So I have a quick question about "global warming"

[mdatspace]

This whole denial of science thing is something that I have noticed for quite some time. It's really bewildering for people from outside the US.

I don't think the media is to blame, because as you say, media people are pretty much the same everywhere. I think it's due to the political system in the US, in which corporate financing of political parties is institutionalized, whereas in most of the rest of the world it's pretty much illegal. When oil companies pay for your campaign (and this happens on both sides of the political spectrum, just to be safe with the mods here), then you will tend to defend their interests, and their interests are that we keep on burning as much oil as we can. And then, the media and the opinion will relay what their favorite politician says.

I agree. The parties reflect their sponsors. The media reflects their politicians.

[Sternface]

Can anyone please explain to me why are the global warming denialism variations ("there is no GW" and "we have no effect") so popular in USA?

C̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶p̶l̶e̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶l̶a̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶m̶e̶ ̶w̶h̶y̶ ̶g̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶l̶i̶z̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶s̶t̶e̶r̶e̶o̶t̶y̶p̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶A̶m̶e̶r̶i̶c̶a̶n̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶s̶o̶ ̶p̶o̶p̶u̶l̶a̶r̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶s̶i̶d̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶U̶S̶A̶?̶ ̶

Eh, maybe you're right lol.

Edited November 26, 2013 by Sternface

[lajoswinkler]

This whole denial of science thing is something that I have noticed for quite some time. It's really bewildering for people from outside the US.

I don't think the media is to blame, because as you say, media people are pretty much the same everywhere. I think it's due to the political system in the US, in which corporate financing of political parties is institutionalized, whereas in most of the rest of the world it's pretty much illegal. When oil companies pay for your campaign (and this happens on both sides of the political spectrum, just to be safe with the mods here), then you will tend to defend their interests, and their interests are that we keep on burning as much oil as we can. And then, the media and the opinion will relay what their favorite politician says.

Quite bewildering, especially because the general opinion is that USA is better in every aspect, so when we hear about creationism, antivaccination movement, militarization, etc, it just sound so weird.

You're right, such financing is pretty much illegal all over the world. Corruption happens, lobbying exists, politicians are bribed (or threatened, or both), but it's quite different.

C̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶p̶l̶e̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶l̶a̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶m̶e̶ ̶w̶h̶y̶ ̶g̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶l̶i̶z̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶s̶t̶e̶r̶e̶o̶t̶y̶p̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶A̶m̶e̶r̶i̶c̶a̶n̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶s̶o̶ ̶p̶o̶p̶u̶l̶a̶r̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶s̶i̶d̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶U̶S̶A̶?̶ ̶

Eh, maybe you're right lol.

I haven't made a single generalization so far. All claimed was that denialism is very popular in USA, compared to the rest of the developed world. Generalization statement would be: "Americans are denialists.", something it's obviously wrong and I'd never defend it.

[koshelenkovv]

I had a look at chartsbin.com and found a chart showing the percentage of population that know something about global warming and believe that it is anthropogenic. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the data, but the plot seems to at least be consistent with another source (specific to Americans) at the Yale school of forestry and environmental studies:

Heh.

Pollster to Islanders: Do you know about global warming? Do you believe that it is antropogenic?

Islanders, wrapping tighter in fur coats: What warming?!

[koshelenkovv]

For example, phasing out incadescent lights and turning to whole lifecycle efficient CFL-s is a good way to reduce the footprint, ...

Not really.

Here, just one aluminium plant can consume 2GW of power, continuously.

It's like 20 millions of 100W incandescent bulbs.

Industry, heating and transportation are ones who responsible for major part of CO₂ emission.

[Fractal_UK]

Not really.

Here, just one aluminium plant can consume 2GW of power, continuously.

It's like 20 millions of 100W incandescent bulbs.

Industry, heating and transportation are ones who responsible for major part of CO₂ emission.

20 million incandescent bulbs is probably a massive underestimate of the amount that are in use. If we were to assume that there were one incandescent bulb for every person in the US, for example, the figure would be more than an order of magnitude larger. This might be a reasonable figure for the US itself but for the world as a whole, the figure must be massively higher again and as such the amount of wasted energy extraordinarily large.

Interestingly though, switching from an incandescent bulb to an energy saving bulb is generally positive but not universally so. Any region which has an electricity supply based on low carbon power generation but uses gas central heating for domestic heating is likely to be better off sticking with incandescents because they "waste" far more energy as heat, reducing demand for domestic heating. One example of such a region is apparently Quebec. Interestingly, it is far less true of France which, because of its large supply of cheap Nuclear energy, often makes use of electric domestic heating solutions directly.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Fractal_UK

[lajoswinkler]

Not really.

Here, just one aluminium plant can consume 2GW of power, continuously.

It's like 20 millions of 100W incandescent bulbs.

Industry, heating and transportation are ones who responsible for major part of CO₂ emission.

I was talking about a country's need. This is an international message board, USA is not the default country, only the default forum language is English.

Some countries don't have heavy industrial consumers of electrical energy.

So it depends, as Fractal_UK mentioned. Sometimes you want that extra heat wasted in an incadescent bulb. Poorly isolated domestic houses in the winter, for starters.

When you need lots of light and your home is well built and isolated, you only want the visible light. Commercial spaces like offices in huge buildings don't need a burden for their air conditioning units, only lots of light.

For outdoor lightning purposes, heat is just wasted money and energy.

[koshelenkovv]

20 million incandescent bulbs is probably a massive underestimate of the amount that are in use. If we were to assume that there were one incandescent bulb for every person in the US, for example, the figure would be more than an order of magnitude larger. This might be a reasonable figure for the US itself but for the world as a whole, the figure must be massively higher again and as such the amount of wasted energy extraordinarily large.

One aluminium plant is massive uderestimate of the total amount too. And add copper refineries to this

While total amount of wasted energy is extraordinarily large in absolute numbers, it's very small relative to gross power consumption.

And do not forget that beside massive electricity consumers which emit CO₂ indirectrly through a powerplants, we have direct CO₂ emitters like cement plants (5% of all volume), boilerhouses and millions of cars, trucks, locomotives and ships.

Indirect emissions from lightbulbs, even if they all use power from fossil fuels, are really negligible in comparison to sheer volume of emission from all other sources.

And it's not entirely clear, how many energy one need to produce such sophisticated products as CFLs with all their electronics, which require mercury, highly refined rare earth metals and some highly refined non-metals. And how much energy is used to recycle this kind of lamps properly.

[koshelenkovv]

I was talking about a country's need. This is an international message board, USA is not the default country, only the default forum language is English.

Some countries don't have heavy industrial consumers of electrical energy.

So it depends, as Fractal_UK mentioned. Sometimes you want that extra heat wasted in an incadescent bulb. Poorly isolated domestic houses in the winter, for starters.

When you need lots of light and your home is well built and isolated, you only want the visible light. Commercial spaces like offices in huge buildings don't need a burden for their air conditioning units, only lots of light.

For outdoor lightning purposes, heat is just wasted money and energy.

I spoke not about USA, but globally.

Okay, if we imagine some undeveloped country without any industry and with warm climate and population which is very poor or living very compact, then lighting can constitute significant part of this country electricity usage.

But then this country will have negligible emissions relative to total amount produced by humanity. From a global wiew, cutting them is like economing on a toilet paper when owning a Ferrari.

Edited November 27, 2013 by koshelenkovv

[magnemoe]

20 million incandescent bulbs is probably a massive underestimate of the amount that are in use. If we were to assume that there were one incandescent bulb for every person in the US, for example, the figure would be more than an order of magnitude larger. This might be a reasonable figure for the US itself but for the world as a whole, the figure must be massively higher again and as such the amount of wasted energy extraordinarily large.

Interestingly though, switching from an incandescent bulb to an energy saving bulb is generally positive but not universally so. Any region which has an electricity supply based on low carbon power generation but uses gas central heating for domestic heating is likely to be better off sticking with incandescents because they "waste" far more energy as heat, reducing demand for domestic heating. One example of such a region is apparently Quebec. Interestingly, it is far less true of France which, because of its large supply of cheap Nuclear energy, often makes use of electric domestic heating solutions directly.

If you use air condition you have to get rid of the heat from the bulb too, using far more energy. On the other hand in cold climates they contributes to heating.

Personally I prefer the energy saving bulbs as they last longer, some lamps tend to heat up the incandescent bulbs too giving them a very short life.

[Seret]

And it's not entirely clear, how many energy one need to produce such sophisticated products as CFLs with all their electronics, which require mercury, highly refined rare earth metals and some highly refined non-metals. And how much energy is used to recycle this kind of lamps properly.

Actually the embodied energy of such things is quite well understood. Over their lifecycle the embodied energy of a compact fluorescent is about 7% of the energy used (compared to about 1% for an incandescent). It's power use in service that makes up the vast majority of the lifecycle energy consumption, and since fluorescents use so much less power to emit the same amount of light they do end up causing lower emissions over all. About 75% lower, in fact.

It's a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned. They last longer (so no hassle with changing blown bulbs) and they save money.

As for incandescents contributing to lowering heating demand, that's true (all electricity use does), but I really can't get excited about the idea of using uncontrolled heating sources mounted at ceiling level. Very few grids get low-carbon enough (<0.2kg CO₂2 kWh^-1) to make it an issue, and even on those that do you should still be aiming to do your heating with a properly zoned and controlled heating system IMO. Switching to fluorescents and putting the money saved towards some draughtproofing and extra insulation would be a better strategy than keeping your nasty old incandescent bulbs.

[ZetaX]

Where I have the option, I strongly prefer fluorescents. But as a student I was once living in a cheap apartment where you actually felt the difference between the type sof lamp, especially in the winter due to very bad isolation. It became unconviently cold sometimes after I swapped for fluorescents. You don't always have control of your heating conditions, especially if you focus on cheap housing.

[Seret]

You could easily have made up the difference using a cheap resistive heater plugged into a socket, and you probably would have used less electricity doing so. Heating your house with light bulbs is just insanely inefficient.

[ZetaX]

No it isn't, where would you get such a thing from¿ Where do you think all the energy that is not visible light goes to¿

The thing that would really be more efficient would be to use some kind of fuel to generate heat directly.

[Seret]

No it isn't, where would you get such a thing from¿

I don't know where you are, so I can't tell you. But I'm sure you have electric heaters that plug into a socket where you are. Either straight "bar heaters", fan heaters, halogen heaters, etc. The latter two would heat you more efficiently than a light bulb because they either mix the air in the room better, or in the case of the halogen they have a high radiant heat, so don't actually need to heat a whole room to heat you. Even a bar heater at floor level will heat better than light bulbs at roof level, as it won't cause the air to stratify as much. Any of these fitted with a thermostat will always use less power than heating with light bulbs. They really would be the worst possible choice for a heating system. They're too weak, lack effective controls, and are located in the worst possible place.

The thing that would really be more efficient would be to use some kind of fuel to generate heat directly.

Depends what kind of efficiency you're talking about, how dirty your grid is, and what technology you're talking about. Natural gas is pretty cheap in most places, and gas boilers are reasonably efficient (>90% in condensing mode) but there are electric heating solutions such as heat pumps that are cleaner than them even on fairly dirty grids. There's no one-size-fits-all solution.

[ZetaX]

I was not talking about where to get a resistance heater from, sorry for the bad wording.

The argument of them being too weak was not the point, as three bulbs were sometimes already enough to push it into the comfortable warmness, with maybe some warmer clothing put on. The thermostat is also not useful at all as even with the bulb it was mostly too cold. The room is also rather small, so the other two reasons don't apply that much. Even in larger rooms, the difference of effectivity is probably not that big: a lot of the energy is produced as infrared light, so it spreads rather well, and the remainder is then, at worst, heating the apartment above me, or more accurately heating mine at an efficiency of probably still over 80%.

By the way, the actual heater (by warm water from a power plant) was pretty ineffciently placed at the outside wall, which was very thin and badly isolated. One time it failed completely, which got me to use the oven and cooking plates as additional heat sources (and no, buying an electrical heater was not an option as those cost money and it is essentially impossible to buy anything at night and sundays where I lived; it happened to be the latter).

On electric heaters being cleaner, I have to disagree. This works if where you live the electric energy is mostly produced by some kind of non-carbon-based source, but otherwise turning heat into electric energy into heat again is rather bad. And heat pumps and similar things are expensive, as you seem to ignoring the "cheap housing" part here.

[magnemoe]

No it isn't, where would you get such a thing from¿ Where do you think all the energy that is not visible light goes to¿

The thing that would really be more efficient would be to use some kind of fuel to generate heat directly.

Main benefit is that the heater would be at floor level and have an thermostat so it would turn itself off then it reached correct temperature.

Depends what kind of efficiency you're talking about, how dirty your grid is, and what technology you're talking about. Natural gas is pretty cheap in most places, and gas boilers are reasonably efficient (>90% in condensing mode) but there are electric heating solutions such as heat pumps that are cleaner than them even on fairly dirty grids. There's no one-size-fits-all solution.

Heat pumps have an efficiency larger than 100%, they give off more heat than the power they uses.

Note that loads of power plants uses the waste heat for heating, either nearby towns or industrial uses increasing efficiency a lot.

Edited November 28, 2013 by magnemoe

[Seret]

On electric heaters being cleaner, I have to disagree.

I didn't actually say they were. Often they're the dirtiest in fact. What I was saying is that there are so many variables that it's often not possible to say one type of heating is always better than another.

Main benefit is that the heater would be at floor level and have an thermostat so it would turn itself off then it reached correct temperature.

Exactly. A well controlled heating system is always going to be more efficient than one that has no controls at all.

Heat pumps have an efficiency larger than 100%, they give off more heat than the power they uses.

Indeed, here in the UK an ASHP only needs to have a COP of about 2.5 to be cleaner than gas. Even little cheap reversible air conditioners can achieve this, so they're a viable option for heating IMO.

Note that loads of power plants uses the waste heat for heating, either nearby towns or industrial uses increasing efficiency a lot.

I'm a big fan of district heating, but the power plant owners here don't like it, as raising their output temperature to that required for district heating would make their generation of electricity less efficient. Since electricity is worth a lot more than heat they're not interested, despite the government forcing them all to equip any new plants for CHP. Massive shame IMO, venting all that heat into the atmosphere and waters is a crime.

[Jim DiGriz]

So far as I can tell the denialism on (anthropogenic) climate change in the US comes out of economic concerns; the US is a huge exporter of fossil fuels (particularly of coal and natural gas) so not only is there huge money tied up there but also a lot of jobs depending upon consumption of those fuels. As the adage goes, it's hard to get someone to listen to a point when their paycheque depends upon not hearing what's being said.

There's another strain, the theopolitical one, but I don't know if that's cause or just a symptom of the previous point.

-- Steve

We've also trained a generation that whoever yells the loudest wins and made politics looks more like team sports. So people deny climate change simply because Al Gore made a movie about it and they have to oppose him because he's on the other team, or they just don't like him on a personal basis ("wouldn't have a drink with him" being the gold standard). Between money corrupting the message on the one hand, and everyone's decision making skills being decoupled from objective reality and based entirely on personality and subjective feelings, you wind up with in our current anti-science state...

[Jim DiGriz]

I now have also looked up the ice. The reason simply is that you have to distinguish between land ice and sea ice, see for example http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm .

As climate change also causes more extreme weathers (e.g. by the Golf stream failing) winters in antarctica could easily become colder than ever, especially at the sea with the warm water from the equator comming in at a decreased rate. Also, if you still insist on the ice not really melting: where does the rising sea level come from then¿ the glaciers outside the poles do not really store that much ice anymore.

Most sea level rise is due to thermal expansion of water. As the Oceans absorb more heat (global warming *mostly* pumps heat into the oceans, not into the atmosphere), then the water becomes less dense and expands. Melting of land ice so far has not be very significant, trends in Greenland are somewhat disturbing lately though.

[Jim DiGriz]

Here's a useful blog post tonight discussing issues around methane release and global warming: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/arctic-and-american-methane-in-context/

Note that this is written by a climate science researcher, but in this case its skeptical of recent claims of a 50 Gt C methane hydrate reservoir in Siberia waiting to go off, and puts the recent study showing that "bottom-up" reporting of methane leaks in the US is underestimating actual release by about a factor of two. Pretty even keel stuff and suggests we should do something about methane release, but there's no reason to panic.

That's what you get when you get away from news headlines and ask climate science researchers their opinions.

At the same time they'll all tell you that global warming is real, that its a rapidly growing problem and that something needs to be done to mitigate it, and that we are irreversibly changing the climate. But the absolute worst case scenarios are as unlikely as the koch-funded theories that global warming is all a hoax.

[Designer225]

Now onto my question

[1] The facts are, fossil fuels will run out so the extra co2 thats being produced will stop, to a degree, and the co2 that will have been produced will eventually "die" after roughly 100 years (i say roughly because there is no definitive way to measure)

So if we carry on burning fuels at our current rate until they run out (2050?) or are to expensive to find, mine and burn and take into account we have been burning these things since 1750's. [2] There cant be much more of an increase in temperature to be had and afterwhich most of the gasses will "die"

[3] Do we really have anything to worry about in the grand scheme of things. Would it be possible for us to burn so much as to make the world uninhabitable? [4] From what i have read its the ozone that does all the damage (directly to humans), not the co2 (this is just the most common ghg attributing to increased temperature).

[5] Say we do kill most of ourselves off we could return to normal (minus combustion engines) in 100 years or so?

EDIT: I'm no scientist. Just a guy who can read wiki articles. So dont condem me as some sort of heretic. If I have my facts wron please correct me in a mature fashion

1. CO2 will still be produced by non-manufactory factors (mostly by aerobic organisms), but other greenhouse gas emission is sure to be greatly reduced, almost to none.

2. CO2 lasts in about 100 years, but other greenhouse gases lasts for a lot longer, some thousands of years.

3. Some scientists believe that 450 parts is the life support limit, but I still need verification.

4. Without ozone we would be exposed greatly to ultraviolet light, which is said to cause cancers. There are less ozone concentration right now.

5. In 100 years or so? By then we would replace the "dead" CO2 with new ones! (if the world population got that far, which I doubt it)

Speaking of which, there is an article about ozone decreases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

EDIT: I'm not condemning you, I have to do a lot of research for that.

[Jim DiGriz]

1. CO2 will still be produced by non-manufactory factors (mostly by aerobic organisms), but other greenhouse gas emission is sure to be greatly reduced, almost to none.

2. CO2 lasts in about 100 years, but other greenhouse gases lasts for a lot longer, some thousands of years.

Uh, not so much. Methane is the next most worrisome GHG and it clears faster than CO2.

3. Some scientists believe that 450 parts is the life support limit, but I still need verification.

350 is more like the limit. But that isn't "life support" -- jack it to 2,000 and the globe will still support life. Its very, very hard to sterilize the planet short of impacting it with a bolide the size of a small planet like Mercury.

The question is what do we need to limit it to in order to keep the economic and human damage to a reasonable amount. Jacking it up to 2,000 as fast as we can would likely kill billions.

4. Without ozone we would be exposed greatly to ultraviolet light, which is said to cause cancers. There are less ozone concentration right now.

Caused mostly by CFCs, which regulation was largely successful at halting that problem (but the Ozone hole over the Antarctic is the major cause of the sea ice increases in Antarctica).

5. In 100 years or so? By then we would replace the "dead" CO2 with new ones! (if the world population got that far, which I doubt it)

We wouldn't do that. The response of the Earth to increased heat is increased CO2 (and the response to increased CO2 is more retained heat). Jack up the CO2 enough and you'll shift the equilibrium so that it stays high.

[rkman]

Have you looked at the evidence against global warming? It is far too soon to come to a conclusion either in favor, or against.

We simply do not know yet.

Nonsense.

You are behind the times. Even the pr guy who came up with that talking point to begin with has acknowledged it is not true:

"In a 2002 memo to President George W. Bush ... Luntz wrote: "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.... Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."[17]

In 2010, Luntz announced new research that shows the American people are eager for Congress to act on climate legislation that would promote energy independence and a healthier environment. "Americans want their leaders to act on climate change – but not necessarily for the reasons you think," Luntz said. "A clear majority of Americans believe climate change is happening. This is true of McCain voters and Obama voters alike. And even those that don't still believe it is essential for America to pursue policies that promote energy independence and a cleaner, healthier environment."

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz