[...] Lean Lefter tgirsch says: What I find intriguing about it is that the list reads like a “greatest hits” list of objections that AGW skeptics generally give when claiming that the “science isn’t in yet” on climate change: global cooling, “the hockey stick has been disproved,” cosmic rays/the sun, “Mars is warming, too,” etc. Not surprisingly, all of these claims turn out to be almost total bullsh!t, often with just the tiniest grain of truth misappropriated to grant the appearance of legitimacy to fool those who don’t bother look at the details. [...]

Interesting what they avoid debunking, things such as the warming trends on our planet that correlate with others in our solar system, the statistics that show that CO2 change follows warming trends, not the other way around, or the fact that the temperature of the planet has changed dramatically in both directions on several occasions over the last few hundreds of thousands of years. I’m not denying that the earths climate is changing (it is of course in a constant state of change), but I will question the amount of anthropogenic input responsible for it. It would be irresponsible to say otherwise.

Tman:

Far from “avoiding” anything, they actually address the CO2/warming lag here and here, and they address the “correlation with other planets” theory here.
They also have at least three bullet points that talk about the cyclic nature of climate. In other words, every item you claim they “avoid debunking,” they actually addressed directly, often more than once. Did you even read the list, or follow any of the links?

Tgirsch,

I did read the list, and was interested in your response. They confirm that yes, CO2 did follow warming trends over the years. Nothing was “debunked” about this at all. Essentially they agreed with the data that yes, CO2 change occurred after the change in temperature. Then they seem to contradict themselves. Is CO2 responsible for warming or not? They ask “if higher temperatures lead to more CO2 and more CO2 leads to higher temperatures, why doesn’t this positive feedback lead to a runaway greenhouse effect?” and respond with a weasly worded “There are various limiting factors that kick in” and this one that makes no sense at all- “at some point (they don’t say when this is) heat loss catches up with heat retention.” Does this sound like an overwhelming consensus?

Then with the other planets they produce the facts about how these other planets warm and cool, but neglect to mention that the warming that is taking place whilst different in intensity and temperature for obvious reasons, has changed in correlation to our planets change in climate. So no, they didn’t address the gist of the question.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=551bfe58-882f-4889-ab76-5ce1e02dced7

Perhaps the funniest part of this whole post for me is that you claim that “the science is in” on global warming, and the best evidence you come up with is one that concludes most of their posts with “many studies suggest it can only be explained by taking into account human activity.” If it was a consensus, then this wouldn’t be a suggestion. When an organism evolves, it do so because of evolution, and this isn’t a “suggestion” it’s a provable fact.

There is nothing in that article that confirms a consensus on anything beyond “scientists have learned how to read thermometers”.

As I posted over at NiT, most of this debunking involves not the basic claims, but the conclusions that are drawn from these claims. Whatever the initial cause of past warming trends was, it remains clear that increasing CO2 exacerbates those trends and causes additional warming. Nothing in the ice core samples contradicts that idea. To claim otherwise is to fall into the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. So, yes, historically, warming started before CO2 increased. Nobody disputes this. What is disputed, instead, is the idea that this somehow disproves the idea that CO2 is the critical contributor to warming today — it doesn’t do any such thing. But when the CO2/ice core fact is cited, that’s the implication, or, more often, the direct claim — and the evidence simply doesn’t support that claim.

As to the correlation-of-planetary-warming thing, that’s been dubunked here (for greater detail, follow the “Bad Astronomy” link from there).

There is nothing in that article that confirms a consensus on anything beyond “scientists have learned how to read thermometers”.

Then you’re operating from a definition of “consensus” which essentially rules out pretty much all scientific agreement that exists today. There’s no “consensus” on gravity, and there’s no “consensus” on evolution, and there’s certainly no “consensus” on quantum physics. Let’s just throw out all of those disciplines, and wait until “the science is in.”

it remains clear that increasing CO2 exacerbates those trends and causes additional warming.

No it doesn’t. If this was the case then we would not have had the period of cooling between 1940 and 1970. The point about CO2, which your article actually addressed is that the computer models haven’t been able to accurately predict the influence of CO2 in terms of global temperature. If you believe that “CO2 exacerbates those trends and causes additional warming” then why did the temperature fall between 1940 and 1970? This “incovenient truth” tends to send the CO2 models in to a tizzy.

Thanks for the BA link, I’ve been a big fan of Phil’s work for years, he was one of the first guys I linked to on my blog. He makes the following statement which I agree with completely -“There are links to the Sun’s behavior and Earth’s climate (look up the Maunder minimum for some interesting reading), and it would be foolish to simply deny this. However, this is a vastly complex and difficult system to understand, and simply claiming “Yes it’s due to the Sun” or “No it’s not due to the Sun” is certainly naive.”

Yes the sun is a contributor to global warming (in fact without it we’d be living on a block of ice), the question is, how much?

Again, no specific consensus in regards to this. And to say otherwise would be fallacious.

Let’s just throw out all of those disciplines, and wait until “the science is in.”

There is one hell of a lot more scientific consensus on gravity or evolution than there is in regards to anthropogenic planetary warming. You just quoted a scientist who also says essentially that “this is a vastly complex and difficult system to understand, and simply claiming “Yes it’s due to the Sun” or “No it’s not due to the Sun” is certainly naive.”, and you could replace the word sun with “human activity” and the same statement could be made.

There is no scientific consensus in regards to how much of global warming is due to the effects from human activity. And your link doesn’t give any indication that there is.

If this was the case then we would not have had the period of cooling between 1940 and 1970.

Well, I could see how you’d think that if you totally ignored the effects of aerosolized particulates.

If you believe that “CO2 exacerbates those trends and causes additional warming” then why did the temperature fall between 1940 and 1970?

Asked and answered. But the larger point is that absolutely no one credible — and I mean no one — denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which causes warming. That fact is as incontrovertible as facts get.

Yes the sun is a contributor to global warming (in fact without it we’d be living on a block of ice), the question is, how much?

And the answer is, plainly, “not enough to account for the changes we’re seeing.” Again, I’m not aware of anyone credible who argues otherwise. The idea that increased solar energy activity can alone explain what we’re seeing has been thoroughly debunked, including here. Please note that you can’t have your cake and eat it, too — long ago, when (as you point out) the world was much warmer than it is even today, the sun was emitting a third less energy than it is today. So to argue now that the sun is what’s responsible, while also arguing that in the past it was much warmer even when there was considerably less solar energy, is to paint yourself into quite a nasty corner.

There is one hell of a lot more scientific consensus on gravity or evolution than there is in regards to anthropogenic planetary warming.

That overstates it; it really does. We have two competing theories of gravity, even today, which don’t agree at all. What works for some things doesn’t work at all for others. And evolution is very similar to global climate change: the fact of it is almost universally acknowledged, while there remains quite a bit of debate as to the mechanisms of how it works. (Note that in climate change theory, the vast majority of the dispute concerns not whether human activity is exacerbating things, but by how much.)

There is no scientific consensus in regards to how much of global warming is due to the effects from human activity.

As noted above, on this, at least, you’re right. But the range of options isn’t as wide as you seem to believe, and as I pointed out before, there’s virtually no controversy within the scientific community over the claim that human activity is having a measurable impact. Please also note that as more research is done and more information comes in, the case for human impact being profound has become stronger, not weaker.

The problem, as I see it, is that you’re cherry-picking. Any reason given to doubt AGW is a reason you’ll cling to. Ask yourself this: Have you ever heard an objection to AGW theory that you’ve rejected as not making sense?

and this one that makes no sense at all- “at some point (they don’t say when this is) heat loss catches up with heat retention.”

Wow. Either you failed to read or you don’t know enough math to even mention science in public. Heat lost is an exponential function of temperature. Heat retention, as a reflectivity, is a function of CO2 level, bounded and strictly less than one. CO2 levels are finite and monotonically related to temperature.

Hm, now however could it make sense for an exponentional function to dominate a function with a linear asymptote. Hm…. Oh wait, by having an input value at which the slope of the exponential exceeds that of the asymptote. Go back to school.

Dan M, from a thermodynamic perspective, you are partially correct. Heat transfer, in general, consists three components: conduction, convection, and radiation. Conduction is a linear function of temperature difference (and is pretty much irrelevant to a discussion of AGW). Convection is a very complex phenomenon, its dependence on temperature difference varies, but as I recall, the dominant relationship to temp varies as the square of the temp – it’s been almost 30 years since I studied this, so don’t quote me. (In this context, convection is somewhat relevant in that convection mostly responsible for transferring heat between the earth’s surface and the upper atmosphere.) The most important component is radiation, which is a function of the temperature difference raised to the 4th power. And since space is essentially a void, radiation is the only mechanism that can transfer heat to and from the earth. (By earth, I mean the planet and its atmosphere.)

In steady state, the earth is absorbing and radiating an equal amount of energy (heat). Both are a function of temperature difference raised to the fourth. The earth’s temp is much closer to outer space (which is at absolute zero) than it is to the sun’s temp. But the earth radiates heat spherically, so more low level radiation from earth into space balances less high level radiation from sun to earth.

Radiation from the surface of the earth to space is partially blocked by the atmosphere, just as radiation from the sun to the earth’s atmosphere is partially blocked by the atmosphere. (“Blocked” includes both abosbtion of the radiated energy and reflection of the energy.) However, since the sun surface temp is much higher than the earth’s, the radiation from the sun is at a much shorter wavelength and thus it is more able to penetrate the atmosphere than is the outbound radiation from earth (which has a lower temp source and thus is longer wavelength). This of course is the well-known greenhouse effect – short wavelength energy from the sun can penetrate glass, but longer wavelength energy from inside the greenhouse (or automobile with windows up) cannot radiate back out. The same glass that is transparent to the sun’s radiation is essentially opaque to long wavelength – cooler source – radiation.) In steady state, the heat gain due to solar radiation becomes balanced by heat loss due to long wavelength radiation plus conduction of heat from within the greenhouse/car to the ground and conduction to the outer surface coupled with convection, which removes some of the heat from the outer surface.

Adding to the complexity of AGW analysis is the fact that the core of the earth is hot (relative to the surface), so there is a continuous transfer of heat (via conduction and convection in flowing magma) from within the earth to its surface. Layer on top of that weather, oceans, volcanoes, addition and subtraction of gasses and particulate matter to the atmosphere – we are talking about one complex system.

So aerosolized particulates caused the temperature to drop? This completely offset the effects of warming caused by CO2 increase? Really? Across the whole planet? During the time in question the northern hemisphere had much higher levels of these aerosol particulates than the southern hemisphere, so one would think that according to your model the northern would have more cooling than the southern. But this isn’t how it worked out, is it. The aerosol argument seems rather precarious, and more like a convenient excuse for not having an explanation for the cooling.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas which causes warming

How much does co2 contribute to global warming, and how much of that is from human activity? Then show me a statistic that says that co2 levels are increased by more than say, 25% as a result of human activity. Every study I’ve seen says that humans AT BEST increased levels of CO2 by no more than 10%. If co2 isn’t a primary cause of global warming percentage wise, and human activity accounts for less than a quarter of this increase, it would make sense to question how much human activity is causing global warming.

The idea that increased solar energy activity can alone explain what we’re seeing

Good. Because I didn’t say that. I did say the sun contributes to global warming, but I never said it was the only thing that did.

the vast majority of the dispute concerns not whether human activity is exacerbating things, but by how much.)

Gee that’s funny, that sounds exactly like what I’ve been saying this entire thread. In fact, this is what I wrote in my first comment- I’m not denying that the earths climate is changing (it is of course in a constant state of change), but I will question the amount of anthropogenic input responsible for it. It would be irresponsible to say otherwise.

Glad that you and I agree. I just wish that your article would’ve mentioned this.

Tman:
During the time in question the northern hemisphere had much higher levels of these aerosol particulates than the southern hemisphere, so one would think that according to your model the northern would have more cooling than the southern.

You’re assuming that the particulates would stay right where they were generated — not a safe assumption. I would expect those particulates to follow the jet stream, rather than to hover idly over their point of generation.

In any case, global dimming as a result of aerosol pollution is a fairly well-documented phenomenon, and its interaction with global temperature is becoming more and more clear. A lot more detail on this can be found here.

On the effects of CO2 on warming, including the lag you keep talking about, a really good, accessible explanation is here, and more on man-made warming here. Of particular note:

We can rule out solar variability because we have high-accuracy measurements of the output of the sun from satellites since the mid-1970s, and we have not seen the increase in solar output necessary to explain the temperature increase. This is not to say that solar is playing no role, just that it cannot explain the majority of the observed warming.

Also:

Finally, we have greenhouse gases. In this case, things work out well. Both the timing and magnitude of today’s warming are well-explained by greenhouse gases.

This is why scientists conclude that humans are likely responsible for most of the warming of the last few decades. Greenhouse gases provide a reasonable explanation for the warming, while no other factor can explain the entire warming (though other factors, such as solar, might be playing a minor role). In the IPCC report, they attach the word “likely” to the statement about the importance of greenhouse gases, which denotes about 75% confidence that the statement is true. This takes into account our imperfect knowledge of the atmosphere, in particular with regard to internal variability, and that future work might lead to revisions of our views.

In other words, when you look at the numbers, all of the other factors you keep mentioning are indeed contributing factors, but even when combined, can only explain a small percentage of the warming we’re observing. Meanwhile, greenhouse gases, and CO2 in particular, can explain the majority of what we’re seeing. The numbers line up quite nicely.

You seem to obsess about the percentage of change here, but devoid of context, I’m not entirely sure that’s meaningful. It’s not terribly interesting how much (percentage-wise) the CO2 content of the atmosphere has changed; what’s interesting is whether that change can help explain warming trends, and if so, how much? As it turns out, the answers to those questions are, “yes,” and “most of it,” respectively. More on this here.

Still more on CO2 increases, where they’re coming from, and who’s responsible here.

Gee that’s funny, that sounds exactly like what I’ve been saying this entire thread.

Fair enough — sloppy wording on my part. Where we’re not seeing eye-to-eye is on the plausible range of answers to the “how much is human activity responsible for” question. Your scale seems to include “no impact or negligible impact,” when the scientific community is coalescing around a range from “uh oh” to “holy shit.” Even the very few detractors within the scientific community (e.g., Lindzen) generally concede human activity is a major contributor.

All this aside, though, you can learn virtually everything you need to know about this debate by watching what the AGW skeptics do, against what those who have accepted AGW as fact do, when faced with objections. When the AGW-is-BS folks raise exceptions, the scientific community weighs them, analyzes them, and generally rejects them, along with a detailed explanation as to why the objection doesn’t hold water. In response to this, the AGW-is-BS folks simply move on to the next objection. As these objections are proven wanting, they keep moving on, and then loop back around to the same tired, old objections that they previously raised (and which were previously discredited) as if those objections are somehow new. There’s not even an attempt at intellectual honesty there.

Look at most of the objections listed in the myths link that spawned this post: most of them don’t even survive a cursory inspection of the details, and yet people keep bringing them up, time and time again. It has nothing to do with science, and is all about modern political spin — if we repeat it enough times, maybe people will start believing it’s true. Call it the Tinkerbell effect. But when you start peeling back the layers, and look at who’s got more detail on their side, it’s clearly not the AGW-is-BS crowd. AGW, as it turns out, is almost certainly not BS. And believe me, this is precisely the sort of thing I’d love to be wrong about.

[...] Tgirsch’s post has brought some of the usual anti-climate change talking-points. I want to deal with a few of them here in the service of a larger issue: the refusal of right-wingers to believe in environmental science. First the points. [...]

Ted, thanks for the very clear and helpful discussion, though it was tangential to my point. I was trying to make clear that the previous speaker shouldn’t have trouble understanding that an exponential (as described by an earlier quote, though you say it’s fourth order polynomial (and though that is a very important distinction, I’m not surprised it’s lost in the popular media)) increasing function will overpower any linear function. I didn’t mean to say that the heat retention was linear, only that it must have a linear bound.

Let me first say that believers in AGW are like any other religion, based solely on faith. Why do I say this, because there is no proof of AGW, only a theory that has no proof.

1. “So aerosolized particulates caused the temperature to drop? This completely offset the effects of warming caused by CO2 increase?”

There are no documented studies that prove this. There are no accurate measurements that show aerosolized particulates have decreased since the 1970’s. All the papers I have looked at show that there has been no measurable change in aerosolized particulates since measurements have been taken. If you can point to any actual measurements that refute this, please do.

2. CO2 is not a major driver of warming or cooling. There is no evidence of this. All historical data shows that temperature is a major diver of CO2. The simple logical argument which is never addressed by the AWG faithful is that if CO2 is a major driver then why does warming stop? The faithful made up the strange logic to explain that while CO2 never starts warming, CO2 extends the time the warming happens. Now, there is no proof of this, it is conjecture, but even if it is true, then what stops the warming? The CO2 is there to make it warmer but it does not, rather the warming stops and some time later the CO2 level drops. This supports the fact that temperature drives CO2 levels.

3. While there is no correlation between warming and CO2. CO2 levels increase after warning takes place and decrease after cooling takes place. There is a correlation between solar activity and temperature. Over all measurable time periods, solar activity correlates very well with global temperatures. The why is something that needs to be researched. Recent theories on how solar activity moderates galactic cosmic rays and how high energy cosmic rays contribute to cloud formation may be the correct.

4. Climatology is a complex science where little is known. To paraphrase – For every complex issue there is a simple answer, unhappily, it is generally wrong. CO2 is the proposed simple answer to a little know complex system, and seems at this time to be, alas, wrong.

While the believers of this new religion want to take base everything of faith, with little or no facts to support them, I need proof before I start accepting the recording of western civilization on this new green religion.

2. CO2 is not a major driver of warming or cooling. There is no evidence of this. All historical data shows that temperature is a major diver of CO2. The simple logical argument which is never addressed by the AWG faithful is that if CO2 is a major driver then why does warming stop? The faithful made up the strange logic to explain that while CO2 never starts warming, CO2 extends the time the warming happens. Now, there is no proof of this, it is conjecture, but even if it is true, then what stops the warming? The CO2 is there to make it warmer but it does not, rather the warming stops and some time later the CO2 level drops. This supports the fact that temperature drives CO2 levels.

You appear not to have been paying attention.

CO2 and temperature have mutual positive feedback. Temperature has a negative driver which increases in fourth order proportion to temperature, while CO2 has a deminishing response at higher temperatures. Of course such a system can reach equilibrium at higher temperatures. That does nothing to refute the positive feedback in either direction.

So, yes, when Earth comes out of an ice age, an initial temperature increase drives a CO2 increase, and the two lead to an interglacial period. But of course eventually heating moderates and stabalizes at some finite temperature. Exactly where it stops depends on many things, including the amount of CO2 that has been reached. It’s not that CO2 never starts an interglacial period (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum), but that CO2 need not be the start in order to have a major role in the phase change.

This all amounts to the fact that CO2 raises temperature, and in a complex system stable regimens occur at balance points between competing influences, not only at extrema. If you don’t grasp that, then you should probably object to pretty much all of modern chemistry as well as climate science.

Vernon, you are willing to bet the future of the planet that you are correct? If Manhattan is under 5 feet of water, will that be proof enough and will you then agree that there is a problem and we should attempt to address it?

A simple cost/risk analysis convinces me that even if the current state of the science is eventually proved to be wrong, it is prudent to assume it is correct and take action now. Especially when the ancillary effects of reducing CO2 emissions are so compelling (cleaner air, less dependence on an unpredictable, finite energy source, etc).

On one hand, there is a group of people that are convinced we need to take action to save the planet and in doing so will also reduce pollution, solve an energy problem that will need to be solved eventually in any case, and obviate the “need” for the West to engage in military action in the Middle East.

On the other hand, there is a group of people that opposes taking action because… to be honest, I’m not sure why.

Let’s say there is a 50-50 chance the AGW folks are wrong. Can anyone provide a risk scenario associated with taking action that balances the risk associated with not taking action?

Any MBA that has studied the risk management area of OM, any poker player that understands implied pot odds, heck any car owner that voluntarily buys insurance will understand that with such massive potential for harm associated with the science being correct, there have to be massive costs associated with taking action to justify not doing so.

And before anyone answers with the pat “energy costs will go up and cripple the economy”, please consider the cost of energy now compared to the cost two years ago, and also the cost of energy in the US compared to the cost in Japan and Europe.

On the other hand, there is a group of people that opposes taking action because… to be honest, I’m not sure why.

In the other thread I attempt to explain why. People want to save the Earth and the result is I have an Ethanol plant near me that is a tremendous air polluter. Thanks a bunch.

People switch to CF light bulbs but there is no recycling program. They contain mercury which will eventually end up in some poor schmuck’s well water. The poor schmuck says thanks a bunch.

Are there recycling programs for the batteries in Prius hybrids? No, but there should be.

There are riots in Mexico because of the corn shortage. Where is the corn going? To Ethanol. The people of Mexico say thanks a bunch.

Junk science can hurt people. The law of unintended consequences on steroids.

But when it comes time to build a nuclear power plant or an oil refinery the same people who supposedly want to save the Earth say NO. The rest of us say thanks a bunch.

If you can save the planet without hurting me I am all for it. But so far that is not happening. So of course I don’t want to see any more junk science cause more air and water pollution.

There are no easy answers. But the Luddite way is not the answer.

Number9, No serious environmentalist endorses corn-based ethanol. Even so, the corn that is used to make it is livestock grade corn and not corn grown for human consumption.

As for recycling CF lamps, the process is well understood and implemented all around the globe. Your claim that it is not is total, complete bullshit.

No recycling for Prius batteries? You are not dealing with idiots. Of course there is, just like there is for the lead acid batteries used in every car. Nickel-metal hydride recycling is a well-solved problem. To encourage recycling, Toyota pays $200 for batteries turned in.

I’m a fan of nuclear, but I find it astounding that you complain about lack of recycling for CF and in the next breath endorse nuclear. Please tell me about the currently implemented technology for recycling nuclear waste.

I have to say, you are either one of the more ignorant commenters here, or one of the most disingenuous.

Ted:
I have to say, you are either one of the more ignorant commenters here, or one of the most disingenuous.

I’m gonna go with #2.

Number9:
People switch to CF light bulbs but there is no recycling program. They contain mercury which will eventually end up in some poor schmuck’s well water.

Except that an incandescent bulb is responsible for putting more total mercury into the environment than a CF bulb, even assuming the CF bulb is disposed of improperly. So the CF bulb, as it turns out, is still preferable to the old way, even if nobody recycles them (which, as Ted points out, many people — including myself — do).

In any case, your arguments are not good arguments for abandoning these technologies; instead, they’re arguments for better education about recycling, and expanding recycling programs.

By the way, you keep talking about corn shortage riots in Mexico as if they’re widespread. If this is indeed the case, then it shouldn’t be at all difficult for you to cite several examples of this… Of course, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least bit if this turned out to be just like the family farmers who lost their farms because of the estate tax — a total fabrication.

Tgirsch >

1. Your incandescent bulb putting more total mercury into the environment claim is only valid if electricity is produced from coal-fired plants. As the plants get better, the difference shrinks. Hydro-electricity does no such thing.

2. The opportunity to recycle CF bulbs is not present everywhere. There are alot of municipalities and counties where the technology is not present (including where I live).

3. Re the riots in Mexico, there were riots earlier this winter because the price jump in corn was causing a huge spike in the price of tortillas. Mexicans rioted and the government put things in place to try to control the prices.

Big U, Have you tried returning your used CF lamps to the place where you purchased them? Many sellers will accept them back for recycling, and this could be institutionalized quite easily (as is the case with lead acid batteries and motor oil, at least where I live).

Hydro power is great, no doubt. If only we had more rivers to harness. Of course most hydro plants have been built with government assistance, so that might be an issue now for some folks…

Your incandescent bulb putting more total mercury into the environment claim is only valid if electricity is produced from coal-fired plants.

If you break a CF bulb in your house it is not good.

http://shotsacrossthebow.com/archives/002690.html

Ted, where in Knoxville may I recycle all these CF bulbs I have? We don’t have that choice. But you said we did. I guess you made a mistake. Who is disengenous? Perhaps you are just uninformed. Or perhaps your agenda is more important than being honest.

Do you have a recycling program where you live for these things? A link please?

At least I don’t take a position that harms other people. So much for choice #2 tgirsch. I wouldn’t say you are disingenuous tgirsch, I just don’t think you understand the impact of your choices. Less feeling and more thinking, that would be a start.

[Corrected]

Big U:

1. The majority of power generated in the United States is coal-fired. In 2005, hydroelectric accounted for less than 7% of electricity generation, while coal was responsible for almost 50%. But the bottom line is that the way things are in the US right now, CF would be responsible for less mercury than traditional incandescents, assuming every single CF blub is thrown away.

2. Not everywhere, but it exists most places and is getting better. If you’re near an IKEA store (which people in most major cities are), you’re near a CF recycling drop-off. More here.

3. As it turns out, the Mexican tortilla riots had at least as much to do with collusion as with ethanol; they also seemed to have more to do with food price inflation in general, and with dissatisfaction with Calderon’s new government.

Not everywhere, but it exists most places and is getting better. If you’re near an IKEA store (which people in most major cities are), you’re near a CF recycling drop-off.

You are enabling. That is what people in denial do.

Where is my nearest IKEA store? You defense ala Randy Neal that CF bulbs are better than coal fired power plants is bogus. The coal fired power plants do not put the mercury in well water.

I admit I was wrong about CF bulbs. But you cannot admit you were wrong can you? And of course your main problem with me so you allege is that I never admit I am wrong.

Take responsibility for your actions. We were sold a bill of goods on CF bulbs. Without universal recycling they do not have a positive benefit. The recycling center should be Walmart not IKEA.

If you cannot temper your Earth first idealism with pragmatic action then you may make things worse. I am tired of seeing my local environment become more polluted because people that live far away want to save the Planet.

Number9:
I admit I was wrong about CF bulbs. But you cannot admit you were wrong can you?

Big of you to admit that. I do it all the time. Did you have something in particular in mind in this thread? Yes, you are correct that not ALL power generates mercury — just most of it. And yes, you are correct that coal power doesn’t put mercury directly into well water — there’s the additional step of it raining before it can get there. And even in that case, if you can demonstrate that mercury in the air (A) stays in the air, and (B) is less harmful there than it is in the ground water, I’ll concede the point that it’s apples and oranges. As it turns out, though, the facts appear to be squarely on my side on that count. That link also has disposal instructions.

Finally, IKEA was just one example. There are others. If you think CF recycling should be more readily accessible to more people, I wholeheartedly agree. But that was never the point. The point is that even without recycling CF, the environmental impact is still less than that of incandescent. Let me put it like this:

Recycled CF Mercury &lt Landfill CF Mercury &lt Incandescent Mercury

With any luck, of course, the cost of LED bulbs will come down, and to my knowledge, those contain no mercury while using only 1/10th of the energy of a CFL bulb (or 1/90th of the energy of an incandescent bulb) to produce the same amount of light. But we still do what we can, while we can, with what we have.

Make no mistake: There’s a lot more we could be doing, and while there’s already some progress being made, still more could be done. Bottom line, though, is that the net effect is still an improvement.

I am tired of seeing my local environment become more polluted because people that live far away want to save the Planet.

I’d bet dollars to donuts that the cumulative effect of the efforts of those people far away is far more beneficial than harmful, in the final analysis.

Number9:
Ted, where in Knoxville may I recycle all these CF bulbs I have? We don’t have that choice.

Yes, you do.

At least I don’t take a position that harms other people.

If the scientists are right and you are wrong, then that’s precisely what you’re doing.

Number9, one more item on recycling CF bulbs. I was responding to your statement that

“People switch to CF light bulbs but there is no recycling program.”

My response is that there are plenty of recycling programs, all over the globe. I now believe that instead of claiming there is no recycling program for CF, you meant to say there are places where recycling does not exist – or is inconvenient at best. That I agree with. Where I live, any place that sells lead acid batteries is compelled by law to accept dead ones for recycling. Where I live, any place that sells motor oil is compelled by law to accept used motor oil for recycling. It is not a very big stretch to get to where every place that sells CF lamps would be compelled by law to accept dead ones for recycling.

And of course Tgirsch has been kind enough to provide you with a link to a place in Knoxville where you can recycle your bulbs. In return, can you provide me a link to a place where nuclear waste can be recycled? Even though you can’t, I’m not suggesting that nuclear is not worth pursuing. And neither are you.

It is not a very big stretch to get to where every place that sells CF lamps would be compelled by law to accept dead ones for recycling.

We agree. That was my point. So States like California and New York that are considering outlawing incandescent bulbs should step up and make recycling part of the plan. Would you agree?

On nuclear waste. There are few places that can qualify. And it has to be trucked to those places. It won’t be easy.

Every coal power plant should have scrubbers. But they don’t and they won’t for a very long time. We cannot change the world overnight.

The best we can do is try to make it better while not making it worse. So much of the Green Movement doesn’t look at all of the factors. If you are unfortunate to get an Ethanol plant near where you live it will change your point of view. My point is much of this is not seeing the forest for the trees.

Wind power kills birds. Tidal power kill fish. Fusion would be great but it doesn’t work. What is next has to work without breaking the economy. I don’t know the answer and no one else does either.

You know that oath the doctors take, first do no harm? Not as easy as it sounds.

“We agree. That was my point. So States like California and New York that are considering outlawing incandescent bulbs should step up and make recycling part of the plan. Would you agree?”

yes, 100%

Number9:
So States like California and New York that are considering outlawing incandescent bulbs should step up and make recycling part of the plan. Would you agree?

Absolutely.

Every coal power plant should have scrubbers. But they don’t and they won’t for a very long time. We cannot change the world overnight.

The problem is, you’ve pooh-poohed pretty much every suggested change, so nothing changes at all. And, to Kevin’s original point, environmentalists have long been lobbying for things like improved scrubbers at coal plants, and efficiency upgrades at existing coal plants, but these have been shot down, almost exclusively by right-wingers, who often claim that such upgrades are expensive and unnecessary.

So much of the Green Movement doesn’t look at all of the factors.

Except that, as already noted, the “Green Movement” aren’t very big proponents of ethanol in the grand scheme of things; still less corn-based ethanol. As previously noted, the Sierra Club generally opposes corn- and soy-based ethanol and prefers more stringent CAFE standards. (Really, it kind of seems like you have a bug up your ass about ethanol because of the plant going in near your house, and are projecting that anger on to pretty much everything the “green movement” does. Perhaps if you could show me which environmental groups actively supported the plant, it would help me figure out just who it is your mad at.)

Wind power kills birds.

So does coal power. And, as documented below, this problem is grossly exaggerated.

Tidal power kill fish.

Assuming for the moment that this is actually true (afact not in evidence, but for sake of argument, I’ll concede it), so does coal power.

The problem here is that you seem to be pointing out the problems with the suggested alternatives, while ignoring the problems of the status quo. If we do nothing until we come up with a solution that has zero downside, we’ll never do anything. So the question isn’t whether or not wind and tidal power have adverse impact; it’s what that adverse impact is as compared to the adverse impact of coal. I argue that in those cases, the impact is considerably less.

Wind and tidal kill the animals they kill only by direct contact; they don’t do so over a distance, and they don’t do so in ways that accumulate in the environment and get passed on to other species. The impacts of coal power (and, really, any combustible power source) are much farther-reaching because they do accumulate in the environment, and can do more indirect harm.

In any case, the wind turbine/bird death problem is grossly exaggerated, especially when compared to other ways birds die. (Surely you wouldn’t have us discontinue the use of glass windows or electric power lines, would you?) Also, newer wind turbines reduce the frequency of turbine-related bird deaths even further.

You argue that wind and tidal would have a more dramatic environmental impact than coal and gas. I have yet to find any evidence to corroborate that assertion.

Tgirsch,

It’s also worth noting that the primary conclusion about bird fatalities is that older turbines had a real problem, while modern ones have very close to zero effect. Also, it looks like the fatalities don’t scale linearly with area of turbines. I’d suspect this means that the birds just need a place to dodge to.

As for all human-caused bird deaths, note that very nearly all of them (except hunting) are due to collisions, with most of the remaining being habitat related. This begs the question of at what rate birds crash in nature. I’m sure things like fast turbines and guy wires flummox them, but things like towers shouldn’t give them any more trouble than trees. I suspect that the crash rates compared to natural crash rates are only barely elevated. Maybe this is one of those cases of not considering all factors that Number9 mentions.

You have both agreed that there is a problem in not thinking through the consequences of possible decisions.

Next step, what ideas provide maximum benefit? What has the better benefit, install scrubbers at a large coal plant that has no scrubbers? Or, build a wind farm for an equal amount of money?

Number9, in the parlance of logic, you have introduced, and now are attempting to extend a red herring argument. The thread, until you came along, was concerned with the phenomenon climate change. You are focusing on various proposed technologies to alleviate climate change.

Let me ask you this. Do you agree that climate change is occurring, and if so, do you agree that science has provided sufficient evidence that there is a large enough human-induced component to the change to warrant finding and implementing changes on a scale large enough to appreciably reduce the human-induced component? If so, then you are in basic agreement with the premise of this thread, if not, it might be more effective if you argue the point at hand.

Do you agree that climate change is occurring

Over what period of time? Climate change is always occurring. That is a natural state.

Do you agree that science has provided sufficient evidence that there is a large enough human-induced component to the change to warrant finding and implementing changes on a scale large enough to appreciably reduce the human-induced component?

On the first part of the question, no, I do not see “sufficient evidence” that man has altered the climate. There is a lot of evidence, but it is infected with politics and new religion. Currently, it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Should man try to be a better steward to the environment? Absolutely. Install the scrubbers. If you build wind farms use the new technology that doesn’t kill as many birds. Conserve as much as possible but you can still use toilet paper. Don’t be an eco-nut.

But when you talk carbon taxes and banning light bulbs you go to far. I have no problem with carbon offsets. They are voluntary. I think some are ripoffs. I wouldn’t be surprised that Tony Soprano runs rigged carbon offsets.

Show me a carbon offset where the money goes to install scrubbers on coal plants. I purchase my share and encourage others to do the same. Bring on the LED lights. I will pay extra for them.

But I will think out the consequences of what I do. I thought I had done the right thing with CF bulbs. My heart was in the right place. I just didn’t have all the facts. And that is the problem when politics and religion get into the mix. It makes it more difficult to get the facts.

Number9:
What has the better benefit, install scrubbers at a large coal plant that has no scrubbers? Or, build a wind farm for an equal amount of money?

Setting aside the “equal amount of money” thing (since I don’t know what the relative costs are), it depends what problem you’re trying to solve. The topic at hand here is carbon-driven warming, and no number of scrubbers will do a damn thing about that. This isn’t to say that retrofitting existing coal plants with better cleaning technology and efficiency improvements is a bad idea; quite the contrary, it’s a good idea, far better than building new coal plants. But it does nothing to address the warming problem.

On the first part of the question, no, I do not see “sufficient evidence” that man has altered the climate. There is a lot of evidence, but it is infected with politics and new religion. Currently, it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.

No, it isn’t at all difficult. In fact, it’s quite easy. About the only serious debate that exists is political, rather than scientific. Within the scientific community, there are only a very few dissenters, and they’ve thus far been utterly unable to convince their peers that they might be on to something. Science is a meritocracy, and the dissenters are thus far without merit.

And that is the problem when politics and religion get into the mix.

The thing is, though, that virtually all of the politics that are being injected into the debate and obfuscating the facts are coming from your end of the political spectrum.

Go back to your statement about carbon offsets. Voluntary is all well and good, but what if it became clear that voluntary wasn’t good enough? If we made taxes purely voluntary, the country collapse. What makes you think it would be any better with environmental concerns?

I have no problem with holding everyone to a certain standard, if that standard is necessary to protect our future. Call me pessimistic, but I don’t think it could ever work to impose no standards and simply hope that enough people will make better choices (at more expense to themselves) to make a difference.

Baaa Baaa, I think everything is down to CO2 and agree with everything I read in the papers!
OK we are pumping to much CO2 into the atmosphere but politicians are not experts.
Facts can be made to fit any argument, but sometimes you have to go with want makes sense. I sometimes wonder if somebody had made a big case in the middle ages for the nice warm weather we would all be looking at this in a different way. The so called experts politicians rely on, in one line say that the CO2 lag follows the temperature trend line and yet at the same time to try and argue that the rise in CO2 is not linked to an increase in temperature they add a few stupid lines saying that this could be down to many other factors, different gases volcanic eruptions. All theses factors are completely constant are they, I think not! The whole point that CO2 increase corralates with the rise in temperature so closely is because they are directly linked. Oh and by the way I get warmer after I’ve been out in the sun not before I get out of bed, put my shorts on sun tan lotion slapped eveywhere and poured myself a beer!
PS. I love this Planet and do everything to lessen by Carbon footprint …I have a very young Son but I still think there’s an awfull lot of money being spent on this bulls***.