half-century sooner than expected.

Scientists predict tiny shelled pteropods, an important food for fish, birds and whales, will begin dissolving in Antarctica (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18860.long) between 2030 and 2038.

2009
Oceanographer Jeremy Mathis finds the chemistry of water in the Gulf of Alaska changing more drastically than models projected. (http://www.sfos.uaf.edu/oa/)

2011
Mathis discovers CO2 levels in the Bering Sea are amplified (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL048884/abstract) by melting sea ice. That exposes more ocean surface to fossil-fuel emissions and lets in sunlight, which allows plankton to bloom and die, boosting carbon dioxide even more. The pH of broad stretches of the North Pacific is now so low several months of the year that some animals already may struggle to grow shells.

2012
Scientists say they’re certain (http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_57/issue_3/0698.html) ocean acidification is killing Northwest oysters.

Computer models based on new data project that the acidified water that occasionally kills Northwest oysters will be common every day (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6091/220.short) on half the U.S. West Coast in less than 40 years.

Scientist Nina Bednarsek finds pteropods in Antarctica already dissolving. (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n12/abs/ngeo1635.html)

2013
Researchers show baby king crab die in high numbers (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0060959) when exposed to CO2-rich waters expected later this century. Mathis finds North Pacific sea chemistry at certain times of the year already is that bad. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967064513002932)

It is one of those new type of "newspaper" stories that is actually more like an entire web site with the story, videos, tons of links, etc.

[SurfaceUnits]

Lying liars and warmist chicken littles

A recent study in Nature Climate Change by Francis Zwiers and colleagues of the University of Victoria, British Columbia, found that models have overestimated warming by 100% over the past 20 years.

Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change
A forthcoming report points lowers estimates on global warming

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html

All you have to do is hack their email accounts to get at the truth

[SurfaceUnits]

Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013 — ‘Earth has gained 19,000 Manhattans of sea ice since this date last year, the largest increase on record’

'There is more sea ice now than there was on this date in 2002'

[SurfaceUnits]

You can fool some of the people all the time


Warmist ‘consensus’ found to be just a PR campaign: Climategater admits Cook paper ‘a damp squib’
Posted on September 13, 2013 by Steve Milloy | 2 Comments

Andrew Montford writes at the Australian:

IN recent months it has been stated repeatedly that 97 per cent of scientists agree global warming is real and man-made. These claims are based on a paper published by a team led by John Cook in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

The authors, all associated with controversial global warming activist website Skeptical Science, concluded that 97 per cent of papers expressing a view endorsed the “consensus” position that humans were causing global warming. The paper received an extraordinary reception, being downloaded more than 20,000 times in the first few days after it was published and receiving hundreds of citations from around the internet.
Early last year, a security lapse at the Skeptical Science website led to an internal forum for its staff being exposed to public view, and among the contents were several discussions about what became the paper by Cook et al. In one such exchange, Cook explained the paper’s purpose was to establish the existence of a consensus:

It’s essential that the public understands that there’s a scientific consensus on AGW. So (Skeptical Science activists) Jim Powell, Dana (Nuccitelli) and I have been working on something over the last few months that we hope will have a game-changing impact on the public perception of consensus. Basically, we hope to establish that not only is there a consensus, there is a strengthening consensus.

These comments strongly suggest the project was not a scientific investigation to determine the extent of agreement on global warming but a public relations exercise. If that is what it was, then it was successful, but its headline-grabbing impact was possible only by drawing a veil over the precise methodology used…

As Mike Hulme, founder of the Tyndall Centre, Britain’s national climate research institute, put it: “The (Cook et al) article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed (and it) obscures the complexities of the climate issue.” The paper is, on close examination, a damp squib.

[Ruok]

http://judithcurry.com/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

Above are links to Judith Curry's blog and a David Rose article in the Daily Mail.

Judith Curry is the head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. She wrote in her blog about the forthcoming leaked IPCC report. It got reported by the English press.

[nrc]

Please limit quoted material to a few relevant paragraphs with a link to the rest.

UPDATE: Thanks!

[SurfaceUnits]

Silly humans, computers can't exagerate, only lying politically motivated faux scientists do - Sid the Science Kid knows more than those morAns

Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong

Leaked report reveals the world is warming at half the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007
Scientists accept their computers 'may have exaggerated'

[SurfaceUnits]

Humans you are not guilty. Raise your heads, you have been set free from those who would enslave you. Cast off those shackles and buy an SUV or two.

[datachicane]

542

[cameraman]

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii35/Cynops/chart.jpeg

New data is in. We have reached the minimum for Arctic sea ice coverage for 2013. It turns out to be almost identical to 2009's numbers. The dotted line is 2012 which was the worst year so far.

2012 lowest year
2007 second lowest
2011 third lowest
2008 fourth lowest
2010 fifth lowest
2009/2013 tied for 6th

And here is the spaghetti curve showing the last 35 years

The highest minimum was in 1980 at 7.547 million square kilometers.
The lowest was in 2012 at 3.413 million.
This year was 5.013 million.

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii35/Cynops/chart2.jpeg

[SurfaceUnits]

Oregon Park Hit With Record-Breaking Snowfall...
Earliest since 1986...

CRATER LAKE — Crater Lake received a record-smashing 8 inches of snow in 24 hours Tuesday into Wednesday, the National Weather Service reported.

More than one month ahead of schedule, the frosty blanket made its earliest appearance since 1986, when snow fell a week earlier on Sept. 18. Before that, the earliest appearance of a winter wonderland at Crater Lake was Sept. 24, 1948.


The ice sheet will extend down to Ogden before you know it

[nrc]

It's sunny and nice out today.

[dando]

UN blames humans.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/27/world/climate-change-5-things/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

:saywhat:

[cameraman]

They are correct and truth be told the pH change in the oceans is going to have a much more negative effect on humans than any climate change ever will. That ties directly to CO2 concentration in the air in a measurable, demonstrable and inarguable fashion. As the pH goes down the creatures that are the basis of the entire food chain of the oceans have a much harder time surviving. It doesn't take much of a shift to cause total breeding failure. No computer models needed, you can watch it happen in a fish tank. It is a carbonate buffer system, you turn up the CO2 in the air you drive down the pH of the water.

[datachicane]

That's not what the talk radio guys say. Who ya gonna believe, a bunch of pointy-headed labcoats or multinational energy industry PR guys?

[SurfaceUnits]

That's not what the talk radio guys say. Who ya gonna believe, a bunch of pointy-headed labcoats or multinational energy industry PR guys?

You mean those "scientists" who take votes on what they think is going on because their theology has failed them?

Heading into October -- 2013 global hurricane activity remains historically low

• North Atlantic tropical cyclone ACE is -72% (below normal). 5th lowest since 1950. --> Figure
• Northern Hemisphere ACE is -55% (below normal). Lowest since 1977. --> Figure
• Global ACE is -47% (below normal). Lowest since 1977. --> Figure
"We have moved past the 3/4 point of the Atlantic hurricane season which has been the quietest since 1994 and 5th slowest since 1950 in terms of a metric called Accumulated Cyclone Energy or ACE. Compared to historical ACE records, the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season is 71% below normal. While Hurricane Ingrid is the 8th named storm, the overall season has been characterized by short-lived and generally weak systems. The formation of Hurricane Humberto just beat the clock by a matter of hours to keep 2013 from going into the record books for the latest-forming first hurricane. Seasonal forecasts clearly overestimated the number of major hurricanes with some scientists blaming African Saharan dust layers drying out the tropical Atlantic atmosphere.

Globally, the Pacific Ocean is the king when it comes to tropical cyclones which are called typhoons, hurricanes, or cyclones depending upon your ocean location. My research has highlighted the dramatic multi-year downturn in global hurricane activity beginning in 2007 which slightly recovered before dropping even further here in 2013. Overall, global tropical cyclone ACE has significantly droppped in the past 6-years and 2013 looks like a continuation of that downward trend." Dr. Ryan Maue

[datachicane]

Yeah, what did a bunch of scientists ever do for you?
Industry reps and talk radio, those are the guys who know where it's at.

[SurfaceUnits]

Yeah, what did a bunch of scientists ever do for you?
Industry reps and talk radio, those are the guys who know where it's at.

at what point in the sermon did you get the word to stop calling it global warming?

Politics: IPCC: OK, fine, temperatures aren't going to rise that much, but that doesn't change anything!

[gjc2]

“Everybody Talks About the Weather, But Nobody Does Anything About It.”

Charles Dudley Warner, or maybe Mark Twain

[datachicane]

Does it ever strike anyone else as funny that science only becomes controversial when some distinctly subjective perspective, say, a religion or financial interest (but I repeat myself), feels threatened by it? Folks that otherwise wouldn't be caught dead near a Scientific American, let alone an actual journal, suddenly find themselves armchair quarterbacking conclusions draw by actual qualified persons, as opposed to PR flacks or pols who see an opening which brings funding.

[Andrew Longman]

Does it ever strike anyone else as funny that science only becomes controversial when some distinctly subjective perspective, say, a religion or financial interest (but I repeat myself), feels threatened by it?You mean as in the Inquisition which jailed Galileo for life because he wouldn't agree with them?


Folks that otherwise wouldn't be caught dead near a Scientific American, let alone an actual journal, suddenly find themselves armchair quarterbacking conclusions draw by actual qualified persons, as opposed to PR flacks or pols who see an opening which brings funding.Of course the Pope and Jesuits thought they were actually qualified to draw conclusions about philosophy, metaphysics, and religion. YMMV ;)

Now Bachmann, Perry and Palin? I'm not so sure.:)

[WickerBill]

Don't be blind, there are politics (and profiteers) on both sides. When science gets politicized, it is because someone wants to profit.

[nrc]

Don't be blind, there are politics (and profiteers) on both sides. When science gets politicized, it is because someone wants to profit.

Exactly. The "Sky Is Falling Committee" is only funded for as long as they find that the sky is falling.

The Inquisition reference is ironic when it's the climate alarmists who treat anyone who dares question or doubt The Consensus as a heretic ("denier"). Many of our greatest scientific discoveries have been the result of someone questioning the conventional wisdom. The anger and venom displayed toward "deniers" is purely a political construct and has nothing to do with science.

I'll know that there's really something to worry about when environmentalists actually start pushing for the fastest and most cost-effective mechanisms for managing carbon emissions instead of using it as the latest crisis to justify their long running battle against affordable energy.

[datachicane]

Don't be blind, there are politics (and profiteers) on both sides. When science gets politicized, it is because someone wants to profit.

Y'know, I hear folks say stuff like that, but I've never heard of a millionaire scientist, and I've never seen an environmental lobby that could afford more than a token campaign contribution. The energy sector, on the other hand...

Just because there are two sides doesn't mean that they're equal.

[datachicane]

Those of us who are old enough will recall a nearly identical 'controversy' regarding the scientific evidence for the negative health effects of smoking. In fact, some of the same PR firms have a hand in this 'controversy'. Difference is the amount of money provided by the energy sector absolutely dwarfs anything the tobacco industry could ever cough up.

Really, if you've decided that ignoring the overwhelming consensus of scientists who actually work in the field in question is a strategy that's most likely to give you an accurate answer, there's not much that's going to make a difference to you. Enjoy the temporary preservation of the status quo.

[dando]

I've never heard of a millionaire scientist

Edison? Einstein? Bell? Cameraguy? :gomer:

[TrueBrit]

Exactly. The "Sky Is Falling Committee" is only funded for as long as they find that the sky is falling.

The Inquisition reference is ironic when it's the climate alarmists who treat anyone who dares question or doubt The Consensus as a heretic ("denier"). Many of our greatest scientific discoveries have been the result of someone questioning the conventional wisdom. The anger and venom displayed toward "deniers" is purely a political construct and has nothing to do with science.

I'll know that there's really something to worry about when environmentalists actually start pushing for the fastest and most cost-effective mechanisms for managing carbon emissions instead of using it as the latest crisis to justify their long running battle against affordable energy.

So wait, to be clear, your position is that global climate change/global warming is not real. Yes?

[datachicane]

Exactly. The "Sky Is Falling Committee" is only funded for as long as they find that the sky is falling.

The Inquisition reference is ironic when it's the climate alarmists who treat anyone who dares question or doubt The Consensus as a heretic ("denier"). Many of our greatest scientific discoveries have been the result of someone questioning the conventional wisdom. The anger and venom displayed toward "deniers" is purely a political construct and has nothing to do with science.

I'll know that there's really something to worry about when environmentalists actually start pushing for the fastest and most cost-effective mechanisms for managing carbon emissions instead of using it as the latest crisis to justify their long running battle against affordable energy.

So let me get this straight-



Those who accept the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community are only in it for the money (as opposed to the energy industry)
All statistical evidence to the contrary, crackpots, shills, and outliers should be granted equal weight with the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community in all scientific discussions, as their .00001 track record is acceptably compelling
Some people say mean things, therefore other people must be wrong
Any proposed actions of folks called 'environmentalists' can retroactively have a direct impact on whether or not the overwhelming scientific consensus is correct


Does that about cover it?

[nrc]

So wait, to be clear, your position is that global climate change/global warming is not real. Yes?

No. Having grown up on a glacial moraine I've believed in climate change since elementary school. Living now on a plain that was once under 1000 feet of ice I'm thankful for it.

[SurfaceUnits]

Crying Like A Schoolgirl Over Global Warming Report

cameraman and datachicane are having their desired effects

'No children, happy to go extinct', tweets weatherman after grim climate-change report made him cry (now he's considering a vasectomy) (Egypt princess, Lafayette, United States, 9 hours ago Please do a non-reversible vasectomy.)

Eric Holthaus, who used to do weather for Wall Street Journal, was reacting to Friday's findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Evangelists found in the report that it was 'extremely likely' that humans are causing warming trends
Holthaus said he has decided not to have children in order to leave a lighter carbon footprint, and has considered having a vasectomy
He tweeted on Friday 'no children, happy to go extinct'
The weatherman also said he is committed to stop flying as 'it's not worth the climate'

The global warming alarmists have created a climate of madness. Their incessant warnings of worldwide disaster and unspeakable human suffering due to man-made warming have sent some people into a frenzy.

American Psychological Association's effort to condition the public to believe that humans are causing an environmental crisis, an objective it was confident it could achieve because it knows "how to change behavior and attitudes."

:laugh::rofl::cry::cry::gomer:

Thank you Eric for not bringing another idiot like yourself into the world. The net IQ of the world can now rise a little bit.

I suspect the wife is more man than her husband.

[gjc2]

Living now on a plain that was once under 1000 feet of ice I'm thankful for it.

Thankfully the dinosaurs, woolly mammoths and cavemen drove SUVs and had coal fired power plants. We know this because nothing else could have melted all that ice.

[Andrew Longman]

Just because there are two sides doesn't mean that they're equal.Speaks to the major problem with news organization in the last 15 years or so. In an effort to be "fair and balanced" and not seem partial they report and quote out and out lies as fact. Well, yes it is a fact the guy said it but it is also a fact he is totally wrong on the facts (and very likely knows it). It gives far too coverage and power to the yahoo set and it confuses the well intended.

This might be useful to some here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[datachicane]

Speaks to the major problem with news organization in the last 15 years or so. In an effort to be "fair and balanced" and not seem partial they report and quote out and out lies as fact. Well, yes it is a fact the guy said it but it is also a fact he is totally wrong on the facts (and very likely knows it). It gives far too coverage and power to the yahoo set and it confuses the well intended.

This might be useful to some here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

That would indeed be useful, but humans unfortunately don't process information that conflicts with their preconceptions in the same way that they process information that doesn't, so it doesn't matter much just how compelling or cogent those arguments are. Not a criticism, just biology. The sad thing is that folks develop that initial preconception for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with the issue at hand- usually matters of identity and chosen culture trump everything else. Science is a tool (the only tool, actually) for breaking through some of that monkey logic, but given that most folks have neither the inclination nor faculties to actually examine arguments and counterarguments on their own merits it's not surprising that science is as unpopular in some circles as it is.

[nrc]

So let me get this straight-

Those who accept the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community are only in it for the money (as opposed to the energy industry)
All statistical evidence to the contrary, crackpots, shills, and outliers should be granted equal weight with the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community in all scientific discussions, as their .00001 track record is acceptably compelling
Some people say mean things, therefore other people must be wrong
Any proposed actions of folks called 'environmentalists' can retroactively have a direct impact on whether or not the overwhelming scientific consensus is correct


Does that about cover it?

No, not really. I'm pointing out that many of those who claim that there's a climate crisis also have a financial interest. The whole notion that only millionaires are motivated by financial interest is laughable. There are a spectrum of motivations on both sides but it's largely the climate alarmists who dismiss all opposition with ad hominems and appeals to authority (QED).

The truth is that much of what is being attributed to scientists is really the work of politicians and bureaucrats. They may have been scientists at one time, but some of them have left behind the disinterested search for truth in favor of an agenda driven quest for policy change.

This latest IPCC document is exactly that. Widely touted as the work of scientists, it's really just the spin that a political committee is putting on the work of scientists in hopes of driving policy. One of the lead authors of the report flatly stated that scientists have no compelling explanation for the 15 year break in warming (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html) and that there's a real chance that something is fundamentally wrong with climate models. Early drafts of the report acknowledged that fact and included charts that show that the models had departed from reality. But once the politicians were through with it the final document ignored or denied the pause and fiddled with a chart to obscure problems with the models (http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/02/spinning-the-climate-model-observation-comparison-part-ii).

More than a few scientists have come forward (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/30/climate-change-warnings-science-or-scientific-sounding/) and said that they don't think that the contents of this report can be justified (http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/top-mit-scientist-un-climate-report-is-hilariously-flawed/). If want to align yourself with "real science" (bra on head) then you really can't deny that politics have corrupted the process in this case.

Before anyone launches another flurry of red herrings on my views, let me say this clearly: I don't deny that climate change exists or that mankind has some impact on that. I simply don't believe we have a clear enough understanding of it to justify crippling our economy for years to come. In spite of all the bluster about "95% certainty" scientists can't produce a model that reproduces observed temperatures within 1-2 degrees C over time.

I'm also not saying that we should just ignore it, common sense changes to energy policy can start making a difference now without crippling our economy or pouring money down a hole.

[datachicane]

EVERYONE has a financial interest. Heck, you mentioned concern over the economic impact twice in one post. No, one doesn't have to be a millionaire, but there's arguably considerably less money to be made talking about AGW than there is to be made by the energy sector by preserving the status quo, even for just a precious few months or years. That's my point- for AGW deniers to talk about money as some kind of primary motivator for folks concerned about it is beyond pot and kettle and straight into bizarroworld.

Your quibbles about the IPCC have been succinctly addressed any number of times, including in Andrew's very recent post. Even if you took the time to read them, I have no doubt that your preconceptions will remain intact- like I said, that's not a criticism, just human nature, sadly.

Predicting the future is tricky stuff. If you're going to lay odds, though, betting against the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community in favor of talk radio and reactionary pols is not a winning strategy. This isn't the first time we've been through this rodeo.

The choice isn't between driving Humvees and living in mud huts, fear-mongering by deniers aside. Much has been written and proposed, some good, some very, very bad, and it doesn't necessarily have to be 'money down a hole'. In any case, skepticism or concern about any proposed course of action has no bearing whatsover on whether or not AGW is real.

[cameraman]

No, not really. I'm pointing out that many of those who claim that there's a climate crisis also have a financial interest. The whole notion that only millionaires are motivated by financial interest is laughable. There are a spectrum of motivations on both sides but it's largely the climate alarmists who dismiss all opposition with ad hominems and appeals to authority (QED).

The truth is that much of what is being attributed to scientists is really the work of politicians and bureaucrats. They may have been scientists at one time, but some of them have left behind the disinterested search for truth in favor of an agenda driven quest for policy change.

This latest IPCC document is exactly that. Widely touted as the work of scientists, it's really just the spin that a political committee is putting on the work of scientists in hopes of driving policy. One of the lead authors of the report flatly stated that scientists have no compelling explanation for the 15 year break in warming (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html) and that there's a real chance that something is fundamentally wrong with climate models. Early drafts of the report acknowledged that fact and included charts that show that the models had departed from reality. But once the politicians were through with it the final document ignored or denied the pause and fiddled with a chart to obscure problems with the models (http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/02/spinning-the-climate-model-observation-comparison-part-ii).

More than a few scientists have come forward (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/30/climate-change-warnings-science-or-scientific-sounding/) and said that they don't think that the contents of this report can be justified (http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/top-mit-scientist-un-climate-report-is-hilariously-flawed/). If want to align yourself with "real science" (bra on head) then you really can't deny that politics have corrupted the process in this case.

Before anyone launches another flurry of red herrings on my views, let me say this clearly: I don't deny that climate change exists or that mankind has some impact on that. I simply don't believe we have a clear enough understanding of it to justify crippling our economy for years to come. In spite of all the bluster about "95% certainty" scientists can't produce a model that reproduces observed temperatures within 1-2 degrees C over time.

I'm also not saying that we should just ignore it, common sense changes to energy policy can start making a difference now without crippling our economy or pouring money down a hole.

Yet you choose to base you argument on Richard Lindzen, an MIT professor famous for being a climate change denier. So famous that there are entire web pages devoted to refuting his, quite frankly, specious arguments. Like this one:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/lindzen-in-newsweek/
He has been a paid consultant/lobbyist for the Western Fuels Association a consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities.

[KLang]

Even if you took the time to read them, I have no doubt that your preconceptions will remain intact- like I said, that's not a criticism, just human nature, sadly.


What a bizarre way to simply dismiss anyone that does not share your opinion. :rolleyes:

[datachicane]

I'm sorry if it reads as arrogant, that's not my intent. I'm just a pragmatist.

How many times in your life have you ever witnessed someone changing their mind over a position they're truly invested in? It's an incredibly rare occurrence, and it simply doesn't happen in the aftermath of a compelling argument. When it does happen the triggers are personal.

[Andrew Longman]

Sure glad we quarantined this topic from the Tales thread. ;)

Data, what you refer to has been labeled "contempt before investigation". It is a defect everyone is prone to at any time and countered by grace and humility and curiosity... Which are also attributes everyone is capable of at any time.

Some are just more intentional and successful about it.

[Tifosi24]

I have the "privilege" of getting to work in the energy sector on the regulatory side, so I get to deal with all forms of crazy. This is my conclusion, based on real world facts, the climate is changing and humans are part of it, so you have to manage that. However, that doesn't mean you over react and shutter all your coal plants (I am talking to you Sierra Club) overnight. It also doesn't mean you ignore the problem because you think it will be too expensive to change or research was done by those you don't like. I also understand the money issue and the skepticism with climate scientists. I am dealing with some modeling right now in a case that feels too polished, but it is hard to argue with. The consultant is also making a hefty retainer off work he initially did while working for the Feds.

[cameraman]

You won't see me arguing the GreenPeace / Sierra Club point of view. And I think the whole carbon credit thing is a get rich quick scam for somebody. But I also firmly agree with the current climate research. Humans are jacking up the atmosphere at a very rapid rate. If I knew a way to fix it that would actually work I wouldn't be broke.

[WickerBill]

Humans are jacking up the atmosphere at a very rapid rate.

Except for that 15 year pause when we were all good boys and girls right? ;)


I don't like calling out the author that nrc links without calling out the author of the website that Andrew linked, who is a cartoonist by trade and has virtually no science background, but makes lots of money in Queensland and around the world by trumpeting the evils of humans.

Again, as with almost anything political other than tyrants and oppression/genocide, if you stay away from the screaming fringes on both sides you're more likely to find the truth. I'm personally not anywhere near smart enough to know what that is. I am, however, pretty tired of hearing the term "overwhelming scientific consensus" and five minutes later hearing a climate scientist on NPR or TV (who is supposedly a part of that consensus) state that there are far too many holes to fill and understanding to be gained before anything can be stated with certainty. Which is it? Is it consensus or consensus with a huge "we need a ton more data!" asterisk?

[cameraman]

Except for that 15 year pause when we were all good boys and girls right? ;)

Point out the pause, I missed it.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/programs/coop/scripps/img/img_scripps_co2_record.gif

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png

Graph assuming the site hasn't been turned off or otherwise crashed. The one I really want to link is shut down.

[KLang]

Of course WB is referring to the missing temperature increase that was supposed to be the result of the CO2 increase.

[WickerBill]

Whoa now, I was just referencing someone else's point and trying to lighten the mood, no need to go get all graphy with me. This appears to be a very religious discussion for some, so probably best for this <heretic,sell-out,idiot who isn't a zealot like me> (take your pick, depending on which religion you are) to bow out.

[indyfan31]

Whoa now, I was just referencing someone else's point and trying to lighten the mood, no need to go get all graphy with me. This appears to be a very religious discussion for some, so probably best for this <heretic,sell-out,idiot who isn't a zealot like me> (take your pick, depending on which religion you are) to bow out.

Exactly. At what point do the Alarmists get tax-exempt status based on their newly created religion, immediately followed by protests against Deniers for being non-believers.

[nrc]

EVERYONE has a financial interest. Heck, you mentioned concern over the economic impact twice in one post. No, one doesn't have to be a millionaire, but there's arguably considerably less money to be made talking about AGW than there is to be made by the energy sector by preserving the status quo, even for just a precious few months or years. That's my point- for AGW deniers to talk about money as some kind of primary motivator for folks concerned about it is beyond pot and kettle and straight into bizarroworld.

Personal incredulity isn't a convincing argument. Greenpeace investigated funding for "climate denial" and the best they could do was something like $500 million over ten years. That pales in comparison to the over $20 billion that the U.S. government alone put into climate research during that same period.


Your quibbles about the IPCC have been succinctly addressed any number of times, including in Andrew's very recent post. Even if you took the time to read them, I have no doubt that your preconceptions will remain intact- like I said, that's not a criticism, just human nature, sadly.

Different ways of posing the same dismissal of anyone who doesn't agree really doesn't address anything. I have to marvel at how many different ways the supposed proponents of science can attack the messenger.


Predicting the future is tricky stuff. If you're going to lay odds, though, betting against the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community in favor of talk radio and reactionary pols is not a winning strategy. This isn't the first time we've been through this rodeo.

I don't see where I've cited anyone from talk radio or the political arena.


The choice isn't between driving Humvees and living in mud huts, fear-mongering by deniers aside. Much has been written and proposed, some good, some very, very bad, and it doesn't necessarily have to be 'money down a hole'. In any case, skepticism or concern about any proposed course of action has no bearing whatsover on whether or not AGW is real.

I think that most environmentalists understand that getting us all back into mud huts is probably too much to hope for. Of course skepticism and concerns don't determine the existence of AGW. That's stating the obvious. The question is whether the current understanding of anthropogenic impacts on climate justify the changes in energy policy that some are demanding.

[G.]

Drive-by posting:

First.
What exactly LINKS human activities to rising temps? Where is the actual causal link that gets one to say 95% certainty?
(I'm trying to learn more about this, and my attitudes have changed a bit, but every thing I read basically concludes that it must be humans, because that's all that's left on the hypothesis table.)



Secondly.
Let's go with a scenario: Assume Global warming is factual (I think it is), humans cause it (this is where I am a bit shaky), and it's BAD. REAL BAD. (that it's not just a normal temp "correction" or cycle)

OK, what do we do about it?
Using CFL bulbs isn't going to do ****.


I can't think of a REAL solution that won't end in a massive human kill-off. Whether it's third-world starvation, or the global conflict that will follow, or disease, etc.
Or, a massive human kill due to the "Alarmists" being right.

Seems like we're ****ed.

[G.]

I have to ask this question as well.

Didn't global pollution go DOWN since the damn hippies (:gomer:) made us quit pumping sludge into the atmosphere starting in the early 70's?

Why did our near-exponential rise in CO2 start around then?

(I can't chase down the data right now, but someone has it handy.)

[gjc2]

massive human kill-off. Whether it's third-world starvation, or the global conflict that will follow, or disease, etc.
Or, a massive human kill due to the "Alarmists"

Aren’t some of the climate change alarmists also proponents of “cradle to grave” government care, which requires a constantly growing population?

[dando]

OK, what do we do about it?
Using CFL bulbs isn't going to do ****.


CFL bulbs are a complete joke. Period. They create a hazardous waste issue, and they don't perform as advertised. I bought into it a few years ago, and they don't come close to the life expectancy as advertised. The big issue is the mercury in the bulbs and the lack of proper disposal options. Not to mention that most of the bulbs (spotlights) don't allow for dimming.

[nrc]

Aren’t some of the climate change alarmists also proponents of “cradle to grave” government care, which requires a constantly growing population?

I don't think we want to go down that avenue of discussion.

[SurfaceUnits]

Whoa now, I was just referencing someone else's point and trying to lighten the mood, no need to go get all graphy with me. This appears to be a very religious discussion for some, so probably best for this <heretic,sell-out,idiot who isn't a zealot like me> (take your pick, depending on which religion you are) to bow out.

It's the say anything phase that every doomsday cult encounters when the spaceship fails to come as promised. But don't worry, we're right on track for Armeggedon , Planet Clarion is calling. When Prophecies Fail Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance can account for the psychological consequences of disconfirmed expectations.

So, since global warming causes more severe winters, would warmer winters disprove global warming? No it's climate chaos, climate instability, climate extremes. On a global scale never before seen by us, so it must be us causing it. The climate hadn't changed for centuries untul we got here. Our planetary thermostat is off and you are causing it. Betsy Rosenberg, climate extremists goddess

The climate hadn't changed for centuries,,,,until we got here. We've never seen extreme climate like this,,,because before we were here we couldn't see the climate.

Climate change happens 4 times a year. We used to call the changes: Summer, followed by Autumn, followed by Winter, and followed by Spring, until we were back to Summer again.

[cameraman]

CFL bulbs are a complete joke. Period. They create a hazardous waste issue, and they don't perform as advertised. I bought into it a few years ago, and they don't come close to the life expectancy as advertised. The big issue is the mercury in the bulbs and the lack of proper disposal options. Not to mention that most of the bulbs (spotlights) don't allow for dimming.

I hate CFLs but the LED lamps work quite well. That said the saving are real and the drop in watts used is real. It has allowed many utilities to put off increases in generating capacity. Switching away from CRT monitors has been huge too.

There will never be a huge aha type of discovery that will fix everything. The best we will be able to do is improve efficiency but that can save up to 50%.

[cameraman]

I have to ask this question as well.

Didn't global pollution go DOWN since the damn hippies (:gomer:) made us quit pumping sludge into the atmosphere starting in the early 70's?

Why did our near-exponential rise in CO2 start around then?

(I can't chase down the data right now, but someone has it handy.)

What the 60s and 70s era changes did was get the lead, sulfur, NOx, CO and soot out of the air. The effects were huge but the goal at the time was to burn the fuel more efficiently, filter out the evil and then pump out "clean" CO2 and water. Nothing at all was done to reduce overall CO2.

The CO2 rise started in earnest after WWII.

[dando]

I hate CFLs but the LED lamps work quite well. That said the saving are real and the drop in watts used is real. It has allowed many utilities to put off increases in generating capacity. Switching away from CRT monitors has been huge too.

There will never be a huge aha type of discovery that will fix everything. The best we will be able to do is improve efficiency but that can save up to 50%.

Yes, LEDs are a better option, but not widely available until last year. I switched from CFL flat screens to LEDs last year. Interesting note (for Elmo), when we were in WDW in 12/11, the gang we were with (I was herding cats) asked about the Xmas lighting. I had to explain that the 'blue' was due to them using LED lights.

[cameraman]

What exactly LINKS human activities to rising temps? Where is the actual causal link that gets one to say 95% certainty?

It all links back to the chemistry of CO2. Simply put light (solar radiation) from the sun passes through the atmosphere largely unimpeded. It hits the earth and gets adsorbed and warms things up. Thing is that heat is given off at a much longer wavelength as infrared radiation. CO2 adsorbs infrared radiation quite efficiently. That traps the heat thus the planet warms. Venus is a great example of total runaway greenhouse effect which the earth could never get to as the Earth and Venus are different planets. It could still get ugly here.

There are other gasses that have the same effect, methane being a big one. The worry there is that there are tremendous natural stores of methane in the form of hydrates in the polar regions and in deep oceans. The thought is that if those hydrates get warmed up enough they will release the methane into the atmosphere. That would be a disaster for the atmosphere. Nobody's really sure how warm it would have to get for that to happen.

The other thing about CO2 is that it loves water and it happily leaves the atmosphere and dissolves into the oceans. The huge problem with that is the pH of the oceans are regulated by a carbonate buffering system. The more CO2 in the water, the lower the pH. The follow on problem is that a relatively small drop in ocean pH prevents the chemical reaction that allows creatures like diatoms to make their shells. If they can't form their shells they die. They are the basis of the food web of the oceans. No calcium coated critters = no fish. The pH changes hit the shallow waters first which is where the food lives. It doesn't take much, a pH drop of 0.2 will push many organism over the edge.

Human are burning coal/oil/gas/wood at a truly stunning rate. The total amount of CO2 produced by humans from 1750 to 1900 is estimated to be 12 gigatonnes. That's over 150 years. We are now doing very close to that every single year. Those kind of levels just blow away the natural cycle.

You can argue atmospheric warming rates until you are blue in the face but you are still arguing over positive slope values. We're at 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere right now, at the rate we are going we will hit 450 ppm in a decade or two. Yeah that will increase warming a debatable amount but it will definitely lower the pH of the oceans. Pick your poison.

[dando]

OK, I am submitting a name change for Cameraguy to have his login changed to Scienceguy. Bill Nye beware. ;) :D

[SteveH]

A few years ago I read an article that discussed CO2, its effect on cloud formation and the effect of clouds on the earth's temperatures. The article was based upon observations made following 9-11 flight groundings. I believe the following article is the one I read.

Artificial Weather Revealed by Post 9-11 Flight Groundings (http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/artificial-weather-revealed-post-9-11-flight-groundings)

It's observations seem to be supported by the next article.

New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere (http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html#.UVYwRz4bXF4.facebook)

The next two are quite interesting, not necessarily related to the above, though.

400 PPM: Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere Reaches Prehistoric Levels (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/05/09/400-ppm-carbon-dioxide-in-the-atmosphere-reaches-prehistoric-levels/)

Deforestation Adds More Atmospheric CO2 than the Sum Total of Cars & Trucks on the World’s Roads (http://scitechdaily.com/deforestation-adds-more-atmospheric-co2-than-the-sum-total-of-cars-trucks-on-the-worlds-roads/)

[G.]

A few years ago I read an article that discussed CO2, its effect on cloud formation and the effect of clouds on the earth's temperatures. The article was based upon observations made following 9-11 flight groundings. I believe the following article is the one I read.

Artificial Weather Revealed by Post 9-11 Flight Groundings (http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/artificial-weather-revealed-post-9-11-flight-groundings)

It's observations seem to be supported by the next article.

New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere (http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html#.UVYwRz4bXF4.facebook)

The next two are quite interesting, not necessarily related to the above, though.

400 PPM: Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere Reaches Prehistoric Levels (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/05/09/400-ppm-carbon-dioxide-in-the-atmosphere-reaches-prehistoric-levels/)

Deforestation Adds More Atmospheric CO2 than the Sum Total of Cars & Trucks on the World’s Roads (http://scitechdaily.com/deforestation-adds-more-atmospheric-co2-than-the-sum-total-of-cars-trucks-on-the-worlds-roads/)
The post 9-11 study has been debunked, but I have no clue if it's been universally debunked (with, say, 95 % of scientists agreeing ;)).

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008GeoRL..3523815H

A few notes on that topic. Contrails affecting the global temps just doesn't pass the smell test, either for warming or for cooling. What percentage of the stratosphere/atmosphere has a contrail in it at any given moment? It's got to be a fractional percentage.

Didn't find the orig Nature article, but can't look right now.

GreenMedinfo is a crap site (this is not really relevant to the topic, but it's fun.). I read a few more articles, with their cluster of embedded links-to-links, and realized that there are smarter and more entertaining conspiracy sites available. They post links to studies that disprove their own premise, but they know most people are bored reading by then, and won't click. (I saw this reading about chemtrails, and they bring up military chaff as a source. :laugh: Their link debunks them.)

I can't find the NASA study, since gov is closed, but some of the comments indicate that the CO2 cools the planet when it's in the Stratosphere, and heats the planet when it's in the troposphere. Maybe. The principia-sci site is too politicized to make sense out of the study. Need the original.
But if that's the case, when the atmosphere gets hotter, won't the CO2 and NOx rise, and then protect us better? :\

[G.]

I hate CFLs but the LED lamps work quite well. That said the saving are real and the drop in watts used is real. It has allowed many utilities to put off increases in generating capacity. Switching away from CRT monitors has been huge too.



I don't get how LED bulbs can give the big energy savings, since they need a transformer to convert the AC into DC, and that's not a loss-less solution.

This winter's project is to put 12V under-cabinet LED's around the kitchen.

Then, I'll have to decide on solar, and/or wind to power them up, and lose the transformers...

[SurfaceUnits]

There are only 247 billion trees in the US, give or take a few. Two trees can manufacture enough oxygen to sustain life for a family of four. Or three individuals and their dog. Or three individuals and 6 cats.

[G.]

<lots of good stuff>

You can argue atmospheric warming rates until you are blue in the face but you are still arguing over positive slope values. We're at 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere right now, at the rate we are going we will hit 450 ppm in a decade or two. Yeah that will increase warming a debatable amount but it will definitely lower the pH of the oceans. Pick your poison.

So, is the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere caused BY humans, or do we just measure it better now? What else is causing the CO2 to rise, besides humans? Or is that the only thing left on the hypothesis table?


Doesn't the ocean release more CO2 as it warms up? Wouldn't that reduce the acidity? Might be the other way around, which will remove CO2 from the air, helping temp rises, but killing fish in the process.


A few years back, all the talk was about the ozone layer, but now we don't hear about this as much. When you do, it's with less hyperbole. Why? I believe it's because scientist figured out that ozone depletion actually COOLS the troposphere.

Conversely, ozone depletion represents a radiative forcing of the climate system. There are two opposing effects: Reduced ozone causes the stratosphere to absorb less solar radiation, thus cooling the stratosphere while warming the troposphere; the resulting colder stratosphere emits less long-wave radiation downward, thus cooling the troposphere. Overall, the cooling dominates; the IPCC concludes that "observed stratospheric O3 losses over the past two decades have caused a negative forcing of the surface-troposphere system"[10] of about −0.15 ± 0.10 watts per square meter (W/m²).[88]
I believe that this type of changed result is what turns some people off against the scientific community Alarmists. It makes me skeptical.


Anyway, what's the solution? To do nothing is not a solution, if we assume that we are on a catastrophic course.

Going back to a paleolithic existence is not practical. We'll end up there after the Zombie Apocalypse regardless. :gomer:
Forcing GLOBAL reductions would slow things down, but how can you stop emerging nations from using cheap energy? Who's going to be the guy to tell the Elbonians that their country is going to return to a lifestyle which cannot support their current population? Will Catbert give a seminar on "Starvation and You"?
Hardline, strong, phased-in reductions won't stop the trends, according to the Alarmists. But we are supposed to start with this?



Alternatives? Maybe let science solve the problems, or at least treat the symptoms.
What about a global effort for a sustainable food supply? Let's start working to get off the oceanic teat. (BIG challenge)
Global atmospheric modification. Let's make SU's chemtrail paranoia a reality! (decades away from even thinking about this, since we just don't know enough about the atmosphere yet.)
Reduce population. Why wait for the pandemic to kill off 1/4 of the world, let's create one! Or maybe, lowering the global birthrate by less evil means.

[gjc2]

I don't think we want to go down that avenue of discussion.

I thought I was treading lightly. I guess not lightly enough.

[SurfaceUnits]

OK, I am submitting a name change for Cameraguy to have his login changed to Scienceguy. Bill Nye beware. ;) :D

I guess Sid the Science Kid was taken

[nrc]

I thought I was treading lightly. I guess not lightly enough.

Your comment was lightly tread. I just didn't want anyone taking it as an invitation to a health care debate.

[gjc2]

There are only 247 billion trees in the US, give or take a few. Two trees can manufacture enough oxygen to sustain life for a family of four. Or three individuals and their dog. Or three individuals and 6 cats.

How much CO2 do those ¼ trillion trees use?
Aren’t there many more trees today than there were 150 years ago, requiring more CO2 than was needed back then?
Is it possible that the human race has been a benefit to the planet?

[cameraman]

In the pretty picture are annual tonnages of carbon. You'll note that plants remove ~120 gigatonnes a year from the atmosphere. They also produce 60 gigatonnes a year at night. Yes plants also release CO2 but not as much as they take in. The numbers in parentheses are trapped carbon in plants, soils, water, sediments etc. The system was finely balanced. Our 9 gigatonnes push it out of balance. They are accounting for increased adsorption and photosysthesis, those are the red numbers. Volcanoes didn't make the picture, the are 0.2 gigatonnes in an active year.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Carbon_cycle.jpg

Damned government has turned off the vast majority of its web sites. The real data is very hard to find right now.:irked: And I can't work either.:flaming:

[SurfaceUnits]

Record for largest snow cover in the US in recorded history for this date. So wonder global warming died out.

Al Gore showed up in Chicago in July for a rant and it turned into the coldest July weekend in Chicago history.

The IRL doesn't have a lock on :gomer:

At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature rises during glacial terminations. So the earth was warming before CO2 comes into play and global warming causes the CO2 increase. How can that be. It's all man made CO2, before there was even a man or a Bugatti Veyron EB 16.4 or Jenifer Lopez's 50 SUV entourage caravans

[gjc2]

Record for largest snow cover in the US in recorded history for this date. So wonder global warming died out.

Al Gore showed up in Chicago in July for a rant and it turned into the coldest July weekend in Chicago history.

The IRL doesn't have a lock on :gomer:

I think the term “global warming” has been exchanged for the less-descript “climate change”. The important thing to remember is, that whatever it is, it’s bad and our own fault. I’m sure someone will be able to post (or link) some really nice charts and diagrams produced by some group that never, ever skew the data to fit an agenda.

[SurfaceUnits]

Well they'll have to hold the charts and diagrams real high for the people in west SD who have 48" of snow before the drifts.

[G.]

Well they'll have to hold the charts and diagrams real high for the people in west SD who have 48" of snow before the drifts.

SU, please stop confusing "Weather" with "Climate Change".

It does no one any good.

[gjc2]

Doesn’t the tilt of the Earth’s axis fluctuate a couple of seconds of arc every century? Wouldn’t that have an effect on the climate?

[SurfaceUnits]

I was trying to help prove your new theory. Old one day snow record in Rapid city for Friday was 1.4", new snow record 19",,,it's worse than you thought. climate chaos, climate instability, climate extremes

Sir Bob Geldof: 'All humans will die before 2030'
SIR BOB GELDOF has declared we ALL have less than 17 years to live.

[Insomniac]

CFL bulbs are a complete joke. Period. They create a hazardous waste issue, and they don't perform as advertised. I bought into it a few years ago, and they don't come close to the life expectancy as advertised. The big issue is the mercury in the bulbs and the lack of proper disposal options. Not to mention that most of the bulbs (spotlights) don't allow for dimming.

CFL isn't a joke. I'm biased because my Dad has been designing CFL (and now Fluorescent tubes) for over 30 years. As a result, I don't remember a time in my life where the vast majority (like 95%) of the bulbs in our house were anything besides CFL. I've lived in 3 places each for over 10 years. With the exception of a couple bulbs out of at least fifty, the bulbs outlasted us in those homes. My Dad has given away hundreds of bulbs to family and friends who also love them and attest to their longevity. None of them are made in China.

I don't disagree with what you said about Mercury or dimming.

[dando]

CFL isn't a joke. I'm biased because my Dad has been designing CFL (and now Fluorescent tubes) for over 30 years. As a result, I don't remember a time in my life where the vast majority (like 95%) of the bulbs in our house were anything besides CFL. I've lived in 3 places each for over 10 years. With the exception of a couple bulbs out of at least fifty, the bulbs outlasted us in those homes. My Dad has given away hundreds of bulbs to family and friends who also love them and attest to their longevity. None of them are made in China.

I don't disagree with what you said about Mercury or dimming.

Sorry, but I disagree. I've been using them for 4-5 years now and they fail at the same rate as incandescent lights. And I've used the GE brand as well as the Wallyword generic brand.:confused:

[Tifosi24]

Sorry, but I disagree. I've been using them for 4-5 years now and they fail at the same rate as incandescent lights. And I've used the GE brand as well as the Wallyword generic brand.:confused:

If they are failing at that rate, I would look into the power quality at your place. Power surges and dimming through the system are symptoms of poor power quality, and cycling, by your power company; however, there can also be micro-second long disruptions that you won't notice. A former co-worker ran into similar issues at his old apartment, but he did some digging (obviously easy when your office regulates utilities) and was able to find out that the local utility has to do regular load cycling in that area of time.

[cameraman]

I've got a basket full of failed CFLs. Someday I'll get around to recycling them...

Anyway they have a failure rate that is higher than what they advertise. Do I have crap electricity? Who knows but there also isn't a thing that I can do about it and the bulbs need to match the quality or lack thereof of the US grid.

[SurfaceUnits]

I have two outdoor cfl floodlights that are going on 4 years in the weather. I was replacing incans every month during the winter. The cfl's were hechoed en china after the US jobs czar shut down his US plants. http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/wach/jobs-czar-sends-american-jobs-to-china571/

[datachicane]

The cfl's were hechoed en china after the US jobs czar shut down his US plants. http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/wach/jobs-czar-sends-american-jobs-to-china571/

:rofl: :rofl:
No, really, pure comedy.
:rofl:
I'd love to see the sources you deem less than credible. What was that guy's day job again?

[SurfaceUnits]

:rofl: :rofl:
No, really, pure comedy.
:rofl:
I'd love to see the sources you deem less than credible. What was that guy's day job again?

well, I make it easy for you to ignore the truth so you won't have your breakdown here

[G.]

Regarding CFLs, I originally brought them up as a throw-away comment, implying that it will take a helluva lot more than CFL's to reduce carbon emissions.

But, since we're on the topic, I have 3-4 blown CFLs on my workbench. They lasted maybe 2 months before going out. I've had bad luck with Home Depot's super-cheap bulbs, and one style of GE. Other GE's are holding up, but they haven't surpassed the incandescent life yet.

The only one I have that has lasted YEARS, is the several-year-old nasty one. It buzzes, it takes 10 mins to warm up, and it has horrendous color. I wish that one would go out...

If voltage Dips, Interruptions, and Variations cause CFLs to die, then they are not ready for prime time. (hint - they survive DIV just fine. So do my T-8 bulbs.)

[cameraman]

Ya know all those studies I keep referring to, well you won't have to worry about that anymore.


The US National Science Foundation (NSF) is recalling staff and scientists from Antarctica due to the ongoing US government shutdown. Nearly all science at the three US bases will grind to a halt.

The agency’s decision, posted today, could spell the end of this year’s Antarctic field season at McMurdo, Amundsen-Scott and Palmer stations, depending on the duration of the shutdown, which began on 1 October and shows no signs of ending.

The NSF said it would work to restore the research season “to the maximum extent possible” once funding is restored. The agency said, however, that some activities could not be restarted once the evacuation was complete and the seasonal windows for research and operations had passed.

Lockheed Martin, the contractor that runs the US bases for the NSF, had already been preparing to put the facilities in ‘caretaker status’. The company received its last funding from the NSF on 30 September, according to internal e-mails obtained by Nature. In its statement, the NSF said Lockheed had enough money on hand to ensure operations through 14 October.

So all those multi-year studies are ****ed. :flaming:

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/10/united-states-suspends-antarctic-research-season.html

[datachicane]

What's the griping? Everybody knows those so-called 'climate scientists' at all of those research stations are only in it for the money. Heck, I hear McMurdo is practically Club Med. Besides, this one scientist guy on this website I visit said this one thing once, and a bunch of other guys who aren't scientists said some other stuff, so it's all hooey anyway. Or something.


:cry::shakehead:

[SurfaceUnits]

Mother Nature, isn't she a grand dame. Having grown tired of hearing all those selfserving politicians and general do gooders wail about the huddle masses and starving chillren, has on her own accord increased the growing season in the western US by up to 21 days over the past century and a half. More fruits and vegetables for everyone, especially the once starving chillren, and more wine for all. I'm in awe.

[SurfaceUnits]

With the good news come more bad news to fret over.

For one: Rogue Planets. Now no one has ever actually observed or identified one, but three scientists were on the Weather Channel to talk about them and they all agreed that rogue planets DO exists. So it's settled 3-0. Now a rogue planet is a planet that may or may not have ever been a member of a solar system at one time. But when one of these rogue planets wanders into out solar system, and I mind you that it is just a matter of time before one does, we are toast.

Two: Gamma Rays: When two stars collapse and form a hypernova, the resulting gamma ray blast will anialate every living thing on the planet. It's going to happen.

[Tifosi24]

Mother Nature, isn't she a grand dame. Having grown tired of hearing all those selfserving politicians and general do gooders wail about the huddle masses and starving chillren, has on her own accord increased the growing season in the western US by up to 21 days over the past century and a half. More fruits and vegetables for everyone, especially the once starving chillren, and more wine for all. I'm in awe.

Although I selfishly like the longer growing season in Southern Minnesota because I can ride my bike longer and eventually be able to plant peach trees and routinely harvest fruit, I don't think the alarming decrease in the Northern Minnesota moose population, likely because the winters aren't cold enough to kill certain insects that carry disease, is a good thing. Especially if you are a moose.

[Andrew Longman]

Although I selfishly like the longer growing season in Southern Minnesota because I can ride my bike longer and eventually be able to plant peach trees and routinely harvest fruit, I don't think the alarming decrease in the Northern Minnesota moose population, likely because the winters aren't cold enough to kill certain insects that carry disease, is a good thing. Especially if you are a moose.I understand that in Alaska the longer summers has increased the tick population such that moose can be literally drained of enough blood to kill them. The pictures were pretty grotesque.

[SurfaceUnits]

South Dakota blizzard kills 75,000 cattle.

Sometimes you just can't win