Why can't we admit..

[buffo]

To pretend that we know the results (we've even made predictions that just fell flat) about something that we have an extremely limited grasp on it is nothing more than fear mongering. It is, in essence, lying.

Do not conflate your own ignorance (or mine, or any other layman's) concerning climate science with that of thousands of professional climate scientists who have spend decades studying the problem.

The fact remains that the OVERWHELMING majority of climatologists agree that rising CO2 levels are a serious problem with grave long-term consequences. If you want to argue with them, the first step would be to bring yourself up to speed on the current science. Unfortunately, that's more work than most people are willing to go through. It's far easier to just say "I don't understand it, so how can they understand it. It's unknowable, and I don't want to do anything until we are sure." But that's not science, it's denial. (And denial, as they say, is not just a river in Egypt...)

No one is spoon-feeding anything. The scientists have rendered their findings. If people ignore that, they are foolish. Yes, no one is perfect, and yes, there are undoubtedly small inaccuracies in the range of predictions, but the overall idea is beyond proven. To argue otherwise is to put yourself in the same camp as the people who argue against evolution.

While I personally loathe Al Gore, and believe he is a hypocrite for advocating large changes to the economy to fight global warming while he lives in an enormous house with a heated swimming pool that consumes more natural gas in a month than your average house does in a year, I will give him credit for one idea he came up with that does ring very true: Global Warming is an Inconvenient Truth. Inconvenient, in that the changes required to mitigate the problem are painful, and the payoff will be decades away, long after most of us are dead. So it's hard to justify, even after you accept that it's a problem that needs to be solved.

But make no mistake. There is no "controversy" surrounding the science of the issue. Sure, there are crackpots who love to nit-pick, and if you watch faux news you might be convinced that it's all a hoax. But step outside your bubble and look at other sources (Al-Jazerra, BBC, Reuters, Scientific America, Nature, etc) to see the bigger picture. Global Warming is real, it's happening, and it will continue.

The real question is not "is it happening", but "what can/should we do about it". Some people are of the opinion that dealing with the change might be easier than trying to prevent it. And there are good arguments on both sides of that issue that are quite interesting to follow. Example: one likely outcome of continued Global Warming is that America might lose her Monopoly as the world's breadbasket, because as the planet warms the fertile soils of southern Canada may end up replacing the wheat belt (Kansas, Iowa, ect) as the primary food production location in North America. (Ironically, this will also make the oil locked in the tar sand fields of Canada much easier to access.)

Flooding is another issue that will need to be addressed. Yes, we can build sea walls, but you can't build them everywhere. (The US alone has something like 90,000 miles of coastline.) And we're not talking about a small flood. The increase in ocean level is not just due to melting ice. Water expands ever so slightly as it is heated. A one or two degree temperature change doesn't sound like much, but remember that the oceans are HUGE. So that tiny change in water temperature can give rise to a large increase in sea level. That will have real consequences that must be dealt with.

Which is better? Should we switch to an all-renewable energy economy, or invest in mitigation strategies? I honestly don't know. There is a chance that even if we develop renewable energy sources, the rest of the developed world (China, I'm looking at you) may not follow suit. Then again, if we can make renewable energy cost-competitive with current sources, that could open up a whole new industry for us. (Much like we led the world in Steel production in the 60's, or cars in the 70's, or computers in the 80's, or medical technology in the 90's, or "creative content" (movies and music) in the 2000's, we could lead the world in renewable energy technology.) It could be the next big thing for us. Or not...

The point of all of this is that people need to start thinking about what we're going to do, rather than arguing about whether or not something needs to be done. The science is solid, and sticking your head in the sand won't change that. We all need to get outside our bubble here.

If your news outlet is telling you that there is any significant controversy over whether rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel consumption is causing an increase in the average global temperature, then I respectfully submit that you news outlet is not actually giving you news. At best, it is an entertainment source masquerading as a news source, and at worst it is deliberate misinformation being delivered by special interest groups that is masquerading as a news source.

Adam

PS: For further information, here is something just published today that is well worth the read. Link to abstract. It was done by CSIRO, who are quite well respected.

[absolom7691]

Adam,

In no way do I question the science or even the findings behind the science. Nor do I dispute that it is happening. I also don't believe we should ignore it. If we're basing it off of historical models, it's going to happen regardless and we need to adapt. I strongly feel that we would be far better putting our eggs in the "adapt" basket than the "let's stop it" basket. What I am largely getting at is when we're told that if we reduce our carbon footprint, we can stop it from happening. To that end, do they KNOW we can stop it? If they can't answer that question, then they need to stop saying it. Because that is an awful risk to take by forcing changes to stop something that is most likely inevitable. I'm all for changing our habits but we need to brace ourselves for the inevitable too. If we put our eggs in the adapt basket, we'll be far better off dealing with the changing climate due to the axial precession of the Earth, human catalyst, volcanic activity and non-terrestrial threats.

I agree that clean energy sources are better and renewable energy srouces are best. We have the most powerful energy souce in the solar system burning away, as it has for billions of years and it is largely going to waste in regards to what little we are doing with it. We should be incentivizing change because it is better for our health and it is cheaper for the individual in the long run. I despise being told to change because "You are killing this planet". We can't kill this planet. We can only kill ourselves.

Please don't take my post as "it is absolutely doomsday of '2012' proportions" or "These damn libs don't know what the hell they're talking about! 'Merica, F*%k yeah!" I take no political sides. I just meant that, like all agnostics, I don't believe anything until I have proof but I am open to the possibilities. That it's happening, there is proof and I believe we do need to change (adapt). What will happen? Well, that is speculation based on a global system we don't fully grasp yet, no matter how much we have learned. We know so much more now than we did 30 years ago. Imagine what we'll know in another 3 decades.

EDIT: I just saw your posted article link. From the article "Ignoring the problem is no longer an option." Yes, I agree, but we have data that show that this has happened 4 times before in the last 450,000 years. Sure, humans may be driving the speed of the climate change as co2 levels are higher than before but based on the cyclic data, it happens about every 100,000 years anyway. It's been approximately 100,000 since the last one. So........ adapt. We can't stop this. I do like that the article acknowldeges that it can't be stopped.

[buffo]

If we're basing it off of historical models, it's going to happen regardless and we need to adapt.

Historical models show this change happening over many millennia at the fastest, and many tens of millennia normally. Adaptation at that speed of change is not nearly as big of a challenge as what we are facing now. (Similar climate change over a period of 200 years or less. In some scenarios up to 50% less.)

I strongly feel that we would be far better putting our eggs in the "adapt" basket than the "let's stop it" basket.

There are lots of arguments that fall at least in part on this side of the debate, and some of them are quite interesting. However, they also have enormous economic impact (like the 90,000 miles worth of sea walls, for example), just as alternative energy solutions have enormous economic impact.

we're told that if we reduce our carbon footprint, we can stop it from happening. To that end, do they KNOW we can stop it?

That's a very simplistic position that doesn't really address the science behind the issue. Yes, we could stop it, IF we could reduce our current carbon footprint to pre-industrial levels (not likely), AND IF we could reduce the current atmospheric CO2 concentration to below 300 ppm (not at all likely).

But this simplistic (indeed, almost childish) position has never been advocated - apart from climate change deniers, and then only as a straw man. Everyone, even the most staunch supporters of drastic measures to curb Global Warming, all agree that fossil fuels can't just be replaced overnight. So yes, the climate is going to change. We have *some* control (how much we aren't certain yet) over how much and how fast it will change - that's all.

The fact is, even if we could stop burning all fossil fuels today, it would take many decades for the CO2 levels to begin to drop. But as I said, we all know that it is just not possible for us to eliminate all fossil fuel use today, or even in the next several decades. Barring some revolutionary break-through in renewable energy, even with a "Manhattan Project level" devotion to the problem, it would probably take us 50 years to get completely off fossil fuels, and that's just for the United States. No way in hell China (or the rest of the developing world) is going to want (or be able to) keep pace with us.

Now, granted, we are the current leader in energy consumption, and we also have the strongest economy, so it might make sense for us to lead the effort. But China is poised to overtake us as the leading consumer of energy - probably within a decade, if not sooner. Then what? This is why it's an "Inconvenient Truth". There are no simple solutions. No outcomes that are painless. And there are LOTS of things that can go wrong, even with the best intentions. (And yes, I realize I'm probably preaching to the choir here, as I'm sure you already understand this. I don't mean to belittle you or to appear pedantic. My purpose in re-iterating all this is to clarify my position for others who may wish to join in the discussion.)

If they can't answer that question, then they need to stop saying it.

If you're getting this from your news outlet, then I think you may want to broaden your list of people you listen to - particularly when it comes to answering questions like these. If ANYONE claims to have a simple answer that solves the problem, they are either grossly misinformed or outright lying to you. Don't listen to a news pundit when he says "Scientists say this..." Instead, look up the article, study, or paper that he's referencing and read what the scientist actually wrote. Many times you will find a large difference in what you read vs what you see on TV.

Honest scientists rarely speak in absolute terms, and are careful to point out possible sources of error in their work. That's part of the scientific method. But those nuances are far too often deemed "too complicated" for the average citizen, so newscasters "dumb it down" for the unwashed masses. (It also helps sell advertising. Sensationalism is part of TV these days - even the news.)

That's how you get from a climate study that states "to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels to that which we had in 1990 by the year 2050, an immediate, permanent, global reduction of 30% in fossil fuel use for the next 40 years would be required" to the simplistic statement that "If we all just drive a Prius, Global Warming will be solved", or other equally nonsensical conclusions. (Note: a global 30% reduction would be catastrophic for most of the developing world - no way to grow food, no way to deliver it, and no way to heat people's homes. It would seriously hammer the US as well. A 30% reduction represents basically all the fuel we use for transportation. Imagine all that being GONE, overnight. Totally not happening!)

If we put our eggs in the adapt basket, we'll be far better off dealing with the changing climate due to the axial precession of the Earth, human catalyst, volcanic activity and non-terrestiral threats.

The problem with the other four sources you listed (not to mention variation in the solar output, which is also a factor) is that all of these sources will give us thousands of years (if not tens of thousands of years) to prepare and adapt. Man-made Global Warning will give us 100 to 200 years at best. And many of the changes are ones we can't accurately predict, both because it's never happened so fast before, and because our understanding of global climate is still progressing. Sure, we know that weather patterns will change, and farms will need to be relocated, and sea levels will rise, and so on.. But there are many other things that we are really unsure about.

What happens if the Atlantic Conveyor stops? What happens if we lose all the polar ice? And perhaps most worryingly, are there areas where the climate can "run away"? (So-called "tipping points".) Will the increased ocean temperatures force a release of stored CO2 in deep seawater? Will increased temperatures cause an increase in the amount of water vapor into the air? (Water vapor is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 is.) Will the increased temperature increase methane production in marshes and swamps? (Methane is another very powerful greenhouse gas.) These are important questions, but we haven't found good answers yet. What we have discovered so far though is very worrying. This is why in the end our solution will almost certainly be a blend of prevention and adaptation.

We have the most powerful energy source in the solar system burning away, as it has for billions of years and it is largely going to waste in regards to what little we are doing with it.

Agreed, but it is difficult to harvest efficiently, and the industry that creates solar panels is very dirty from an environmental standpoint. (Lots of energy input, lots of rare-earth metals, etc). True, compared to oil or coal production, it's still much better, but it's not completely green.

That being said, I agree that photovoltaic solar needs to be a HUGE part of our energy portfolio in the medium to long term. (And concentrated solar-thermal is a good stop-gap measure for the near term.) Absent an alternative like cheap, safe, and abundant fusion power (maybe in 60 to 100 years if we're lucky), the sun is the best we've got. But it will require massive investments in production, not to mention a huge overhaul of our electrical distribution infrastructure. That's part of the "inconvenience"... Solar works, but it's expensive. (And ironically, most of the rare earth materials will need to come from - you guessed it - CHINA!)

I despise being told to change because "You are killing this planet". We can't kill this planet. We can only kill ourselves.

I hate that statement as much as you do, and your response is very reasonable (and a lot more generous) than my usual retort for any crackpot who says "we are killing the planet". Earth has been here over 4 billion years, and life started not long after the planet formed. Life on Earth will go on long after we have either died out, moved on, or evolved into something unrecognizable. Bottom line: if Chicxulub couldn't kill the planet, we certainly can't!

From the article "Ignoring the problem is no longer an option." Yes, I agree, but we have data that show that this has happened 4 times before in the last 450,000 years.

As I said above, it's never happened with such speed. When it happens over thousands or tens of thousands of years, that's bad, but we can work with it. When it happens over 100 years, it will be very challenging for us as a nation to adapt, and it could be utterly overwhelming for the vast majority of underdeveloped nations. Not saying that it's insurmountable, just that it's going to be hard. (There's that "inconvenient" part again...)

Adam

[planters]

There is a lot of controversy regarding the global cooling turns into global warming turns into climate change debate. This is good because this is part of the drive behind scientific investigation. As investigators pursue theories and gather evidence, complex systems are better understood. This doesn't end the questions it actually creates more questions and this too is good. I'm glad we still aren't sitting around a cave worshiping some boulder and calling it mother.

Science suffers from its vulnerability to a lack of funding and this is not new. Politics will probably always have an impact on what is investigated and the rewards that are provided for certain conclusions. That is why, when conclusions are presented, I suggest that along with the results of the investigation and the methods the audience/reader should look at the investigators (they are only human), the funding source and the group or agency that hosts the work.

Most of the politics and the social groups that are promoting major shifts in behavior based on (now called) climate change are very antithetical to my point of view for reasons completely independent of their position on this one issue. I am cynical because I truly believe that many (not all) of these groups have an agenda and climate change is being used as a cover or excuse for imposing this agenda. To support this position I challenge anyone who is interested to look for articles or reviews that conclude that climate change is actually GOOD vs climate change is BAD. This is very telling. It is silly to assume that every place on earth and every ecosystem was at some point of utopian perfection in the year _ _ _ _ and any change is detrimental. There will always be challenges. Some are hard and some self imposed and some will defeat us, but not all are bad as some will make us stronger and smarter. Nevertheless, it is interesting to read studies such as the Greenland ice core investigations. There is some amazing information out there and a lot of good science is being done.

[colouredmirrorball]

To support this position I challenge anyone who is interested to look for articles or reviews that conclude that climate change is actually GOOD vs climate change is BAD. This is very telling. It is silly to assume that every place on earth and every ecosystem was at some point of utopian perfection in the year _ _ _ _ and any change is detrimental.

There is no way a change in climate (or any change at that) in the short time spans we're talking about (a couple hundreds of years) is a good thing for ecosystems, more specifically in their biodiversity. The reason is simple: organisms adapt to new environments by evolution. But evolution is too slow to adapt in the time scales of the change we're causing (again not just climate change, for now habitat loss, overexploitation, invasive species and disease are a more important factor but the effects of the changing climate are already visible in nature and according to the models this will only get worse). Only the fastest adapters will be able to survive while "specialist" species will have a hard time surviving and get extinct. These processes are of course nothing new but the time scales are. There have only been a few occasions with such rapid changes in the global ecology of Earth, they're called mass extinctions. So what we will end up with is a severely reduced biodiversity with a lot of fast adapters and nothing else. Unfortunately for us, these fast adapters are the most prone to become pests as they can learn to make profit of the presence of humans.

In short, there are no winners in a severely reduced biodiversity, and there are no mechanisms which can cause an increase in biodiversity in rapid change like global warming.

Rough estimates give an indication for the "background extinction" rate, the rate at which species get extinct without obvious cause by evolution. They are between 0.1 and 1 extinction/year. Currently, the number of extinctions is estimated at around 10 000 a year!

[buffo]

There is a lot of controversy regarding the global cooling turns into global warming turns into climate change debate. This is good because this is part of the drive behind scientific investigation.

Agreed. The "big chill" theories of the 1970's were based on our (then) poor understanding of compensation mechanisms linked to particulate atmospheric contamination (largely from coal-fired power plants). Now, of course, we understand that these predictions were in error.

However, the temperature increase over the past 30 years has largely paralleled the predictions made by global climate models. Some models predict a higher temperature than we are currently seeing, but this is most likely due to our incomplete understanding of the CO2 cycle in the deep oceans.

As investigators pursue theories and gather evidence, complex systems are better understood. This doesn't end the questions it actually creates more questions and this too is good.

Excellent point. Science isn't about finding "THE" answer. There never is one answer. Just a lot of small answers that lead to further questions. That's how knowledge is gained.

I'm glad we still aren't sitting around a cave worshiping some boulder and calling it mother.

Indeed! (Though some of my fellow citizens here in the south still seem to spend way too much time in caves... )

Science suffers from its vulnerability to a lack of funding and this is not new.

I think the problem is getting worse, however. We are spending less and less on true "research" (which may or may not have an immediate payoff). Likewise, I find it inconceivable that as our knowledge grows, some people would actually find it fashionable to reject knowledge and revel in ignorance, but a brief survey of politicians on the fringes of an issue (on either side) show that ignorance is alive and well, and even prized in some circles. I just can't wrap my head around that mindset...

I suggest that along with the results of the investigation and the methods the audience/reader should look at the investigators (they are only human), the funding source and the group or agency that hosts the work.

Again, well spoken. While every scientist would like to claim that their research is impartial, we are all human and subject to human failings. Whether the bias is unconscious or intentional makes no difference; it needs to be accounted for in either case.

Most of the politics and the social groups that are promoting major shifts in behavior based on (now called) climate change are very antithetical to my point of view for reasons completely independent of their position on this one issue.

This is the exact dispute I have with Al Gore's book. While the science behind his statements is sound, the fact that he is a HORRIBLE example of a green citizen (he pollutes far more than you or I ever will) makes his "call to action" a bit more difficult to swallow.

And yes, I understand this is an ad hominem attack. I should be able to rise above my distaste for his actions and accept his argument at face value. But I'm only human, and it's hard to separate the argument from the actions of the person presenting it.

I am cynical because I truly believe that many (not all) of these groups have an agenda and climate change is being used as a cover or excuse for imposing this agenda.

There are certainly people with their own agendas on BOTH sides of this issue. That's the main reason it's so difficult to have a nationwide discussion on the topic.

I challenge anyone who is interested to look for articles or reviews that conclude that climate change is actually GOOD vs climate change is BAD.

They are out there, but they don't sell advertisements like the sensationalist articles do.

As I mentioned above, one consequence of increased global warming is that Canada will probably end up with a LOT more arable land. That's good for them, even though it might be bad for us.

But on the whole, most researchers agree that the bad consequences will far outweigh the good ones.

it is interesting to read studies such as the Greenland ice core investigations. There is some amazing information out there and a lot of good science is being done.

Greenlands ice-core data is very interesting. In fact, some of the information we've found so far is downright confounding (such as records showing colder temperatures in the distant past when we had higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than we have now). Of course, there are lots of unknowns (which is a given anytime you're dealing with climate science, not to mention historical climate science), but it's fascinating science nonetheless and we are constantly improving our understanding, which is really the whole point of the exercise.

Adam

[absolom7691]

There are lots of arguments that fall at least in part on this side of the debate, and some of them are quite interesting. However, they also have enormous economic impact (like the 90,000 miles worth of sea walls, for example), just as alternative energy solutions have enormous economic impact.

I'm curious if this rise in sea level would be useful for tidal power generation. Silver lining (such as it is).

That's a very simplistic position that doesn't really address the science behind the issue. Yes, we could stop it, IF we could reduce our current carbon footprint to pre-industrial levels (not likely), AND IF we could reduce the current atmospheric CO2 concentration to below 300 ppm (not at all likely).

Because our records show that climate change is cyclical, I don't see how we could actually stop it. Slow it, sure, that could be conceivable but stop it? No.

The fact is, even if we could stop burning all fossil fuels today, it would take many decades for the CO2 levels to begin to drop. But as I said, we all know that it is just not possible for us to eliminate all fossil fuel use today, or even in the next several decades. Barring some revolutionary break-through in renewable energy, even with a "Manhattan Project level" devotion to the problem, it would probably take us 50 years to get completely off fossil fuels, and that's just for the United States. No way in hell China (or the rest of the developing world) is going to want (or be able to) keep pace with us.

This I agree with and am pretty passionate about. A great deal of this has to do with money more than infrastructure, although infrastructure is definitely a factor. Like with the RIAA, "big oil" is shooting themselves in the foot. The RIAA did everything they could to stop mp3 technology and largely missed the bus. They could have been where iTunes is now. They still have their empire but the walls are crumbling fast. Big oil, long ago, should have invested in battery technology, fuel cell technology and other energy sources rather than trying to make fossil fuels cleaner in order to prolong use. Iknow it's easy for me to say, R&D costs an astronomical amount of money, especially when pioneering into a new field. It wasn't until mobile devices became prevalent that battery technology really took off. Once again, they missed the bus. They could have had the monopoly on the Li-ion market. Yes, batteries aren't exactly "clean" either but with improved infrastructure, they are a nice interim until better technology arrives.

For us, infrastructure is a factor but a minor one as far as our capabilities. For less developed countries, this will be a debilitating factor.

I don't mean to belittle you or to appear pedantic. My purpose in re-iterating all this is to clarify my position for others who may wish to join in the discussion.

Heh, I never take what you have to say in any offense. You don't come from an elitist point of view and you take the time to explain why you believe what you believe. It's conversations like these where I wish I had been able to make it to SELEM. Face to face on stuff like this tickles me. I love learning others' points of view. Like I said, I don't play to any side of politics. I stand in the middle and make my decisions based on what makes the most sense, not what a "party" says. It is always good to hear what others have to say, whether or not I agree. As you say, "stepping out of your bubble". With this convo, it is obvious that you have done much more research than I have. Not because I disagree or have my head in the sand but mainly because I am so busy with work (I am still 6 days a week) and the rest of that time is spent playing with lasers and surfing PL!

If you're getting this from your news outlet, then I think you may want to broaden your list of people you listen to - particularly when it comes to answering questions like these. If ANYONE claims to have a simple answer that solves the problem, they are either grossly misinformed or outright lying to you. Don't listen to a news pundit when he says "Scientists say this..." Instead, look up the article, study, or paper that he's referencing and read what the scientist actually wrote. Many times you will find a large difference in what you read vs what you see on TV.

For one, I absolutely despise TV news. Sure, there may be some reputable broadcast media out there but because broadcast media is vying for ratings ($$$$) they need to "entertain" while selling the news. It's a little too subjective for me. "Find out what is in your home RIGHT NOW that can kill you...... at 11". Stuff like that. Unfortunately, it is difficult finding a reliable and unbiased news source. There are a few but as virtual print grows, so does the dilution. Again, I lack the time to try and hunt down a reputable source (a lame excuse, I know). Citation of references is nice and I love when news media includes them.

(Note: a global 30% reduction would be catastrophic for most of the developing world - no way to grow food, no way to deliver it, and no way to heat people's homes. It would seriously hammer the US as well. A 30% reduction represents basically all the fuel we use for transportation. Imagine all that being GONE, overnight. Totally not happening!)

Not to mention the economies that would be obliterated and the multitudes of workers that would be out of a job. Countries that soley rely on the sale of petroleum would be devastated. It absolutely cannot happen overnight.

The problem with the other four sources you listed (not to mention variation in the solar output, which is also a factor) is that all of these sources will give us thousands of years (if not tens of thousands of years) to prepare and adapt. Man-made Global Warning will give us 100 to 200 years at best. And many of the changes are ones we can't accurately predict, both because it's never happened so fast before, and because our understanding of global climate is still progressing. Sure, we know that weather patterns will change, and farms will need to be relocated, and sea levels will rise, and so on.. But there are many other things that we are really unsure about.

I will admit, my take on this was more US based and not globally. If it were just us, we could do a hell of a lot in 100 years. Look at what we have done in just 50. That doesn't account for the rest of the world and lesser economies outside of western nations though, which I hadn't really thought about.

Agreed, but it is difficult to harvest efficiently, and the industry that creates solar panels is very dirty from an environmental standpoint. (Lots of energy input, lots of rare-earth metals, etc). True, compared to oil or coal production, it's still much better, but it's not completely green.

That being said, I agree that photovoltaic solar needs to be a HUGE part of our energy portfolio in the medium to long term. (And concentrated solar-thermal is a good stop-gap measure for the near term.)

I don't put too much stock into the photovoltiac route. Unless we can drastically improve the output, it's a little like robbing Peter to pay Paul. I was speaking more in terms of concentrated solar; solar heated sodium and especially solar stirling farms. I would actually like to see us use sea water for the heat exchangers in the "hot" power plants. The steam could be used as a source of fresh water. It would take some of the expense out of desalination to help combat drought in any region of the world. As the climate changes, we will need a dependable source of water.

Absent an alternative like cheap, safe, and abundant fusion power (maybe in 60 to 100 years if we're lucky), the sun is the best we've got. But it will require massive investments in production, not to mention a huge overhaul of our electrical distribution infrastructure. That's part of the "inconvenience"... Solar works, but it's expensive. (And ironically, most of the rare earth materials will need to come from - you guessed it - CHINA!)

I know we don't like to use the word nuclear but it is "clean". Disposal is still a problem but it is an option that produces next to no atmospheric pollution. Again, not a solution but an interim source of energy to get us off the coal/oil/gas.

Earth has been here over 4 billion years, and life started not long after the planet formed. Life on Earth will go on long after we have either died out, moved on, or evolved into something unrecognizable. Bottom line: if Chicxulub couldn't kill the planet, we certainly can't!

Yep. It's been on fire, a complete snowball, smacked with asteroids, runaway climate shift from volcanic fissures and everything in between.... and the beat goes on. The only time this planet will die is when the sun gives out.

Actually, life has only been in existence on this rock for a very short time. 7/8 of the Earth's existence has seen no life. Precambrian extends from 540Ma ~ 4600Ma

As I said above, it's never happened with such speed. When it happens over thousands or tens of thousands of years, that's bad, but we can work with it. When it happens over 100 years, it will be very challenging for us as a nation to adapt, and it could be utterly overwhelming for the vast majority of underdeveloped nations. Not saying that it's insurmountable, just that it's going to be hard. (There's that "inconvenient" part again...)

It will be difficult. I look forward to the new technology that is spawned, even if I will not live long enough to see how viable it is.

[planters]

These processes are of course nothing new but the time scales are.

Actually, this is not true. The ice core data is a good case in point. As Buffo clearly is aware some of the changes in climate are substantially larger than even the most liberal estimates of current variation, as in the initiation of mini=ice ages within a 10 year transition period! The ice cores allow a year by year estimate of atmospheric gas composition along with local snow fall and temperature for as much as 100,000 years. Admittedly, this is single location testing, but it opes up a whole lot of questions about the assumptions regarding the causes of temperature change.

Loss of habitat is serious and human presence and the modification of floral diversity is a very important, if not the primary, cause of this loss. However, and here my political point of view comes through, the leading regions causing this loss currently are the poorest, least developed nations. Technological limitations, poverty, disease and high birth rates pressure these people to struggle in the most expedient way to survive. Yet, the solution from the UN and gasp, Al Gore and his corrupt cronies many of whom are still in positions of power within our government is to impose wealth transfer policies between the technology advanced nations and industries (through some extraordinarily wealthy individuals) to these poor nations. But, does anyone really think that what is left after Al has taken his share will get past the ruling tyrants in these nations? I think there are better ways, but they are not simple and admittedly may not be effective either, but the carbon tax is a joke.

Buffo brings up the Chinese monopoly on many rare earths. This is true, but in many cases the elements are not from China, they are accumulated in trade. Nevertheless, take cerium as an example. This is a critical element in optical polishing operations and the Chinese control and sharp elevation in prices has not actually caused a problem with the optics industry outside of China because it has led to innovative recycling of polishing slurry's that not only save money, but also reduce the waste from this industrial process. My issue with solar power is convoluted. I love the concept and the technology and agree that it will be the power source of the next century even if fusion power comes on line. Solar IS fusion power. Distributed use as well as distributed generation frees us from the need to expand a costly, inefficient and vulnerable grid. The problem is subsidies. Spain is a good example. The huge government subsidies made solar power competitive with fossil and nuclear power until the economic slowdown in 2008-9 caused these companies to have to compete without these subsides and many providers went bankrupt. By subsidizing an industry, although it seems a noble cause, you tend to freeze innovation at that point in time rather than forcing the industry to improve the efficiency and reduce the cost. Even the shortage of or the environmental impact of components based on indium and cadmium may be replaced by carbon in the form of graphene. Solar is advancing as fast as inexpensive, high power laser diodes. The efficiency is slowly but steadily improving. Several competing (how I love that word) technologies are now available from organic and effectively disposable to self assembling to multi junction that extract over 50% to flexible membranes... This will defiantly happen and Harry Reid, the Koch brothers and Solyndra can all go to hell.

[buffo]

Because our records show that climate change is cyclical, I don't see how we could actually stop it.

Even in a best-case scenario, we can only hope to slow our own contribution to the natural climate cycle. It certainly will change on it's own (it's a chaotic system, after all), but if we can lessen our impact on the system we have a chance at smoothing out those changes. Likewise, if we can learn to prevent the 100-year-and-shorter cycles, we will have accomplished a great deal. (Absolutely not a given though!)

Like the RIAA, "big oil" is shooting themselves in the foot.

Completely agree. They have the resources, the experience, and the time to accomplish a great deal. Peak oil is coming, and while the jury is out as to exactly when, there's no doubt that the day will come. Instead of working towards alternatives to address the issue, they focus on their old, outdated business model. (Oh, and let's not forget next quarter's stock earnings.) How in the hell can you have a 5 year plan when you can't look more than 90 days into the future? Sigh...

For us, infrastructure is a factor but a minor one as far as our capabilities. For less developed countries, this will be a debilitating factor.

I agree that lack of infrastructure is a bigger issue for the developing world, but I fear that too many people discount the risk that our own crumbling infrastructure presents to future generations. It's a lot worse than your average citizen would like to believe it is... But infrastructure improvements are a non-starter, because there is no tangible payoff (at least not in the time window that most executives operate in).

It's conversations like these where I wish I had been able to make it to SELEM.

You should have seen Chris Short, David Frankel, David Kumpula, and me at the breakfast table each morning at the Trotthouse Inn! People thought I was late getting to the venue each morning because I slept in. Not true! I was up by 7:00 so I could be showered and ready for breakfast by 7:30. It's just that after breakfast, we all would sit and talk for 2 hours, until I had to leave to go open up the venue for SELEM to start! If it weren't for SELEM, we would have happily stayed there all day just chatting.

it is obvious that you have done much more research than I have.

I dare say that Eric (Planters) is probably more well-versed on the science than I am. But I do try to keep up...

I absolutely despise TV news.

Good for you! I looked back over my initial post and realized that my disclaimer about pedantry should have followed the next paragraph (where I spoke about TV news) rather than the one preceding it. Sorry if it sounded like I was lecturing you on the evils of TV news, Brian!

I lack the time to try and hunt down a reputable source

It's difficult to find a single source. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, everyone has a bias of some sort. Some are worse than others, but it's always there. So you end up sampling several outlets in the hope that a combination of sources will lead to a better understanding of the truth.

I like Reuters, the BBC, and Al-Jazeera. (Yes, the Arabian news agency based in Qatar. Amazingly, they have more integrity than any US news outlet I've found. They are a lot like US news was back in the 1950's and 60's.)

my take on this was more US based and not globally. If it were just us, we could do a hell of a lot in 100 years. Look at what we have done in just 50.

Good point. And we all tend to think a little more "in house" when faced with a crisis. But globally, the impact will be far worse, and as we've already learned - trouble with the rest of the world brings us down with it. (Not that I'm advocating a transfer of payments here or anything! Just pointing out that it's a bigger problem than just us.)

I don't put too much stock into the photovoltiac route. Unless we can drastically improve the output, it's a little like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

In the near term, I agree with you. But there are promising technologies on the horizon that, if they can be commercialized economically, will make PV solar very attractive indeed. It's just not ready for prime time right now. (But concentrated solar thermal is definitely ready right now.)

I would actually like to see us use sea water for the heat exchangers in the "hot" power plants. The steam could be used as a source of fresh water.

The only problem with that is the fact that where they are currently building lots of concentrated solar thermal plants (southwestern Nevada), there isn't any seawater available. But I agree that building closer to the coast (or even off-shore, should the technology allow it) would allow for a "2-for-1" opportunity to get energy and fresh water from the same facility.

As the climate changes, we will need a dependable source of water.

Dependable, clean, abundant fresh water is something we take for granted. But I agree that it will become a prized commodity as the climate warms - especially in under-developed nations.

I know we don't like to use the word nuclear but it is "clean". Disposal is still a problem but it is an option that produces next to no atmospheric pollution.

I *LOVE* to use the word nuclear. (I'm an ex-Navy Nuc, after all!) The real issue here is the lack of public support. Fission is an excellent stop-gap measure that can tide us over until we achieve a breakthrough in either high-efficiency PV solar or fusion. But it's a non-starter with the general public, due in large part to ignorance. Sigh...

Actually, life has only been in existence on this rock for a very short time. 7/8 of the Earth's existence has seen no life. Precambrian extends from 540Ma ~ 4600Ma

This is incorrect. There was life on earth during most of the precambrian era. Most scientists agree that live appeared on the planet within a few hundred millions years of it's formation. We have considerable evidence showing that life existed 700 million years after the earth formed, and it's very possible that life began even earlier. LINK

some of the changes in climate are substantially larger than even the most liberal estimates of current variation, as in the initiation of mini=ice ages within a 10 year transition period!

Do you have a source for that data? I'm not aware of a significant change in such a short period (10 years), but I'd be interested to read more about it.

It is true that the past 10,000 years have been exceptionally warm. In fact, many climatologists believe that we would currently be transitioning into another ice age now, were it not for the increased CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere. That's not to say that it's all a good thing though. Some are worried about what might happen if the CO2 levels remain high and the climate then begins a natural shift towards warmer temperatures.

Loss of habitat is serious, and human presence and the modification of floral diversity is a very important, if not the primary, cause of this loss.

Completely agree!

The leading regions causing this loss currently are the poorest, least developed nations. Technological limitations, poverty, disease and high birth rates pressure these people to struggle in the most expedient way to survive. Yet, the solution from the UN and gasp, Al Gore and his corrupt cronies many of whom are still in positions of power within our government is to impose wealth transfer policies between the technology advanced nations and industries (through some extraordinarily wealthy individuals) to these poor nations.

Again, I completely agree. Transfer of wealth will NOT solve the problem. Not when you have a corrupt government in place. I challenge Al Gore to name one poverty-stricken nation that is currently suffering from disease and high birth rates that also has anything remotely resembling a western-style government. (If anyone does find such a unicorn, that would be one place I would consider making investments for the future. But I doubt anyone will ever find one.)

The carbon tax is a joke.

I'd like to hear a politician say that. (And mean it.)

take cerium as an example. This is a critical element in optical polishing operations yet the Chinese control and sharp elevation in prices has not actually caused a problem with the optics industry outside of China because it has led to innovative recycling of polishing slurry's that not only save money, but also reduce the waste from this industrial process.

Interesting! I was not aware of this. It's an example of a solution brought about by necessity that most people never would have predicted.

The problem is subsidies. Spain is a good example. The huge government subsidies made solar power competitive with fossil and nuclear power until the economic slowdown in 2008-9 caused these companies to have to compete without these subsides and many providers went bankrupt.

Same exact thing happened in Germany, don't forget. With the government subsidy, installing ~ 5KVA of PV solar on your roof was essentially free. But when they ran out of money, suddenly the cost shot up to 35,000 euro and the market dried up overnight. (This was in 2003; my German exchange sister's husband was working as a salesman for one of the larger PV resellers. He lost his job when the bottom fell out.)

No, PV solar won't work until it can be cost-competitive with fossil fuels ABSENT any subsidies. Hell, ANY renewable technology won't work until it can be cost-competitive with fossil fuels absent any subsidies.

and Harry Reid, the Koch brothers and Solyndra can all go to hell.

I'll drink to that!

Adam

[planters]

Buffo,
This is not the reference I remember. but it is roughly supportive of the rapid change conclusions. It is also not a bad reference for anyone who is not familiar with the research. It's pretty neat.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full

My only problem with nuclear is that the material is threatening enough that private access is a problem and when the government does the project or thoroughly controls the work then the old pressure to spend now and pay later (future generations) means that the real societal costs are very hard to determine or trust. Social Security is a good example.

My estimate is that solar will be truly viable in 15 years. Then, just like the third world skipping the land line stage the explosion of LED lighting and solar power will make huge impacts in poorer nations.