The environment thread

[Balta1701]

Too cheap to meter.

A tiny amount of radiation could have escaped into the atmosphere from a Southern California nuclear power plant after a water leak prompted operators to shut down the reactor as a precaution, officials said Wednesday.

 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Victor Dricks said radioactive gas "could have" escaped the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station on the northern San Diego coast.

 

I'm a big fan of this part.

The leak occurred in equipment that was installed in the plant in the fall of 2010. The leak occurred in one of thousands of tubes that carry radioactive water from the Unit 3 reactor.

 

However, the company has found damage to other tubes, Dricks said.

 

"The damage that they have found to many other tubes is unusual, and they are attempting to identify the reason," Dricks said.

[Balta1701]

Possible fire at nuclear plant in Rockford, IL, leads to small but ongoing tritium release.

[Balta1701]

If the Texas area does not get a near-record level of rainfall over the next few weeks, the current drought will effectively shut down rice production in that area. Rice production in the Texas area is a $600 million a year business that supports nearly 10k workers.

[StrangeSox]

Interesting examination of how right-wing climate denial myths start and propagate, and another refutation of the "equal time for both 'sides'" idea.

 

How the 'wind farms increase climate change' myth was born

University of Illinois wind farm researcher responds to how his paper was reported in the media and on the internet

 

Such is the viral nature of information flow on the internet, we can sometimes see myths and memes developing before our very eyes. Just such an example has occurred over recent days with the rather irresistible news that wind farms can "increase climate change".

 

The article that really gave this idea a push online was published on Sunday evening on the Daily Mail's website. It was delivered with the headline: "Wind farms can actually INCREASE climate change by raising temperatures and causing downpours, warn academics."

 

Somewhat predictably, that headline quickly attracted attention and was being disseminated with particular gusto on climate sceptic sites such as Climate Depot and JunkScience. The news was also reported on Dallasblog.com ("Wind Farms Cause Global Warming, some Scientists say") and then on the Orange County Register website with the headline: "Another Global Warming Oops Moment." The article itself was clearly rejoicing in being able to ladle big dollops of schadenfreude [...]

 

They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Interesting examination of how right-wing climate denial myths start and propagate, and another refutation of the "equal time for both 'sides'" idea.

 

How the 'wind farms increase climate change' myth was born

University of Illinois wind farm researcher responds to how his paper was reported in the media and on the internet

 

 

 

They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must.

Your argument here continues to miss the point. Equal time isn't about liars and panic-driving like we see here. When I say both sides should be heard, I mean that both sides should express their views on how much of climate change is anthropogenic. And more importantly, show the valid arguments on both sides about that extent, and what to do (and not do) about it.

 

What you do here, again, is show an example of some idiots at work, who happen to be on one side, as a way of characterizing the entire side of the argument being empty. If someone did the same by pointing out the idiots on YOUR side, you would be all up in arms about it.

 

[StrangeSox]

No, you continue to miss that there are not two co-equal sides worthy of presentation. The anti-agw side has no more to present on the actual scientific merits than creationism or geocentricism.

 

This isn't people who "happen" to be on the denialist side, it is the core of denialism.

 

I'm not saying that they don't have a first amendment right to be wrong and to publish it, or that no science potentially critical of agw should be performed, but that we need to recognize denialism for what it is-unsupported propaganda. Trying to have an uninformed public decide the "truth" when one side is largely scientists not concerned with PR and the other side is entirely PR is asking for failure.

 

Here is the result of "let both sides present:" actual scientists accept AGW by an overwhelming majority while the general public does so only by a very slim majority.

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97...ologists_ag.php

 

edit: maybe we're talking past each other. I'm not referring to discussions of policy over what, if anything, should be done by the government. I'm referring to the base-level acceptance of the reality and the impact of AGW. You can't get to policy discussions when you can't get past step 1. AFAIK the GOP is the only major political party in the Western world that actively denies climate science and has many of its members refer to it as a "hoax"

Edited February 8, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

And more importantly, show the valid arguments on both sides about that extent, and what to do (and not do) about it.

Fine. You continue to insist that there are valid arguments that somehow the current temperature shift is not anthropogenic.

 

Give me 1.

[NorthSideSox72]

Fine. You continue to insist that there are valid arguments that somehow the current temperature shift is not anthropogenic.

 

Give me 1.

Well SS just showed you one interesting aspect along these lines... not 100% of climatological scientists agree on the topic. 90% is not 100%. Do 100% of all peer-reviewed scienfitic papers find that 100% of the net global warming is caused by humanity? Every one of them? Of course not. This means that there are true experts in the field (not talking about the screaming ostriches here) who feel that there may ALSO be other factors at play.

 

And this only makes sense, really, because you cannot possibly control for everything in your study when you are talking about something as complex as the earth's climate. You can identify correlations... and you can show individual causal links, like say, between CO2 presence and warming of the atmosphere, or between certain polluting sources and atmospheric CO2 levels... but you can't possibly explore every link and every cause and effect. It simply isn't possible.

 

What you CAN do, is show that over decades of peer-reviewed scientific studies, demonstrating not only the raw data but the statistically-tested probabilities of causal relationships in the main factors at play, that there is a very high probability that some of climate change occurring is caused by humanity. You can even say a large chunk of it is so. And you will have 95% confidence in it. I am in total agreement with this, by the way - the science has spoken decisively ENOUGH on this topic that it has convinced me that AGW exists, and represents some significant part of the shifting climate.

 

That is NOT the same thing as saying there is no valid other side, as you two keep pointing at. You are characterizing as fact, something that by its very nature, cannot be fact.

 

[Balta1701]

Do 100% of all peer-reviewed scienfitic papers find that 100% of the net global warming is caused by humanity? Every one of them? Of course not. This means that there are true experts in the field (not talking about the screaming ostriches here) who feel that there may ALSO be other factors at play.

No, but they typically find that within error, between 75% and 125% of the observed warming can be explained by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and there are zero mechanisms which have stood up to scrutiny other than CO2 emissions which could explain the observed temperature rise.

 

You'll note that I write 125% of the observed warming and I keep doing this...for a reason. It is just as likely that the CO2 warming effect has been damped out by other effects (the solar minimum in the last 5 years, chinese air pollution, the buffering capacity of the ocean), which could be overcome in short order. And you don't get to focus on the low side, the 75%, and say that the remainder is somehow unexplained, without having to note the chance that the emitted CO2 already ought to be doing more than it is.

 

Tens of millions of dollars have been spent trying to come up with any other mechanism that would explain the current warming, and tens of millions more have been spent trying to see if there is any geologic evidence of climate change that isn't linked strongly to CO2. In every case, CO2 keeps winning.

 

That's what I keep saying to you. You keep asserting that the warming is established but the mechanism isn't...but you can't give me another mechanism that I can't shoot down with data. Without that, holding out "Skepticism" is effectively unfounded. You can keep testing stuff if you have a good idea, no one disagrees with that, but without evidence for the skepticism, you're in the boat of relying solely on "But there are error bounds on here, look at the low side, if that side is right then things might not be tremendously horrible".

[StrangeSox]

Well SS just showed you one interesting aspect along these lines... not 100% of climatological scientists agree on the topic. 90% is not 100%. Do 100% of all peer-reviewed scienfitic papers find that 100% of the net global warming is caused by humanity? Every one of them? Of course not. This means that there are true experts in the field (not talking about the screaming ostriches here) who feel that there may ALSO be other factors at play.

 

And this only makes sense, really, because you cannot possibly control for everything in your study when you are talking about something as complex as the earth's climate. You can identify correlations... and you can show individual causal links, like say, between CO2 presence and warming of the atmosphere, or between certain polluting sources and atmospheric CO2 levels... but you can't possibly explore every link and every cause and effect. It simply isn't possible.

 

What you CAN do, is show that over decades of peer-reviewed scientific studies, demonstrating not only the raw data but the statistically-tested probabilities of causal relationships in the main factors at play, that there is a very high probability that some of climate change occurring is caused by humanity. You can even say a large chunk of it is so. And you will have 95% confidence in it. I am in total agreement with this, by the way - the science has spoken decisively ENOUGH on this topic that it has convinced me that AGW exists, and represents some significant part of the shifting climate.

 

That is NOT the same thing as saying there is no valid other side, as you two keep pointing at. You are characterizing as fact, something that by its very nature, cannot be fact.

 

There's biologists who are creationists, astronomers who are geocentricists, doctors who are anti-vaxxers or anti-HIV-causes-AIDS, geologists who are young-earthers, historians who buy into ancient aliens or deny the holocaust.

 

In all of those cases, just as with AGW, there really is not a valid 'other side.' The 'other side' is composed almost entirely of editorialized arguments and not actual science. On the rare occasion they do publish something scientific (young-earthers and the Zircon studies for example), it is quickly and completely picked apart.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

No, but they typically find that within error, between 75% and 125% of the observed warming can be explained by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and there are zero mechanisms which have stood up to scrutiny other than CO2 emissions which could explain the observed temperature rise.

 

You'll note that I write 125% of the observed warming and I keep doing this...for a reason. It is just as likely that the CO2 warming effect has been damped out by other effects (the solar minimum in the last 5 years, chinese air pollution, the buffering capacity of the ocean), which could be overcome in short order. And you don't get to focus on the low side, the 75%, and say that the remainder is somehow unexplained, without having to note the chance that the emitted CO2 already ought to be doing more than it is.

 

Tens of millions of dollars have been spent trying to come up with any other mechanism that would explain the current warming, and tens of millions more have been spent trying to see if there is any geologic evidence of climate change that isn't linked strongly to CO2. In every case, CO2 keeps winning.

 

That's what I keep saying to you. You keep asserting that the warming is established but the mechanism isn't...but you can't give me another mechanism that I can't shoot down with data. Without that, holding out "Skepticism" is effectively unfounded. You can keep testing stuff if you have a good idea, no one disagrees with that, but without evidence for the skepticism, you're in the boat of relying solely on "But there are error bounds on here, look at the low side, if that side is right then things might not be tremendously horrible".

 

The bolded is where you have a huge logic flaw in your argument. If I don't have a specific competing theory, that does NOT make skepticism unfounded. One can be skeptical for good reasons that are not necessarily an alternative theory. My reason for skepticism - and mine, again, is only very mild - is the simple reality that the complexity of the system you are studying can't be grasped as completely as you seem to think.

 

And I know CO2 keeps winning. As I have said over and over again, I feel that the science here has been so strong to indicate the relationship and the causality, that for me, it is enough to overwhelm the skepticism and say "yes, AGW exists, and is responsible for some large portion of climate change as studied". That does not mean I think other arguments are invalid.

 

[iamshack]

No, you continue to miss that there are not two co-equal sides worthy of presentation. The anti-agw side has no more to present on the actual scientific merits than creationism or geocentricism.

 

This isn't people who "happen" to be on the denialist side, it is the core of denialism.

 

I'm not saying that they don't have a first amendment right to be wrong and to publish it, or that no science potentially critical of agw should be performed, but that we need to recognize denialism for what it is-unsupported propaganda. Trying to have an uninformed public decide the "truth" when one side is largely scientists not concerned with PR and the other side is entirely PR is asking for failure.

 

Here is the result of "let both sides present:" actual scientists accept AGW by an overwhelming majority while the general public does so only by a very slim majority.

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97...ologists_ag.php

 

edit: maybe we're talking past each other. I'm not referring to discussions of policy over what, if anything, should be done by the government. I'm referring to the base-level acceptance of the reality and the impact of AGW. You can't get to policy discussions when you can't get past step 1. AFAIK the GOP is the only major political party in the Western world that actively denies climate science and has many of its members refer to it as a "hoax"

What does this matter? I keep seeing you refer to this? Since when do opposing sides of an argument require "co-equal sides worthy of presentation" in order for me to be able to discuss the issue?

 

Secondly, what do you expect the general public to believe? You're comparing what scientists, who study this for a living, versus people who are focused on not getting their homes foreclosed on and keeping their jobs, and you're talking about rising water levels in the year 2050, what do you honestly expect them to put more of a priority on? I'm not saying it's right or fair, but it's what the general public does. They don't change until necessity whacks them in the jaw.

 

You and Balta keep posting this stuff in here as if you're facing this massive resistance every day. You've been fighting this battle against the WSJ editorial pages for a week against no adversary. What is your point?

[Balta1701]

The bolded is where you have a huge logic flaw in your argument. If I don't have a specific competing theory, that does NOT make skepticism unfounded. One can be skeptical for good reasons that are not necessarily an alternative theory. My reason for skepticism - and mine, again, is only very mild - is the simple reality that the complexity of the system you are studying can't be grasped as completely as you seem to think.

Great. Now can you give me some evidence to back this up? What level of system can we understand well and what level of system complexity does our understanding/ability to isolate key variables fail?

[iamshack]

Great. Now can you give me some evidence to back this up? What level of system can we understand well and what level of system complexity does our understanding/ability to isolate key variables fail?

Have you been able to accurately predict the speed at which climate change or global warming or agw has affected the polar ice caps and rising water levels?

[NorthSideSox72]

Great. Now can you give me some evidence to back this up? What level of system can we understand well and what level of system complexity does our understanding/ability to isolate key variables fail?

You are being intentionally obtuse here. You know damn well that global climate is a system so huge, and effecte by so many things, that you can really only look at the few biggest influences, and study for a general effect.

 

[Balta1701]

Have you been able to accurately predict the speed at which climate change or global warming or agw has affected the polar ice caps and rising water levels?

In terms of water levels and temperature, yes. The ocean level predictions are accurate enough that it has taken events like the flooding in Australia last year to push away the ocean level rise increases from the predicted trends. This is in no small part because the ocean rise is currently being dominated by the increase in heat of the oceans and thermal expansion.

 

Polar Ice caps...we're surprisingly close, but there are frictional issues at the base of glaciers that affect their sliding that haven't been worked out yet. The thing is...we can put minimums on there very effectively...we can say "if things get this warm, at least this much melting will happen". And in every case I know of...those minima have been dramatically exceeded. You can see this in the IPCC report...they put in conservative numbers for collapse of the greenland ice cap in the 2003 version, then in 2004-2005 there was an enormous surge in ice output because of decreasing friction at the base of glaciers that was at the time unexpected.

 

And once again, even if the predicted minima happened, they would be very bad. Consistently exceeding the minima put on there...means that things are a whole lot worse.

[StrangeSox]

What does this matter? I keep seeing you refer to this? Since when do opposing sides of an argument require "co-equal sides worthy of presentation" in order for me to be able to discuss the issue?

 

The point is that there's no legitimate, good-faith debate over the issue.

 

Secondly, what do you expect the general public to believe? You're comparing what scientists, who study this for a living, versus people who are focused on not getting their homes foreclosed on and keeping their jobs, and you're talking about rising water levels in the year 2050, what do you honestly expect them to put more of a priority on? I'm not saying it's right or fair, but it's what the general public does. They don't change until necessity whacks them in the jaw.

 

When I said ignorance before, I knew it could come across as a slight, but it really isn't meant to be. Each and every one of us is ignorant about a great many things and don't have time to study much of anything in great detail. That's precisely why such dishonesty on the part of denialists is dangerous--the general public isn't going to see much beyond the headline-type information, they're never going to see the detailed rebuttals.

 

I'd like to note that this is, similar to creationism, uniquely an American problem.

 

You and Balta keep posting this stuff in here as if you're facing this massive resistance every day. You've been fighting this battle against the WSJ editorial pages for a week against no adversary. What is your point?

 

It's not just about the WSJ editorial but the ongoing battle against disinformation.

 

Also boredom and a slow period at work.

[iamshack]

The point is that there's no legitimate, good-faith debate over the issue.

 

 

 

When I said ignorance before, I knew it could come across as a slight, but it really isn't meant to be. Each and every one of us is ignorant about a great many things and don't have time to study much of anything in great detail. That's precisely why such dishonesty on the part of denialists is dangerous--the general public isn't going to see much beyond the headline-type information, they're never going to see the detailed rebuttals.

 

I'd like to note that this is, similar to creationism, uniquely an American problem.

 

 

 

It's not just about the WSJ editorial but the ongoing battle against disinformation.

 

Also boredom and a slow period at work.

But there is a good faith debate over the issue. Yes, I believe that human behavior has an effect on the climate of the Earth.

 

Beyond that, there are all kinds of things to debate. What should we do? What is the most cost-effective manner in which to act? How much of what humans are doing is causing the problem and how much are other factors involved? Can we actually cause a dramatic shift in human behavior? If we did, is it too late?

What kinds of new businesses/industries would be created/enhanced? And on and on and on...

Edited February 8, 2012 by iamshack

[StrangeSox]

But there is a good faith debate over the issue. Yes, I believe that human behavior has an effect on the climate of the Earth.

 

Beyond that, there are all kinds of things to debate. What should we do? What is the most cost-effective manner in which to act? How much of what humans are doing is causing the problem and how much are other factors involved? Can we actually cause a dramatic shift in human behavior? If we did, is it too late?

What kinds of new businesses/industries would be created/enhanced? And on and on and on...

 

There's absolutely good discussion to be held over policy response to a major issue, but this is distinctly different from the complete denial of the simple existence of the issue. GOP politicians and pundits do not hesitate to call the entire concept of AGW a "hoax." The entire point of the WSJ and Daily Mail articles is to deny the very existence of a global warming problem.

[Balta1701]

But there is a good faith debate over the issue. Yes, I believe that human behavior has an effect on the climate of the Earth.

 

Beyond that, there are all kinds of things to debate. What should we do? What is the most cost-effective manner in which to act? How much of what humans are doing is causing the problem and how much are other factors involved? Can we actually cause a dramatic shift in human behavior? If we did, is it too late?

What kinds of new businesses/industries would be created/enhanced? And on and on and on...

There are a couple different kinds of questions in your list though...a couple of them are economics questions, the bolded one is the science question. We've been putting out answers to that question for > a decade now, and the error bars have been getting narrower and narrower as data gets better and as alternative hyptheses are tested and understood.

 

I can disagree with people who say that there are other solutions, that we should focus more on nuclear, etc., but that is a fundamentally different disagreement from me going after you and NSS, or SS going after the WSJ, for statements about how we don't know what all is involved. That is a question we have answered to within really good margins of error, and everything within the margin of error right now would be "Really bad for hundreds of millions of people".

[NorthSideSox72]

There's absolutely good discussion to be held over policy response to a major issue, but this is distinctly different from the complete denial of the simple existence of the issue. GOP politicians and pundits do not hesitate to call the entire concept of AGW a "hoax." The entire point of the WSJ and Daily Mail articles is to deny the very existence of a global warming problem.

 

And those people are clearly morons, preying on an ignorant public. But yet again, you are attempting to say that because some responses to AGW are garbage, that must mean ALL of them are. I disagree.

 

[iamshack]

There's absolutely good discussion to be held over policy response to a major issue, but this is distinctly different from the complete denial of the simple existence of the issue. GOP politicians and pundits do not hesitate to call the entire concept of AGW a "hoax." The entire point of the WSJ and Daily Mail articles is to deny the very existence of a global warming problem.

The WSJ seems to me, anyways, to be challenging just exactly what to do about the problem. Again, to me, this is a legitimate question.

[StrangeSox]

And those people are clearly morons, preying on an ignorant public. But yet again, you are attempting to say that because some responses to AGW are garbage, that must mean ALL of them are. I disagree.

 

I am demonstrating that empirical evidence indicates that all legitimate scientific attempts at refuting the existence and magnitude of AGW have either confirmed AGW (recent BEST study) or have been bad, overstated science (Spencer, Lindzen). The next paper that seriously undermines AGW will be the first.

Edited February 8, 2012 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

The WSJ seems to me, anyways, to be challenging just exactly what to do about the problem. Again, to me, this is a legitimate question.

Well, in truth, WSJ has published some editorial pieces that were way more far-fetched and shallow than just challenging what to do about the problem (though they have published those as well). The one in particular that sparked this new discussion was a joke.

 

But there is definitely good discussion to be had about what to do, no doubt about that. And I think it is healthy to continue to hear reasoned arguments of why some part of climate change may not be AGW, as well.

 

 

[iamshack]

There are a couple different kinds of questions in your list though...a couple of them are economics questions, the bolded one is the science question. We've been putting out answers to that question for > a decade now, and the error bars have been getting narrower and narrower as data gets better and as alternative hyptheses are tested and understood.

 

I can disagree with people who say that there are other solutions, that we should focus more on nuclear, etc., but that is a fundamentally different disagreement from me going after you and NSS, or SS going after the WSJ, for statements about how we don't know what all is involved. That is a question we have answered to within really good margins of error, and everything within the margin of error right now would be "Really bad for hundreds of millions of people".

So where are the posts challenging any of you on this?

 

When you or SS posts some global warming piece, very rarely, if ever, do I see anyone challenging the veracity of the GW or CC concept. I may pop in here to ask some questions because I legitimately do find the topic fascinating, and I don't really believe the ALARMIST! viewpoint is very fruitful, but it's not like the folks among us on the right are in here debating whether these concepts exist.