Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.

[loafer123]

I agree with most of that - it is indeed not efficient to use more energy deliberately to cool air to the extent it becomes a liquid (albeit the vacuum would mean maintenance of that temperature is efficient itself), and only makes sense as a bi-product of a process which has to happen anyway.

I would also add that water as an energy store also has the benefit of greater density, making for more efficient generation when released, but has greater weight and volume issues.

[turbobloke]

Steven Goddard said:

Antarctica has broken the record for the greatest sea ice extent ever measured at either pole. If current trends continue, the Earth will be completely covered with ice much faster than the climate models predicted.

[LongQ]

I'm shocked.

BBC article reports that a study of Australia's Great Barrier Reef changes have identified that half odit has been lost! (Careless if you ask me but what do I know ....)

Here's the headline.

"Half of Great Barrier Reef coral lost in last 27 years."

So, where does the blame lie?

Read the article to find out ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1980...


Well, what did you expect?

[Apache]

I read this on the Sky News website, they said:-

"They attribute the decline to storms, a coral-feeding starfish and increased ocean acidity."

and the BBC Said:-

"They attribute the decline to storms, a coral-feeding starfish and bleaching linked to climate change."

they just can't help themselves can they

[turbobloke]

Another from SG.

Steven Goddard said:

Perhaps corals are not so tough as they used to be? In 1954, the US detonated the world’s largest nuclear weapon at Bikini Island in the South Pacific. The bomb was equivalent to 30 billion pounds of TNT, vapourised three islands, and raised water temperatures to 55,000 degrees. Yet half a century of rising CO2 later, the corals at Bikini are thriving.

Also:

Alan Siddons said:

Cold water absorbs CO2.....warm water releases CO2. So, on the premise that CO2 forms an acid in water, cold water should generally be more acidic and warm water be more basic. But one observes precisely the opposite: polar waters are generally more basic and equatorial waters more acidic. I draw two conclusions from this alone.

1. That Tom Segalstad is correct about CO2 being a very weak acid against the near-infinite buffering capacity of sea water, and
2. That Dr Floor Anthoni is correct, for aquatic life seemingly creates acidic conditions, in which it thrives

The more acidic the water, the higher biological productivity becomes, and the denser the amount of life. In the sea this is borne out by the observed fact that highly productive upwelling areas are more acidic. In other words, acidic seas are a good thing.

Indeed.....it can’t be the relative dearth of CO2 in warm water that drives the pH down; it has to be something else. And it can’t be the abundance of CO2 in cold water that makes it more basic. Biology is the key factor here, not chemistry and Henry’s Law.

Then there's this:

Dr J Floor Anthoni said:

Nothing in the sea works as expected: its physics, chemistry, biochemistry, physiology, biology and ecology do not work as thought; truth is often opposite to intuition. The sea is weirder than we can possibly imagine. To learn about the sea, forget what you were taught at school, open your mind and begin from scratch.

Dr JFA has described revealing studies examining the plankton record in a deep sea core of the North Atlantic and experiments with living cultures of one of the most common small phytoplankton organisms, the coccolith Emiliania Huxleyi. This coccolith is a major contributor to calcium deposits in the oceans. Contrary to other studies that found a decrease in calcification with decreasling alkalinity, this study found an increase in calcification, accompanied by larger individuals, although at somewhat slower growth rates. The difference in experimental setup may have been decisive: whereas other researchers changed the pH by adding inorganic acids or bases, this approach mimicked the real world more accurately by bubbling air with known concentrations of CO2 (280-750ppm, pH=8.1-7.7) through the cultures. This alone gave the studies increased validity and credibility.

Conclusion: although calcite dissolves more rapidly at higher carbon dioxide concentrations (though at a linear rate compared to the previously published but erroneous power law) it is apparently also more easily made, resulting in calcification.

Eutrophication is the most pressing problem for the oceans but once again the mythmakers divert attention to junkscience for their own reasons and in so doing they provide fodder for politicians and activists. More overfeeding and another problem for us.

[kerplunk]

Apache said:

I read this on the Sky News website, they said:-

"They attribute the decline to storms, a coral-feeding starfish and increased ocean acidity."

and the BBC Said:-

"They attribute the decline to storms, a coral-feeding starfish and bleaching linked to climate change."

they just can't help themselves can they

The latter is correct.

[Blib]

kerplunk said:

The latter is correct.

Any evidence for that assertion ?

[kerplunk]

Blib said:

Any evidence for that assertion ?

The beeb agrees with the abstract (as does sky news when I looked).

[odyssey2200]

kerplunk said:

The beeb agrees with the abstract (as does sky news when I looked).

The beeb agrees



priceless!!

[Blib]

kerplunk said:

The beeb agrees with the abstract (as does sky news when I looked).

Any evidence for the assertion?

[kerplunk]

Blib said:

Any evidence for the assertion?

you didn't ask Apache all these questions mr sceptic

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/25/12089...

http://news.sky.com/story/992092/growing-alarm-as-...

edit - maybe you mean the scientific assertions...

Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 2nd October 20:01

[hidetheelephants]

nelly1 said:

Fishy business this Climate Change...



Of course the Beeb takes this baton and runs with it... Clicky...

Brilliant! If fish are smaller, they will be able to fit more into the sea! Smaller fish taste better anyway.

[LongQ]

kerplunk said:

Apache said:

I read this on the Sky News website, they said:-

"They attribute the decline to storms, a coral-feeding starfish and increased ocean acidity."

and the BBC Said:-

"They attribute the decline to storms, a coral-feeding starfish and bleaching linked to climate change."

they just can't help themselves can they

The latter is correct.

From the Beeb write up;

"Two severe coral bleaching events in 1998 and 2002 due to ocean warming also had "major detrimental impacts" on the central and northern parts of the reef, the study found, putting the impact at 10%."

So we have a number from somewhere that suggests 10% effect for 'bleaching' which, we are told, happened in 1998 and 2002 in specific areas of the reef.

Thus we might conclude that, geographically, the effects being in specific area of the reef, "global" is a little open to question, even within the context of the Great Barrier Reef.

Likewise are we being asked to assume that temperature changes only occured at certain locations or, if global "reefwise" only had a recordably adverse effect at certain places and in certain years?

To put that another way ... the evidence for climate change relies an somewhat random events (ie, has at best fragmented continuity) at somewhat random locations (ie, has little or no evident congruity) and even then represents probably not much more than 10% of any allocated variation in so far as the Great Barrier Reef as Poster Child is concerned.

"D'you want error bars with that?"

I will take your word for it that the BBC is correct. But what are they being correct about?

[kerplunk]

LongQ> The beeb are correct about what the paper they're reporting on says - that's all I've asserted.

[turbobloke]

Duh those pesky believers are at it again.

"This is even more ridiculous than Stephan Lewandowsky's "moon landing conspiracy theory paper" and Skeptical Science's sekrit "crusher crew" kids klub managed by John Cook. I suppose the people pushing these things just have no idea what clowns they look like trying these campaigns to discredit climate skepticism, otherwise we wouldn't see these constant substitutions of "opinion consensus" for hard science. Opinion isn't science, get over it."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/02/mutiny-of-th...

[Globs]

turbobloke said:

Duh those pesky believers are at it again.

"This is even more ridiculous than Stephan Lewandowsky's "moon landing conspiracy theory paper" and Skeptical Science's sekrit "crusher crew" kids klub managed by John Cook. I suppose the people pushing these things just have no idea what clowns they look like trying these campaigns to discredit climate skepticism, otherwise we wouldn't see these constant substitutions of "opinion consensus" for hard science. Opinion isn't science, get over it."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/02/mutiny-of-th...

I suspect the know they are looking desperate but above all, they need to keep the discussion away from the science and firmly on the incredible shrinking fish type theories, in case the general public notice how cold it is outside.

Prepare for the weather to cause them sleepness nights and more desperate attacks. It's sad really, if they were geniune they'd be happy about the cooling we are seeing now - it's a real testament to their character that not only are they not happy, but they are as mad as hell.

[The Don of Croy]

Guam said:

Well this could ultimately put people like me out of Business <anyone serving the quality car market>.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/carreviews/con...

These guys are total nutjobs, combine utterly crap non science, with a marxist outlook and thats what you get!

In that article they state that VED raises close to £6 billion each year, but due to buying habits the annual total may fall by....just £100 million (1.6%). (The NHS is being asked to cut it's budget by 20%)

For that sum they want to shaft the prestige UK based manufacturers. Vote LibDem !

[turbobloke]

The Don of Croy said:

Guam said:

Well this could ultimately put people like me out of Business <anyone serving the quality car market>.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/carreviews/con...

These guys are total nutjobs, combine utterly crap non science, with a marxist outlook and thats what you get!

In that article they state that VED raises close to £6 billion each year, but due to buying habits the annual total may fall by....just £100 million (1.6%). (The NHS is being asked to cut it's budget by 20%)

For that sum they want to shaft the prestige UK based manufacturers. Vote LibDem !

They always make perfect sense

[LongQ]

Guam said:

Well this could ultimately put people like me out of Business <anyone serving the quality car market>.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/carreviews/con...

These guys are total nutjobs, combine utterly crap non science, with a marxist outlook and thats what you get!

Mr. Loony is more than a little naive on at least a couple of fronts if he truly believes this ...

"Mr Leunig said: "More efficient cars save motorists money and reduce global warming. What's not to like?" "

.... is something over which the purchaser has any long term control.

However we might also observe that the motor manufacturing industry had made remarkable progress in improved efficiency in the past decade or two even if much of the gain has been eroded by the way safety regulations have been written up and implemented. (Whether the overall balance there is good or bad is a separate debate.)

Provided that the long term effects do not indicate greatly increased real costs or the apparent efficiency gains (measured as costs perhaps?) being lost due to increased service costs or manufactured parts consumption this is a huge success story.

However it also make for an easy target to squeeze for extra gain. Much simpler for political will to pressurize an area where "gains" seem likely then one where there is no obvious notable progress. That way one can later claim credit for the success of the efforts of other people - indeed for the success oof work thatwould have happened anyway irrespective of undue political involvement.

Perhsp Mr. Loony could come up with a "innovative idea" or two about how to compensate the manfufacturers for the effort and investment in electric cars that seems to be wasted thus far. His expertise would no doubt lead to some wonderful, cost effective developments in battery technology, in-the-street charging and similar adoption blockers and then allow the costs to settle at something affordable by the masses, without whom the entire concept is a total waste of all forms of energy.

That should keep him busy (and quiet) for a while.

[chris watton]

And what would happen if everyone had an electric car, at least 60 million on the road, how much extra electricity would be needed to allow these cars to run?

It's all bks.