Hey, alarmists...

[reel]

There also appears to be a consensus that global warming has entered a pause stage. Depends on who you ask?

Has there been a stabilization in the amount of atmospheric CO2 or a marked decrease in solar radiation?  If not, then the answer is no.  Again, people confuse temperature as a measure of heat gain. We can continue to gain head, but experience a drop in temperature.

[RW]

reel, what should we be doing about it?  Is it as much of a catastrophe as its being touted as?

[reel]

Denier and alarmist are loaded words. The burning of fossil fuels is just one part of what's known as the earth's carbon cycle, in which processes like photosynthesis, decomposition, and many more determine where the stores of the planet's carbon lie, and how they shift around. If there are more plants performing photosynthesis, then more carbon will be pulled out of the atmosphere. So it follows that if humans tear down trees, they are worsening climate change, just as they are when they burn fossil fuels.



The disappearing Amazon and Indonesian rain forests are the second largest sources of man's contribution to climate change surpassed only by the burning of coal in power plants.

Sure they are.  I wouldn't choose those words.



We know what the sources and sinks are for CO2 with a relatively high degree of accuracy and I agree that deforestation is a large contributor.

[reel]

reel, what should we be doing about it?  Is it as much of a catastrophe as its being touted as?

The answer is probably that we should all be spending less, not spending more.  



Consumerism drives a large portion of the deforestation, energy consumption, and fossil fuel burn.  Conservation and efficiency improvements cost very little to nothing, but make the biggest difference.  For instance, the relative cost to improve insulation in new houses is tiny and saves a great deal of money for the home owner in the long run.  Changing building codes to require better insulation would cost almost nothing and save people money in the long run.  



Improving peak vs. low period tariffs on electrical use would encourage people to use less energy in peak periods and use energy in low periods when it is often just wasted.  Again, no real cost.  It just shifts user habits.



Encourage technologies like electrical cars that improve energy efficiency and centralize power production.  Nuclear or coal powered cars are still far more efficient than gasoline cars and have the added advantage of stabilizing the electrical grid.



Encourage reductions in paper use.



Improve access to gas as an industrial fuel, and transition where it makes economic sense to do so.

[RW]

So don't throw away money in bullshit carbon offsets?

[reel]

So don't throw away money in bullshit carbon offsets?

No.  Those have never made sense to me.  It's an industry that serves no purpose.  Like high-paid efficiency consultants that cost more than they save.



I deal quite a bit with industrial import/export offsets, which are quite similar in nature, and in most cases it's a total scam.



The answer is to simplify, stabilise, make things more efficient, not make them more complex.



Another error is treating technology like a silver bullet.  Technical solutions make sense in some places and not in others.  Things like LED lights make sense where lights are used a whole lot, but don't contribute to a required heat load (such as in warm environments or outdoors), but don't make sense in fixtures that are rarely used or contribute significantly to heat loads.  Variable frequency drives make sense on motors that have variable loads, but it's a waste of resources to put them on motors that always run at peak load.  Solar panels make sense in some environments, but not in others.

[Bricktop]

He is relatively typical in his response.  Most people deniers or alarmists alike, don't really understand this issue because they don't understand the basic thermodynamics of the planet and worse, they don't understand the difference between heat and temperature.  IF you don't know the difference between those two, you really shouldn't be presenting papers on climate change.

You make a good point.



Would you please identify your qualifications and credentials to the audience.

[RW]

So don't throw away money in bullshit carbon offsets?

No.  Those have never made sense to me.  It's an industry that serves no purpose.  Like high-paid efficiency consultants that cost more than they save.



I deal quite a bit with industrial import/export offsets, which are quite similar in nature, and in most cases it's a total scam.



The answer is to simplify, stabilise, make things more efficient, not make them more complex.

I agree.  It is that kind of stupid shit that taints environmental issues with greed.

[Bricktop]

I see you alarmists are ignoring the former leader of Greenpeace, and his take on global warming.



It seems that you want to focus on the trees, but ignore the forest.

[Bricktop]

How that energy manifests itself is not really what's important.

Then why are we concerned with it?

[reel]

He is relatively typical in his response.  Most people deniers or alarmists alike, don't really understand this issue because they don't understand the basic thermodynamics of the planet and worse, they don't understand the difference between heat and temperature.  IF you don't know the difference between those two, you really shouldn't be presenting papers on climate change.

You make a good point.



Would you please identify your qualifications and credentials to the audience.

Absolutely!



I understand the difference between heat and temperature as well as the basic thermodynamics of the planet to the extent that I can comprehend that more heat in and less heat out means more energy in the system.  



You can probably qualify for those same credentials if you've graduated high school and have a basic level of reading comprehension.

[reel]

How that energy manifests itself is not really what's important.

Then why are we concerned with it?

Because it will manifest itself and will likely do so in a way that is not favourable to our economy and food production.

[RW]

I see you alarmists are ignoring the former leader of Greenpeace, and his take on global warming.



It seems that you want to focus on the trees, but ignore the forest.

Please provide some of his peer reviewed research papers on the subject for our review.

[reel]

I see you alarmists are ignoring the former leader of Greenpeace, and his take on global warming.



It seems that you want to focus on the trees, but ignore the forest.

I didn't watch that one.  Does HE address the energy equation?  I don't want to waste another half hour listening to a bunch more ridiculous crap that doesn't even bother to address the key concern.

[Bricktop]

He is relatively typical in his response.  Most people deniers or alarmists alike, don't really understand this issue because they don't understand the basic thermodynamics of the planet and worse, they don't understand the difference between heat and temperature.  IF you don't know the difference between those two, you really shouldn't be presenting papers on climate change.

You make a good point.



Would you please identify your qualifications and credentials to the audience.

Absolutely!



I understand the difference between heat and temperature as well as the basic thermodynamics of the planet to the extent that I can comprehend that more heat in and less heat out means more energy in the system.  



You can probably qualify for those same credentials if you've graduated high school and have a basic level of reading comprehension.

Put another way, you do not have any scientific credentials, yet you feel justified in using your high school level knowledge to rebut the views and opinions of a Nobel Laureate. A renown physicist.



How about the former Greenpeace leader? You are silent on his dissertation.