One of the most concerning aspects of the dicussion on this forum is that AGW denail seems to go along with other spects of antiscience such as denial of CFCs causing the ozone hole, denial of the adverse health effects of asbestos, insecticides, passive smoking, evolution etc etc . This is a challenge for better science education in schools and through the media of the public in general.
I was careful in the words I used and I agree with Curry where she quotes
The establishment of consensus by the IPCC is no longer as important to governments as a full exploration of uncertainty.
My point is not about uncertainty in the magnitude warming, the frequency of disease from various forms of asbestos or whether the evolutionary line leading to man is fully established but the refusal to accept the clear and established science, CO2 causes warming asbestos causes lung disease, smoking causes cancer but the rejection of physical or biological science not because of a challenge to the science itself based on a thorough understanding but based on ideology, religious or political. It seems to me that this is quite common particularly across the pond but on here too.
I think this is a key issue our society faces
Edited by user 17 July 2011 10:41:18(UTC) | Reason: Not specified
That's really highly amusing. Your superficially open statement is somewhat undermined by the subsequent demonstration of your particular bias Stephen. "Less draconian solutions" indeed - draconian only in your mind and only because you don't accept the predictions or the need to reduce our use of fossil fuels.
Something else that isn't new is the tenacity of a minority who refuse to accept the facts and try to picture themselves as some sort of elite who know better than everyone else.
From this and other posts you have made I suspect there is a fair slice of 'self-serving' behaviour at work.
Is there a problem with that? When you make statements such as:
I think the key issue we face is the abuse of those who try to put the science into a perspective that might lead to less draconian 'solutions' than others would prefer
And then there is the issue as to whether the motives of some of those 'others' are self serving.
What exactly is the basis for this failed attempt to claim the moral high ground?
I saw a discussion today that suggested the low pressure in the Arctic would slow the melt in the short term (I agree this is likely) but ultimately would serve to export ice out of the Arctic basin (this referring to the upcoming several weeks only). Any thoughts?
We are past Solstice so the sun is already on the wain across the high Arctic but the sea is toasty warm (4 to 5 c anoms in the open water) Any sloshing around of that water can increase the melt of well fragmented pack. Any winds will create swells that will swamp small floes and create 'top' as well as basal melt.
I would imagine a temp slow down in ice melt but then another period of 'rapid melt' as floes melt out completely. Any cloud cover will insulate the warm water and limit it's radiation out to space.
Given AGW is not 100% proven, could this not be potentially risky - lol! The irony is that we could go from what could be natural climate variability to AGC...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2037104/Global-warming-Can-balloon-size-Wembley-stadium-stop-it.html
EDIT: Yes... I should clarify. 'Given that the degree of AGW and it's impacts are not 100 proven...'
Edited by user 20 September 2011 20:03:19(UTC) | Reason: Not specified
I think that needs to be clarified. What is not known with certainty is the climate sensitivity after feedbacks. The fact that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases surface temperature has been known for almost 200 years.
This was something that I recall James Lovelock commenting upon, i.e. the scope for geo-engineering to mitigate AGW. His point was that there will always be winners and losers from attempts to engineer such mitigation and the losers, or perceived losers, would be against the plan. Plus of course there is always the law of unforseen consequences.
I suppose that, having got ourselves into this position the pressure to find technology-based mitigation actions is inevitable.
I don't like the idea of geoengineering, it's like prodding a sleeping giant with a stick. We should use it as a last resort only.
Also, it only solves one small piece of the puzzle. It doesn't solve:
1) Ocean acidification
2) All pollution that goes along with emissions of CO2 (sulphates, nitrous oxide, low level ozone etc)
3) Deforestation and land use issues
4) Energy inefficiency
5) Lack of energy diversity
and probably some more I've forgotten.
I don't like the idea of geoengineering, it's like prodding a sleeping giant with a stick.
I don't like it either. I think it has the potential to cause war.
Good points by both of you - and much in line with my thoughts.
I think it is inevitable that something will be attempted because (a) our 'supertanker' of a world economic system will take an age to slow down and turn, so technology-driven mitigation efforts are going to have to feature in the range of actions, and (b) it seems to be deeply in our approach to thinks to attempt to change nature to our will rather than live with nature. After all we have spent much of our history trying to gain control over the natural world with varying degrees of both success and failure and capabililty.
As for prodding a sleeeping giant, arguably we are doing that anyway, aren't we?
Geoengineering is a curious subject. It has been discussed for many decades in terms of it's potential for 'terraforming' other planets for human habitation and there is much written about it both in the scientific sense and as science fiction.
One of the essential techniques at the heart of terraforming is the deliberate addition of greenhouse gases to a planet's atmosphere to control its surface temperature and bring it within habitable bounds. Quite a paradox when one considers some of the arguments made about AGW on Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming
As you can see, a lot has been written on the subject.
In terms of geoengineering on Earth, there are several factors to consider. These are broadly outlined in the Wikipedia page on Geoengineering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoengineering
What is clear even from a superficial reading is that such techniques are immensely resource (and particularly energy) intensive. They assume that the outcomes of such interventions can be modeled and therefore predicted accurately. Perhaps the most unsettling aspect is that some of the techniques are capable of being weaponised.
There is one further point of note in any preliminary discussion about geoengineering in the context of AGW mitigation and that concerns the economic risk profile of the techniques and how the contractual responsibilities change with them. Most discussion of the subject revolves around 'carbon capture' and the two types of technique proposed are capture 'at source' involving modifications to emission sources and more generalised 'open air' methods which aim to process sufficient quantities of air away from emission sources to reduce the overall greenhouse gas load.
The regulatory and commercial models available for 'capture at source' are relatively simple. In these scenarios, the emitter takes responsibility for the capture and sequestration of the emission by products, bears the cost of doing so and passes the cost on to the consumer. Dealing with emissions 'at source' is technically much simpler and more energy efficient than 'open air' methods. It also clarifies responsibility because the emitter cleans up their own emissions and the cost of doing so is passed on directly in the cost of the product.
When we consider the methods for open air capture, things become less clear. They involve the application of techniques remote from the emission source and must therefore deal with reactions at much lower concentrations. This means the techniques are applied on a much larger scale and it is not clear whose emissions are actually being captured. The assumption is that open air capture schemes would be carried out by governments and funded by the taxpayer opening the way for those with more aggressive lobbyists to win concessions and unfairly redistribute the already much higher costs. An additional layer of beauracracy and obfuscation of responsibility via the tax system further reduces the economic efficiency of the arrangement.
The same problems of divided and indistinct responsibility also apply to techniques such as orbiting mirrors, iron seeding of the ocean, albedo modification etc. Essentially the 'at source' capture methods make much more sense than any sort of large scale attempt to mess with other aspects of the ecosphere because they are more efficient and accurately assign costs to production.
Edited by user 21 September 2011 08:27:33(UTC) | Reason: Not specified
(a) our 'supertanker' of a world economic system will take an age to slow down and turn,
"The way to ruin is rapid."
That makes for an interesting juxtaposition....
Best to hope that one of those statements is wrong.