Printable View
No, just saying that 99.9% of the climate scientists say that it is and if you want t know why it is do a google search. I don't think unless you do some research on this area that you will accept the fact that gw is occurring and is because we are burning large amounts of fossil fuels.:icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtydawg
As I have already stated, I do believe that gw is occuring, and can believe that man is contributing to it. However, I'm perplexed as to why this climatologist would make such a statement that CO2 is not even a greenhouse gas when there is scientific evidence other than scientists coming to a general agreement that they will consider it a greenhouse gas. As far as asking for any information on the subject from you, I'm not very good at researching especially on the internet, so I thought you might have something in your cut and paste archive that you would share with me to save me from looking for it myself. Obviously, you don't. Apparently, you are taking the word of these scientists that CO2 is a greenhouse gas without your having to see the scientific documentation of how they arrived at that conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Well, DD, now that you put it like that, I will do some research on it report back to you in a little bit..Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtydawg
Thanks, salty. I need to be informed on all this so that when I run for office, I won't be caught unawares.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
DD, I think this is what your are looking for. It's a bit long and detailed but gives you the historical background to the issue of global warming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtydawg
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Salty...Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Just how did you arrive at that 99.9% number? There are lot's of bonafide climate scientists that disagree. Are you saying that they make up only 0.01%???
My math isn't that good. If you have 2000 scientists say increasing levels of CO2 are increasong our average global temperature, and you have 6 who say that it isn't what percentage do you come up with?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
Ok Bill, my bad. Its 99.7% of all climate scientists.
I'm typing this real slow so you'll get it/(j.k)...straight out of the article:Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Have you ever taken a stats class?
and the source for the vast majority of the CO2 increase is?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
i agree 100% that we need to reduce real pollution. but fish dying has nothing to do with global warming.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
Dogtor, what is unusual is the the rapid increase in the atmospheric CO2 levels. Nothing like it has happen before as far we know, at least the last 750,000 years. Mebbe in the last 10 million years but we are talking about what is going on "out of the ordinary". To say the current gw is "normal variability" is total BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
And yes I've taken a stats class.:D
You know, all those coal-fired power plants around the world and all those cars burning gasoline and diesel not to mention those fertilzer plants and those petro-chemical plants and those steel plants and coke plants.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% .
CO2 emissions from "human" sources other than car and power generation have DECREASEDQuote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Dogtor, I think your post shows why you are having a hard time accepting gw. You are thinking that 6 billion tons of CO2 from human sources is insignificant compared to the 157 billion tons from all sources (not 186 billion tons).Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
The problem is that the 90 billion tons of CO2 from the oceans and the 60 billions tons from the biosphere that cycles through the atmosphere are contained within a "closed" carbon cycle system which was very finely balanced before mankind entered the picture 10,000 years ago. Our climate system WAS based on this closed carbon system and the orbitial controls. CO2 levels in the atmosphere was about 270 ppm 12500 years ago and if mankind had not started building his civilization it would currently be about 240 ppm. The fact is that the 6 billion tons of CO2 we dump into the atmosphere DOES make a large impact on our climate because the climate is sensitive to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is NOW 383 ppm. It goes up 3.5 ppm every year so if quote a source 7 years old the number is off by a good amount.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
Yes, CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere. However, it is a VERY potent greenhouse gas. If we remove that tiny amount of CO2 from the atmosphere the average global temperature would be 12F. You would be freeezing your butt off!
Sure, in past geologic times the CO2 level in the atmosphere was a lot higher. But then, there was no ice sheet on the
south Pole and the sea level was 300 ft higher. And talk about tropical heat wave with no air conditioning you are talking about Sweat City.
Not sure how you came up with these figures. Please explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
Which "other" sources are you referring to and how much have they decreased? Power generation and transportation are the main sources of human emission of CO2 and those emissions are INCREASING.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
salty, just fyi. There may not be too much political board talking today. Today is the day when high school football players sent letters to schools saying they want to play for them. So, most of us will be paying more attention to who we get than staying up on politics.
The sports section should be really humming today then.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Dirtydawg
Actually, it looks like we got our information alot quicker than normal, so, this section might see the usual traffic.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Or even more significant (from the same article)Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
"Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- both man-made and natural-- is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect-- a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored water!"
Thus man-made C02 = .117% of ALL CO2 AND ALL CO2 makes up only 3.62 percent of overall greenhouse effect
Just where did you get the 2000 for and 6 against????? Your numbers are absurd!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
There are a hell of lot more than 6 who disagree. Hell, a lot of the true scientists in IPCC disagree but none of thier concerns ever get past the political hacks who cherry pick the study results to produce the "final report". Further,many of thoses in the huge numbers of those "scientists" supporting GW as man made are not really scientists at all. Many are political hacks masquerading behind PHD's in decidedly non-scientific fields. Many others who may have legitimate credentials have jobs that depend on the GW bandwagon and do what they have to to keep their jobs.
Conversely, many of those outside the IPCC who disagree are continually derided by the leftist media, but that same media will not print their side of the debate. It's sort of like having a trial where only one side gets to present any evidence.
Bill, let me ask you this. Since we know that gw is taking place and is not due to orbital controls, increases in solar output, or cosmic rays, what in the world is causing it. Water vapor is not increasing. but just look at the increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
first, we DON'T know that solar output is not the cause (or part of it). second, how do you know that water vapor is not increasing? the humidity on my front doorstep is different than it is a quarter mile away on the bank of chigger creek. and in 15 minutes, it will have changed in both places. there is no way you could get an accurate measure of atmospheric water vapor worldwide. another factor that has a HUGE impact on temperatures is cloud cover, which of course is greatly influenced by the amount of water vapor in the air. water vapor and clouds have a much, much bigger effect on surface temperatures than any of the small-time greenhouse gases.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
the global climate models are bogus. your "12 degrees F without co2" is apparently based on those models (if not, then what?). scientists receiving government funding will have to find some other feild to research if they prove that global warming is bogus. therefore, what they say cannot be trusted. scientists that receive funding from "environmental organizations" obviously have an agenda and cannot be trusted. scientists receiving money from oil companies are tainted and thus cannot be trusted. the media thrive on junk science scares -- there's a new one every week -- they cannot be trusted. So there are two options:
1)just decide arbitrarily whom you will believe (with the news media controlling most of the information available, we know which side most uninformed people will fall on), or
2)really look at the research and decide which side is based in solid fact.
i've done #2, which have you done?
Gee whiz, I've done #2 also. i get my information from science magazines. Where do you get your information?Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
The "12F without greenhouse gases which includes waer vapor" is based not on models but atmospheric physics.
To say that gw is a junk science scare is absurd.
Take a look at solar output,,,,doesn't change much in the short term.
Which magazines? Are we talking about scientific (peer reviewed) journals or pop science mags?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
ok, so 12f without greenhouse gases doesn't prove anything if it includes water vapor -- so quit reciting it as if it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
i get my information from anywhere i can -- including your regurgitation of "science magazines" (which are included in the sensationalist media that we can't trust).
incidentally, there are some scientists whose research is not ethically tainted. there are groups that are funded by independant private organizations that keep their researchers blind of their donor base. these organizations are funded by thousands of independant donors, which often include oil companies. global warming activists use that fact to try to discredit the research because it is "funded by oil money," but in truth the donors exercise no influence over the research.
Science and Scientific American.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Also, the book Global Warming by Sir John Houghton, CBE.
Why don't you link your favorite scientific article about global warming? I'm always willing to change my mind about the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
For starters Salty here are a few books you might want to read if you're really serious......Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I tend to be somewhat skeptical about "Scientific American" (although I do read it regularly) because over the years I've found several articles dealing with my area of expertise that contained serious mistakes. When I pointed these out I've never even received a response.
- McKitrick, Ross and Essex, Christopher, “Taken by Storm – The Troubled Science, Policy, and Politics of Global Warming.” Key Porter Books, Ltd., Toronto ,2002
- Lomborg, Bjorn, “The Skeptical Environmentalist – Measuring the Real State of the World.” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004
- Best, Joel, “Damned Lies and Statistics – Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians, and Activists.” University of California Press, Berkeley, 2001
I tend to be skeptical of much of what I read (especially on the web) because that is the truly scientific way. If a theory cannot stand up to efforts to disprove it, then it is useless. For instance many of the papers published in one of the technical journals of my profession -- The Journal of Petroleum Technology -- have someone challenge it. The challenge is published in the next issue and then the author's response to the challenger is published and it can go on for quite some time. The bottom line is that it is acceptable to challenge any theory. It it withstands the challenge great!! But if it can't, then it was probably hokem to begin with. That's what I'm seeing with the Church of Global Warming. Not only does the congregation and Reverend Al not want to hear what the other side ( which is quite large in spite of what you say) has to say, they even want them to lose their jobs.
Bill, here are some reviews of McKitrick, Ross and Essex, Christopher, “Taken by Storm – The Troubled Science, Policy, and Politics of Global Warming.” Key Porter Books, Ltd., Toronto ,2002
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cus...283155&s=books
Chris Barrington Leigh gives a good review.
Regarding Bjorn Lomborg's book, The Skeptical Environmentist, it had pretty good reviews. However, you should note that Bjorn states that global warming is happening and is partially induced by human activities.
Here is what on reviewer stated: "Think about it. How can an ASSOCIATE professor of game theory...a gambling statistician...be an expert on no less than 20 complex multidisciplinary areas of natural, environmental and social sciences, not to mention chemistry, biology, immunology, oceanography, economics, medicine, public policy, and the list goes on and on and on.....? The chapters of this book are no more than about 7-8 pages long per issue area....You can't even introduce an issue as complex as energy or cancer or global warming let along explain how and where the scientists and experts in those particular fields got it wrong with any authority or credibility."
I agree that the environment is getting better in some areas but in others it is not. Controlling CO2 emissions is one area where we have to take action.
Bill, those three books you listed are written by an economist, a math guy, a gaming statistician, and a sociologist. Not a climatologist among them.
If you would like to read a college level textbook on Global Warming written by a climatologist, here is the link. It's expensive at $51 but well worth it.
http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming.../dp/0521528747
there are nearly 1000 posts in this thread. many of them contain links to very good scientific articles about global warming. in the early part of this thread and its predecessor, i furnished several links myself. many of them directly contradict what you continually regurgitate, and prove it scientifically. if you were truly willing to change your mind, you would have read these and had a good reason why you disagree other than, "it probably just some quack that gets money from oil companies."Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I havent even read a response since my last post and I wont. Im done. Im tired of political BS. You know your wrong. You should save your BS for something you have a shot in. Its over. Deal.
Most of us(outside this board) are ready for change. Change is going to happen. You cant stop the movement. The world is going to sweep over us like a tsunami on this one. Hell, most Americans are on board big time.
The rest of you, in the minority BIG TIME, are just going to have to deal. Good luck.
Did anyone see where only 13% of the republicans in congress believe in man-made global warming? Something like 85-95% of the democrats believe in it.
oh, now that you put it that way, i guess you're right. how silly of me to go against the majority!
:icon_roll:
Intelligence is not a prerequisite for being a politician.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Ark BOb, show me ONE peer-reviewed scientific article that shows (1) global warming isn't happening or (2) gw is happening but isn't being caused by increasing levels of CO2.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
I'm sure not going to go back and try to find some worthless bs from Fred Singer.
If your position has any merit you can provide me with that article.
Not to put words in your mouth, but for your #2 i think you meant to state "GW is happening but it isn't caused by increasing levels of ANTHROPOGENIC CO2."Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I am certainly no expert in this field, but here is a relatively short list of papers and articles supporting ArkansasBob's point. I am not sure if you can ever prove a negative (i.e., that GW is NOT CAUSED by X). Many of these papers (and some short articles) support theories of alternate causes (or cause unknown) or that that warming is not happening:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/deFreitas.pdf
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/news/news_sh..._testimony.php
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/170.pdf
http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543
http://www.examiner.com/a-173632~The...l_warming.html
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/415.pdf
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/203.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t341350850360302/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...ge/1023334.stm
http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-0...over-dialogue/
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...al_warming.pdf
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285/
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/354023909X
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2...1-weather.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...n13670777/pg_1
Not sure if any of these guys have submitted peer-reviewed articles.
Not sure about the others, but any papers published by Springer are peer-reviewed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Guisslapp, i hate to use those kind of big words when posting to ArkBob.:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Guisslapp, pretty sure nobody posting here is an expert on gw, but what is your personal view of the subject?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The Springerlink article looks like it is peer-reviewed.
Here is an over-view of the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Essays on Science and Society
Also see the archival list of the Essays on Science and Society.
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
References and Notes
A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).
See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.
This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.
10.1126/science.1103618
The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail: noreskes@ucsd.edu
My personal view is that I don't know whether or not GW is occurring or whether or not human activities exercise any "meaningful" influence over GW. There is so much junk science on both sides of the aisles that it is daunting task to sort through it all. Sure we can question the funding of the research or the motivations of the researchers, but I do not think that funding/motivation should automatically accredit or discredit the research. It is certainly relevant, but it doesn't tell us everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
It seems like reasonable scientists disagree on this issue. It is hard for me to know whether or not to trust the IPCC (ultimately this is a political institution). I don't know for a fact that the IPCC speaks for the "consensus." And even if the IPCC does speak for the consensus, there is the issue of quantity versus quality. I don't think I am qualified to make these judgments.
I don't like fear-mongering and I don't like politics. The two seem to go hand-in-hand. I trust Al Gore just as much as I trust George Bush. I wish there was a more open and honest debate.
Finally, IF GW is occuring AND humans are the cause, we are screwed. If you think our emissions are bad, wait until China and India go through their next phase of development.
i have shown you several. others have shown you several, as well. if you didn't read it the first time, i don't have time to go back and dig it up for you again. if i run accross something new, i will post it here. unlike you, i don't post articles that don't say anything new or different than has already been said.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
but i guess if wikipedia is what passes for peer-reviewed scientific publication in your book, then i shouldn't have any problem finding something that would qualify.:)
and for what its worth, if you do go back digging through those old posts, i think you will find that the first time the word "anthropogenic" appeared in this thread, it was in a post by arkansasbob.:icon_wink:
a man after my own heart. the only place my opinion differs is that i lean heavily toward the "man-made (using small words for salty:icon_wink: ) global warming is a myth" side. this is based on my limited knowledge of the subject and what the theory is based on, as well as my extensive knowledge of how difficult it is to model complex systems, even when you have control of most of the variables. also, if there is a debate and one side is trying to shut the other side up, there is a good chance that the side doing the shushing is wrong and knows it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
While I agree that this whole global warming thing could just be a lot of hot air, the very, very large chance that it isn't is enough reason to take significant action now to control CO2 emissions. The plain fact of the matter is that even if we stopped all human activities that contribute to CO2 emissions, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to go up for at least 50 or more years because of the additional amount that has been put into the carbon cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
So, those who want to take a chance that AGW isn't really happening probably don't understand how bad the consequences could be in 50 years (or less).
Is that why women don't let their husbands get a word in when arguing?Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
I have heard of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtydawg
Salty.....Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I've read all of those reviews long ago.
It's interesting (or maybe I should say revealing) that you went in and "cherry picked" only the review that gave you great support. BTW you could have also noted the one by D. Achtemichuk , which says about the same thing. Very interesting to note that both of them admitted to only reading a couple of chapters and then "skimmed".
With your ability to cherry pick the stuff that only suppports your view ( but then I guess that's what lawyers do) you could probably get a good job with the UN's IPCC Policy Committee. Cherry picking the support for a position ,after all , seems to be their only function.
BTW, McKittrick never pretended to be a formally trained climatologist. If you would read the whole book, you would see that the major focus is pointing out two major weak links in the GW mantra. 1. The shoddy methods used to "average" the measured data. McKittrick certainly has good credentials in this area. 2. The weaknesses and uncertainty that is inherent in the discretized climate models.
Salty....Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Just refer to my last reply to you on McKittrick.....................
Not all women are like that. Some prefer that their husbands try to present well-reasoned arguments so they can continue their to display their superiority as long as possible. The wise husband just shakes his bowed head in agreement and act like it is all his fault. Women are emotional creatures and soon their emotions will change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtydawg
Never use logic when arguing with a woman because it makes a man appear weak..
So, Bill, where do you see the climate 50 years from now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
Salty, you possibly just described the difference, in reasoning and debate styles, between the Conservatives/GOP and Liberals/DEMS with the women being the Liberals and the man being the Conservative. Substitute these in place of your man/husbands and women and tell me what you think. This is one reason that the Libs/Dems appeal to women and minorities as it tickles their strong emontional side versus logic and reasoning side of the brain. Likewise, I have found the modern day LIB/DEM men to be slightly feminine. That is not meant as an insult but just a strong change I have noticed happening the last 25+ years. I could expand on this further but for lack of time. And yes, I am serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
You could probably do a entire thread on this subject.
^ Conservatives sure don't try to appeal to reason on the issues of abortion, gay marriage, promotion of abstinence, military intervention, and privacy rights. On these issues they prefer to appeal to emotions.
depends on which conservatives you're talking about. you won't find me trying to appeal to emotions -- ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
So the European laws against denying the Holocaust are wrong? Shall I continue with more examples?
Bob, who in the world is that in your avator?
there's nothing invidious about denying global warming. the laws against denying the holocaust are designed to prevent hateful people from brainwashing their children in the way of the nazis, not to cut off debate. besides, historical facts are not a valid subject for debate, especially recent history. global warming is very much open for debate and there are plenty of scientists wanting to debate it, but we are being told that those scientists don't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
and my avatar is frank bogard -- the godfather of Tech engineering.
ArkBob, what do you think the climate will be like in 50 years?
^ I think in 50 years the climatologists will be trying to convince us of a coming ice age.
He is not related to phillip fulmar (sp) of Tenn is he? :laugh: j/k, but man, is there a resembalance.:shocked2:Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
i have no idea, just like everybody else.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Do you have a ballpark figure for the level of atmospheric CO2 in 50 years?Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Its been awhile since I've posted, but I'll weigh in on this issue.
Do I believe Global Warming is occuring. In the very recent past, yes. Who knows what it will be doing in 50 more years. Do I beleive that man is the primary cause, probably not. Might we be contributing an almost negligible amount? Maybe. I've always felt that the best scientific data pointed back to our sun as the main reason for global warming and cooling. Couple of interesting articles I've seen in the past including an updated one from today.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming020507.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../11/warm11.xml
The most compelling evidence that in all honesty should close the book on the debate is that the Martian Ice Caps have been shrinking as well. You get that, Mars is warming too. I guess some of our greenhouse gases filling the martian atmosphere as well. Or is it that Mars is warming because of solar activity. Same goes for Earth.
I have also heard that Mars is warming. Since Mars receives no human interference (other than Rover, which is of course a minimum footprint of human activity), the sun must account for the warming (unless there is some volcanic or other reason causing Mars to warm). All agree the same sun heats our Earth. Thus, the Earth receives the same warming that Mars is receiving. Therefore, the Sun is at least partially responsible for any warming of Earth. In order to prove Global warming by man made causes, the amount of warming due to solar activity must be evaluated and subtracted from any observed warming of the Earth. Has this been done?Quote:
Originally Posted by NTXDawg
My understanding is that the scientist who research and or subscribe to the solar warming idea as the main culprit are the same ones who are lambasted for being global warming skeptics. It's not that they are skeptics, they are actually trying to be scientific about it and arn't willing to throw their hat in with popular theory just because its popular. In today's world its not about debating fact, its about who is the loudest. The "skeptics", who may very well be 100% correct, are "shouted" down by politicians and scientist who have no real expertise in the area they so loudly vocalize.Quote:
Originally Posted by 9701Dawg
This is such an insane topic.
The only way we are ever going to know anything approximating the truth about GW is for an open, honest scientific debate to be encouraged. Unfortunately politics rather than science dominates this debate, and the science is an unwitting victim.
Anyone who claims that the issue of GW is settled one way or the other simply does not understand the basic elements of the scientific process, especially when it is applied to complex phenomena like GW. The man-made GW idea is a well-supported scientifically informed theory. But it is NOT the only scientifically supported theory for the climate changes we are just beginning to understand.
However, there are many other reasons we should be working very, very hard to limit our consumption of fossil fuels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian96
Very well put.
obviously, my argument has not been that I know what the climate or co2 levels will be like in the future, but that nobody knows as much as they say they do. i don't doubt that many scientists believe their evidence is conclusive -- they're just way too confident in their own flawed reasoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Don't worry, be happy!Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
The "climate" where? the Australian climate? The Russian climate?? The Canadian climate?? Climate refers specifically to defined regions. One of the above could be getting warmer, others getting colder................just as is happening right now!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Climate is an intensive property just like temperature. There is no single temperature on Earth and an "average" is meaningless!!!!
My guess, and please emphasize "guess", is that overall the Earth may be slightly warmer in 50 years.................................... ( and that may not be all bad), but then who really knows?????? 40 years ago some of the same "experts" now taking taking Holy Communion in the CGW were warning of an impending "new Ice Age" that would destroy us.
Here's my overall take at this point:
- The vast majority of the "data" that supports rapid GW come from MODELS, not observed actual measurements.
- These models -- although state of the art ---- are extremely coarse and contain very subjective approximations for parameters they cannot model because of current computer limitations. The current models have "cell sizes" that are measured in hundreds of kilometers. They can't even account for thunderstorms, one of the major players in regulating the Earth's "temerature." Slight changes in input boundary conditions can make these predict a wide variety of outcomes.
- The current generation of models consistently fail to be able to "predict" known short term ( read that as "last 100 years") climate history. If a model can't duplicate known history, then it is virtually useless as a future prediction tool. BTW, you won't be able to find any reference to this fact in the IPCC Summary report. But if you talk to the folks who actually build these models, they are very up front about these limitations. But this fact -- which is the weak link in all of the GW hype -- gets swept under the carpet.
- There are severe limitations in the extremely sparse ACTUAL TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS that we have. Most of the temperature input data to the models is data based on correlations and approximations that have significant levels of uncertainty.
- So we put all this sparse and uncertain data into very imprecise models and then try to predict a 4 or 5 degree global temperature change way out in the future. This is akin to trying to measure something a few microns wide with a yardstick!!!!
- On a very broad evidential basis, primarily from geologic studies we can definitely say that there have been significant periods of cooling and then warming in Earth's recent history. Since man was not burning fossil fuels during the earlier warming periods and CO2 levels were probably lower (fewer animals and humans) Then what caused the warming then??????????? At this point I don't think anyone knows, but it seems a lot more logical that it is due to natural cylces caused by sun spot activity or very slight changes in the our orbital motion than anything man is putting into the air.
Well, that about wraps it up. If any of you guys who haven't drunk the kool-aid yet, change your mind please let us know.
BTW, even if there is a 10% chance that AGW is occurring because of the build-up of CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, we need to take action to control said emissions because the consequences would have horrible impacts on human civilization.
^ Change at what cost, though? Would level of productivity should we sacrifice on a 10% chance that GW is happening AND we cause it? What about 5%? 2%? Less than 1%? In my uneducated view (which happens to be more educated than most policy makers in Washington) I place the odds, subjectively calculated of course, at less than 2%. Sure I can't say for certain that its not happening and we are not causing it, but the anthropogenic contributions to greenhouse gases (when you account for water vapor) seems to be STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT. If you were doing an algebra problem you would have rounded those decimel spots off when reporting the answer. Implementing measures to reduce production of CO2 is not free (and letting the poor starve so that they do not contribute CO2 appears to be an unpopular solution on this board :) ). If you really want to help, please stop having children. Children simply increase demand on limited natural resources and contribute to the growing problem of overpopulation.
Aha, I see you've been talking to Aubunique.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I place the odds of AGW at about 98%. Controlling CO2 doesn't have to reduce our productivity. Rather, it can improve it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
two completely unsupported (and rediculously uninformed) statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Yeah, I think the only way you could argue that controlling CO2 makes us more productive is to invoke an argument against the sustainability of fossil fuel use as a primary energy source. There may be some validity to the sustainability argument, but that's certainly not telling the whole story. There is a very good reason to believe that continuing the big oil profits that we are seeing is actually the best way to solve the sustainability question - after all, the oil industry is perhaps the single biggest funder of alternate energy R&D (in house, at universities, etc.). So more money flowing to that industry might not be such a bad thing if we want to sustain energy usage levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
And there's no way that controlling CO2 makes us more productive NOW.
I bet we will begin to hear more, from various heads of state around the world, that aren't cramped and held quiet by the PC crowd in their countries.
President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity
Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET
Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.
In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:
Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•
A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•
Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•
A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.
• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•
A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•
Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•
A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•
Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•
A: ...I am right...•
Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•
A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•
Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•
A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.
[English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl]
Developing...
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
Air pollution has a large medical and economic price tag attached to it. Petroleum is a finite resource that should be conserved instead of being used for transportation.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
Dumping 6 billion tons of CO2 every year into the atmosphere hurts the environment beyond just the global warming aspect. Or are you denying that we dump 6 billion tons of CO2 into the environment every year?
Most of Big Oil's profits goes into exploration for additional petroleum reserves.
Thanks for your opinion. It and 75 cents will get me a cup of coffe at mcDonalds.:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Yeah, plants have no use for that shit. The annual exchange rate of C02 between the atmosphere and the biosphere + oceans is in the magnitude of 200 billion metric tons.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Hopefully. That way they can sustain the profits needed to fund more alternative energy research.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
So running my lawnmower is feeding my grass AND my weeds?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
You are correct on this point Salty. It that didn't happen they would'nt be in business very long.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
But the point that another poster made here that most of the money researching alternative energy sources has come from oil and gas companies is correct!!! The industry has supplied over 85% of the total in the last decade!!
Share with us just how you calculated those odds, Salty.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
And then explain to us just how "controlling CO2" will increase productivity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Well, closer to 150 billion tons. but it is essentially a closed system except for the human angle ( volcanoes produce about 3% of the 6 billion tons). Dumping 6 billion tons a year, year after year, does add up. In ten years that 60 billion tons.
Yes, it good that the oil companies are researching alternatives to petroleum for transpotration. Funny how they don't seem to get anywhere with it, sort of like pedaling an exercise bike.:D
Did you get those numbers from Al Gore?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
No I didn't. Did you get your numbers from WorldNetDaily?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Salty........
Here's some interesting reading for you. From somewone who has real experience in this arena.
The politics of global warming
By Bill Steigerwald
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Timothy Ball is no wishy-washy skeptic of global warming. The Canadian climatologist, who has a Ph.D. in climatology from the University of London and taught at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, says that the widely propagated “fact” that humans are contributing to global warming is the “greatest deception in the history of science.”
Ball has made no friends among global warming alarmists by saying that global warming is caused by the sun, that global warming will be good for us and that the Kyoto Protocol “is a political solution to a nonexistent problem without scientific justification."
Needless to say, Ball strongly disagrees with the findings of the latest report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which on Feb. 2 concluded that it is “very likely” that global warming is the result of human activity.
I talked to Ball by phone on Feb. 6 from his home on Victoria Island, British Columbia, which the good-humored scientist likes to point out was connected to the mainland 8,000 years ago when the sea level was 500 feet lower.
Q: The mainstream media would have us believe that the science of global warming is now settled by the latest IPCC report. Is it true?
A: No. It’s absolutely false. As soon as people start saying something’s settled, it’s usually that they don’t want to talk about it anymore. They don’t want anybody to dig any deeper. It’s very, very far from settled. In fact, that’s the real problem. We haven’t been able to get all of the facts on the table. The IPCC is a purely political setup.
There was a large group of people, the political people, who wanted the report to be more harum-scarum than it actually is. In fact, the report is quite a considerable step down from the previous reports. For example, they have reduced the potential temperature rise and they’ve reduced the sea level increase and a whole bunch of other things. Part of it is because they know so many people will be watching the report this time.
Q: Why should we be leery of the IPCC’s report -- or the summary of the report?
A: Well, because the report is the end product of a political agenda, and it is the political agenda of both the extreme environmentalists who of course think we are destroying the world. But it’s also the political agenda of a group of people ... who believe that industrialization and development and capitalism and the Western way is a terrible system and they want to bring it down. They couldn’t do it by attacking energy because they know that would get the public’s back up very quickly. ... The vehicle they chose was CO2, because that’s the byproduct of industry and fossil-fuel burning, which of course drives the whole thing. They think, “If we can show that that is destroying the planet, then it allows us to control.” Unfortunately, you’ve got a bunch of scientists who have this political agenda as well, and they have effectively controlled the IPCC process.
Q: You always hear the argument that the IPCC has several thousand scientists -- how can you not accept what they say?
A: The answer, first of all, is that consensus is not a scientific fact. The other thing is, you look at the degree to which they have controlled the whole IPCC process. For example, who are the lead authors? Who are the scientists who sit on the summary panel with the politicians to make sure that they get their view in? … You’ve got this incestuous little group that is controlling the whole process both through their publications and the IPCC. I’m not a conspiracy theorist and I hate being even pushed toward that, but I think there is a consensus conspiracy that’s going on.
Q: What is your strongest or best argument that GW is not “very likely” to be caused by SUVs and Al Gore’s private planes?
A: I guess the best argument is that global warming has occurred, but it began in 1680, if you want to take the latest long-term warming, and the climate changes all the time. It began in 1680, in the middle of what’s called “The Little Ice Age” when there was three feet of ice on the Thames River in London. And the demand for furs of course drove the fur trade. The world has warmed up until recently, and that warming trend doesn’t fit with the CO2 record at all; it fits with the sun-spot data. Of course they are ignoring the sun because they want to focus on CO2.
The other thing that you are seeing going on is that they have switched from talking about global warming to talking about climate change. The reason for that is since 1998 the global temperature has gone down -- only marginally, but it has gone down. In the meantime, of course, CO2 has increased in the atmosphere and human production has increased. So you’ve got what Huxley called the great bane of science -- “a lovely hypothesis destroyed by an ugly fact.” So by switching to climate change, it allows them to point at any weather event -- whether it’s warming, cooling, hotter, dryer, wetter, windier, whatever -- and say it is due to humans. Of course, it’s absolutely rubbish.
Q: What is the most exaggerated and unnecessary worry about global warming or climate change?
A: I think the fact that it is presented as all negative. Of course, it’s the one thing they focus on because the public, with the huge well of common sense that is out there, would sort of say, “Well, I don’t understand the science, but, gee, I wouldn’t mind a warmer world, especially if I was living in Canada or Russia.” They have to touch something in the warming that becomes a very big negative for the people, and so they focus on, “Oh, the glaciers are going to melt and the sea levels are going to rise.” In fact, there are an awful lot of positive things. For example, longer frost-free seasons across many of the northern countries, less energy used because you don’t need to keep your houses warm in the winter.
Q: Is the globe warming and what is the cause?
A: Yeah, the world has been warming since 1680 and the cause is changes in the sun. But in their computer models they hardly talk about the sun at all and in the IPCC summary for policy-makers they don’t talk about the sun at all. And of course, if they put the sun into their formula in their computer models, it swamps out the human portion of CO2, so they can’t possibly do that.
Q: Is the rising CO2 level the cause of global warming or the result of it?
A: That’s a very good question because in the theory the claim is that if CO2 goes up, temperature will go up. The ice core record of the last 420,000 years shows exactly the opposite. It shows that the temperature changes before the CO2. So the fundamental assumption of the theory is wrong. That means the theory is wrong. ... But the theory that human CO2 would lead to runaway global warming became a "fact" right away, and scientists like myself who dared to question it were immediately accused of being paid by the oil companies or didn’t care about the children or the future or anything else.
Q: Have you ever accepted money from an oil company?
A: No. No. I wish I did get some. I wouldn’t have to drive a ’92 car and live in a leaky apartment bloc.
Q: Why are sea levels rising and should we worry?
A: Sea levels have been rising for the last 10,000 years. In fact, 8,000 years ago, sea level was almost 500 feet lower than it is today. It’s been rising gradually over that time. It’s risen very slightly in the modern record, but it has risen no more rapidly than it has in the last 8,000 years. One of the factors that people forget is that most of the ice is already in the ocean, and so if you understand Archimedes’ Principle, when that ice melts it simply replaces the space that the ice occupied -- even if the ice caps melt completely. What they do is they say if we estimate the volume of water in Antarctica and Greenland, then we add that to the existing ocean level. But that's not the way it works at all. But it does work for panic and for sea-level rises of 20 feet, like Gore claims.
Q: Why are the sea levels rising, just because we are in a warming period?
A: Yes. We are in an inter-glacial. Just 22,000 years ago, which is what some people can get their minds around, Canada and parts of the northern U.S. were covered with an ice sheet larger than the current Antarctic ice sheet. That ice sheet was over a mile thick in central Canada. All of that ice melted in 5,000 years. There was another ice sheet over Europe and a couple more in Asia. As that ice has melted, it’s run back into the oceans and of course that’s what’s filled up the oceans. But if you drilled down in Antarctica, you go down almost 8,000 feet below sea level. That ice below sea level, if it melts, is not going to raise sea level. The other thing, just to get a little technical, is that sea level variation is called “eustasy,” and it can vary for a whole variety of reasons. It can vary simply because of the water being a little warmer by thermal expansion. The problem with that is, we really don’t know what sea level is. Sea level is not level. That means if you go through the Panama Canal, you are at different sea levels on the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. There are areas off the coast of eastern North America where sea level is 100 feet higher than the surrounding sea, simply because of different gravitational pulls within the Earth.
Q: So there is no global sea level?
A: Exactly. Then you add to that that the crust of the Earth also moves up and down. For example, if you fly into Hudson Bay, as you fly in you cross about 150 beach lines because the Hudson Bay area is rising. If you looked at that and stood on the shore at Churchill on the Hudson Bay, you’d say, “Oh, the sea level is dropping.” No it isn’t. It’s because the land is rising. That’s called “isostasy” and that, by the way, is what’s going on in the Gulf of Mexico. People are saying, “The ocean is coming in and we’re seeing the evidence of sea level rising.” What you’re seeing is the evidence of land sinking.
Q: Is there any aspect of global warming alarmism that you are worried about?
A: There are a couple of very minor things. I’m interested in and need more research done on commercial jet aircraft flying in the stratosphere. The research that’s been done so far says no, it’s not an issue, but I think the jury is out on that still. The other concern I have is that we’re totally preparing for warming. The whole world is preparing for warming, but I mentioned that we have been cooling since 1998 and the climate scientists that I respected -- particularly the Russians and Chinese -- are predicting that we’re going to be much, much cooler by 2030. So we’ve got completely the wrong adaptive strategy.
Q: Is it not inevitable that we will have another ice age?
A: Yes, I think there is another ice age coming, because the major causes of the ice ages are changes in the orbit of the Earth around the sun and changes in the tilt of the Earth. Those are things we’ve known about for 150 years, but we’re still telling our students that the orbit around the sun is a fixed elliptical orbit and the tilt is an unchanging 23.5 degrees. Neither of those things are correct.
The question is, why are we still teaching our students that the orbit is a fixed, relatively small, unchanging ellipse? The answer is because the whole of our view of the world -- in the Western world at least -- is something called “uniformitarianism.” This is the idea that change is gradual over long periods of time. It was basically established out of Darwin’s view, which had to overcome the church and accommodate his evolutionary theory. So what it means is that we are all educated to see change as gradual over long periods of time. So any sudden or dramatic change is seen as either wrong or unnatural. Of course, that plays into the hands of the environmentalists, because it means all of this is not natural, it is something humans are doing, when in fact nature varies tremendously all the time.
Q: If someone asked you where he should go to get a good antidote on the mainstream media’s spin on global warming, where should he go?
A: There are three Web sites I have some respect for. One is the one I helped set up by a group of very frustrated professional scientists who are retired. That’s called Friendsofscience.org. It has deliberately tried to focus on the science only. The second site that I think provides the science side of it very, very well is CO2Science.org, and that’s run by Sherwood Idso, who is the world expert on the relationship between plant growth and CO2. The third, which is a little more irreverent and maybe still slightly on the technical side for the general public, is JunkScience.com.
Q: If you had to calm the fears of a small grandchild or a student about the threat of global warming, what would you tell him?
A: First of all, I probably wouldn’t tell him anything. As I tell audiences, the minute somebody starts saying “Oh, the children are going to die and the grandchildren are going to have no future,” they have now played the emotional and fear card. Just like in the U.S., it’s almost like the race card. It’s not to say that it isn’t valid in some cases. But the minute you play that card, you are now taking the issues and the debates out of the rational and logical and reasonable and sensible and calm into the emotional and hysterical. To give you an example, I was talking to a group in Saskatoon and a woman came up after and she said, “I agree with you totally. We were having a party for my 7-year-old. I went into the kitchen and there was a bang in the living room. I went back and a balloon had exploded. The kids were crying and I said, ‘Why are you crying?’ And they said, ‘There’s going to be another hole in the ozone.’”
It’s completely false. There never were holes in the ozone, by the way. But when we start laying those kinds of problems onto shoulders that are very narrow, that is criminal. My comment to her was, I said, “Look, let the kids get on with the party. Give them another beer. Let 'em enjoy themselves.”
So I wouldn’t raise these kinds of fear with the children. What I would do with my children and grandchildren is what I’m trying to do with the public and say, “Look, here’s the other side of the story. Make sure you get all of the information before you start running off and screaming ‘wolf, wolf, wolf.’”
Bill Steigerwald is the Trib's associate editor. Call him at (412) 320-7983. E-mail him at: bsteigerwald@tribweb.com.
Global cooling costs too much
By Jonah Goldberg
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Public policy is all about trade-offs. Economists understand this better than politicians because voters want to eat their cake and have it, too. And politicians think whatever is popular also must be true.
Economists understand that if we put a chicken in every pot, it might cost us an aircraft carrier or a hospital. We can build a hospital but it might come at the expense of a little patch of forest. We can protect a wetland but that will make a new school more expensive.
You get it already. But let me just add that in the great scheme of trade-offs in the history of humanity, never has there been a better one than trading a tiny amount of global warming for a massive amount of global prosperity.
The Earth got about 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer in the 20th century while it increased its gross domestic product (GDP) by 1,800 percent, by one estimate. How much of that 0.7 degrees can be laid at the feet of that 1,800 percent is unknowable. But let's stipulate that all of the warming was the result of our prosperity and that this warming is, in fact, indisputably bad (which is hardly obvious). That's still an amazing bargain.
Life spans in the United States nearly doubled (from 44 to 77 years). Literacy, medicine, leisure and even, in many respects, the environment have improved mightily over the course of the 20th century, at least in the prosperous West.
Given the option of getting another 1,800 percent richer in exchange for another 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer, I'd take the heat in a heartbeat. Of course, warming might get more expensive for us. (And we might do a lot better than 1,800 percent, too.) There are tipping points in every sphere of life, and what cost us little in the 20th century could cost us enormously in the 21st -- at least that's what we're told. And boy, are we told. Al Gore has a new incarnation as the host of an apocalyptic infomercial on the subject, complete with fancy renderings of New York City underwater.
Skeptics are heckled for calling attention to the fear-mongering that suffuses global warming activism. But the simple fact is that the activists need to hype the threat -- and not just because that's what the media demand of them. Their proposed remedies cost so much money -- bidding starts at 1 percent of global GDP a year and rises quickly -- they have to ratchet up the fear factor just to get the conversation started.
Even so, the costs are just too high for too little payoff. Even if the Kyoto Protocol were put into effect tomorrow -- a total impossibility -- we'd barely affect global warming. Jerry Mahlman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research speculated in Science magazine that "it might take another 30 Kyotos over the next century" to beat back global warming.
Thirty Kyotos! That's going to be tough considering that China alone plans on building an additional 2,200 coal plants by 2030. Oh, but because China (like India) is exempt from Kyoto as a developing country, the West will just have to reduce its own emissions even more.
A more persuasive cost-benefit analysis hinges not on prophecies of environmental doom but on geopolitics. We buy too much oil from places we shouldn't, which makes us dependent on nasty regimes and makes those regimes nastier. Environmentalists like to claim the "energy independence" issue but it's not a neat fit.
We could be energy independent soon enough with coal and nuclear power. But coal contributes to global warming, and nuclear power is icky. So, instead, we're going to massively subsidize the government-brewed moonshine called ethanol. Here again, the benefits barely outweigh the costs. Ethanol requires almost as much energy to make as it provides and the costs to the environment and the economy may be staggering.
The trade-off is not worth it. At least not yet. The history of capitalism and technology tells us that what starts out expensive and arduous becomes cheap and easy over time. Lewis and Clark took months to do what a truck carrying Tickle-Me Elmos does every week. Technology 10 years from now could solve global warming at a fraction of today's costs. What technologies? I don't know. Maybe fusion. Maybe hydrogen. Maybe we'll harness the perpetual motion of Sen. Joe Biden's mouth.
The fact is we can't afford to fix global warming right now -- in part because poor countries want to get rich, too. And rich countries, where the global warming debate is "settled," are finding even the first of 30 Kyotos too fiscally onerous.
There are no solutions in the realm of the politically possible. So why throw trillions of dollars into "remedies" that even their proponents concede won't solve the problem?
Jonah Goldberg is editor at large for National Review Online.
Bill, (1) the average global temperature is rising. Fact 100% (2) 97% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 is the result of human activities. Fact 100% (3) the orbit and axis deviations of the Earth should be leading to decreasing average global temperatures and declining Co2 levels. Fact 100% (4) solar activity heats the planet earth and is not responsible for the recent increase in average global temperature. Fact 100% (5) the possibility that aliens are responsible for the increase in average global temperature and for killing Anna Nicole Smith 2%Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
Add them all up and you get a 98% probability.
As for limiting CO2 emissions from burning fosil fuels and increasing productivity, the increase efficiency in system wide performance of tranporation and electricity production will increase productivity. What is the thermal efficiency of the internal combustion engine and coal-fired power plants?
How much will AGW hurt productivity? That's the real question.:icon_wink:
Bullshit. Find me some legitimate scientific evidence that alternate energies operate MORE efficiently? For example, to operate on hydrogen fuel cells (without regard for infrastructure costs, etc., which would be very substantial), the efficiencies we are talking about max out below 10%. Simply, you have to PROVIDE ELECTRIC POWER to produce appreciable amounts of H2, which then has fuel cell efficiencies to deal with (maybe higher than combustion engine, but factoring in the cost of the H2, it's not).Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Same is true for other alternative energy sources, and the lack of efficiency is the primary reason that they are not currently dominating the market.
And I believe that figure of 85% is suppose to be higher per yearly budgets the next 5+ years. The O&G industry would love to be the first to come up viable options for 2 obvious reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
BumpQuote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Gore is just reaching for a platform so that he can become politically viable again. Dems know that the fear-mongering is a recipe for success. Republicans have never been very good at it (except for in the middle of wars).