RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

samboct -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/13/2009 7:12:56 PM)

"Actually I am going to disagree.  While the things you refer to are indeed more complicated than just saying, "More CO2= warmer...Duh", they are far simpler to do science on.  In all of those you can isolate all the factors, change them and test them.... ie. do science.  You can't run experiments on the global climate, and we have no idea all of the inputs and factors that matter."

If you had to do science on the exact system that you observe in nature- we wouldn't need laboratories.  Either we can run a controlled experiment in a microcosm of an environment (laboratory) and have it apply to the real world or we can't- all the last couple centuries of lab science is a fraud.  It's a pretty easy experimental setup to increase CO2 in an atmospheric sample in the lab and monitor the temperature as it absorbs photons.  None of the links I've seen address why this model fails in the real world.  It's certainly made a bit more complex by the addition of particulates from things like volcanic explosions, but nevertheless, the model is reasonably straightforward- it could be an undergraduate lab.
 
"As several people have pointed out, and you purposefully ignore...none of the Programs when run backward give a correct reading of the past Climate.  None of them.  If you could provide one, you would easyily end this debate. "
 
I haven't purposely ignored it- I've addressed it repeatedly.  We have CO2 as a product- and as I've pointed out numerous times previously- we don't know what the reactants are.  How do you run a computer program backward with only the input of CO2 and heat as your products and expect to find reactants?  Computer models cannot generate chemical reactions- they can only verify whether the reaction fits the data.  Your insistence on this point- along with the others, shows a basic misunderstanding of chemical reactions and computer modeling.
 
You have to ignore data to get the result you want...recap..the models are not accurate when run backwards...and the climate moving around quite a bit since man has been keeping records..pretending that 3 cycles establishes a constant...and ignoring the data that says Co2 increases follow temperature rise.  Ignoring data to make the theory work,is not occams razor or Science.

I'd say that monitoring three 11 year cycles- with hundreds (thousands?) of data points a cycle, is certainly enough data to do valid statistics.

Sam
 
 




ArticMaestro -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/13/2009 7:55:48 PM)

So you think 3 heads, means the coin will allways turn up heads?  Come on.

" Either we can run a controlled experiment in a microcosm of an environment (laboratory) and have it apply to the real world or we can't- all the last couple centuries of lab science is a fraud. "   Nope.  Some things can be clearly tested, and the variables controlled.  The earth is a far more complex system with un known factors.  Absolulty in a sealed terarium, more Co2 = warmer.  The earth is far more complex than that.  You know it.  that some things can not be tested in a lab does not make all lab results false.  Thats just silly and not reasonable thinking.  It is grasping.

Please explain why a computer program to predict future climate can not run backwards?   You claim to have enough data and the correct way to interpret it, to predict the future.  Why can't it predict the past.  We are not asking it to give the reactants (BTW there is a hell of a lot more than just Chemistry occuring in the climate)  we are asking it to predict the climate.  Which you claim it can do.   Heck in the past we have a lot more data to put in, that is just guessed at for the future.  The program should more accurate going backwards.  But the fact is they are wildly off, so that gets ignored.

So basically all GWT is, is pretending the earth is a sealed terarium with very few variables.  Which is pretty much I figured at the start of the debate.

And you are pretending climate is just a chemical reaction.  As you are a chemist, that kind of makes sense.  I guess that is why most Climatologists do NOT agree with your theory. They are very aware that the system is far more complex with unknown numbers of variables. 

To me monitoring the sun for 33 years, and then assuming that is the way it allways was and will be seems kind of silly, regardless of how many data points you take in that 33 (3 cycles) years.

Am I to take it you deny that the earth has been in a general long term warming since the trough of the last Glacial period?  about 10,000 years ago?



ArizonaSunSwitch -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/14/2009 2:28:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

"There is no such thing as Global warming,
its Re warming and it has happend in the past and will cool again and Re heat .
FOLLOW the money and you will see that every one that claims that "global warming" is proven all want MORE money to study it.
its a scham and all about money. "

I posted the most recent science I'm familiar with on this topic here-(that covers the solar variation hypothesis.)

http://www.collarchat.com/m_1348357/mpage_4/tm.htm  post 66.

Scientists develop a hypothesis, and develop a way to test that hypothesis by gathering data.  Feel free to watch Mythbusters- they do a pretty good job.

I'm not aware of any global warming/cooling function based on dollars.  And this may come as a surprise to you- but scientists are human and do need to eat, pay rent, buy clothes, screw- all those normal human functions, so yes, scientists are going to want to get paid for doing science.  Do you think that only independently wealthy people can do good science?

Sam



Mythbusters does a "good job" ? That is your standard of science ? Don't get me wrong, I *LOVE* those guys, they've managed to find a way to get *paid* for shooting and blowing shit up that doesn't require an enlistment or commission. I'm envious.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/14/2009 3:33:43 AM)

sam,

In reference to the scientific method and global warming (or climate change), what bothers me is the absolute certainty that some who espouse the theory of manmade climate change argue their point.

If you do a search on my past comments on the forum in reference to Global Warming, you see that I conditionally admit to a slight overall temperature rise (although I've seen some recent arguments which do not support even this).

What I am not convinced of, is that we understand the cause or reason for this sufficiently to either attribute the change to primarily human activity, or that we understand it with enough completeness to be able to take any action to change it.

Not to mention that I'm not sure we should even attempt to change it.

In direct response to some of your comments, I'd specifically mention that understanding how the sun affects climate over the long term is not something that we are confident we understand enough to categorically claim that it's "proven" that changes in solar activity do not have any effect on the slight observed rise in global temperature.

Many who espouse Global Climate Change quote the September 2006 study and review in Nature as definitive proof of the lack of effect of solar variance on the current global temperature change. However, there are counter-arguments as well. I tend to place my faith in the fallibility of human understanding, and am willing to await a greater maturity of understanding before walking out on that limb of faith.

Much of reasoning used to support the theory that changes in the sun do not have an impact on the current warming trend are based on measurements only of solar brightness, and do not necessarily take into account other possible, more complex factors.

In fact:

quote:

Apart from solar brightness, more subtle influences on climate from cosmic rays or the Sun's ultraviolet radiation cannot be excluded, say the authors. However, these influences cannot be confirmed, they add, because physical models for such effects are still too poorly developed.


A pretty good overview exists in Wikipedia: Solar variation

Another issue I have with the entire subject is with the IPCC reports, which I alluded to with mention of the "missing hockey stick". I have taken the time to read ALL of the reports, including the last one, and have spent days and weeks reading them, and researching them from both sides. While I confess to a layman's status, I do have critical thinking skills, am generally a skeptic about most things, and have been trained in the scientific method.

The missing hockey stick is indicative of one of the major weaknesses I see in all of the reports: reaching premature conclusions, and a process which has become politicized. If you would spend some time reviewing some of the latest controversy surrounding these reports, and also track each report's final conclusions, you may notice the trends I mentioned.

I was especially interested in seeing that the latest report's conclusions have been toned down quite a bit since their original conclusions several years ago, as more information and research has become available. In fact, the trend of the reports conclusions has been to reduce the expected impact of man made climate change over time.

There have also been several scientists who claim that the work reported on in the studies - under their name - had been changed to reflect conclusions that they did not support in their original work submitted to the IPCC.

The "hockey stick" chart in the initial IPCC report, showing devastating temperature rises is another eye-opening issue. This chart:

quote:

... purports to show that we are now experiencing the warmest climate in a millennium, and that the earth, after remaining cool for centuries during the medieval era, suddenly began to heat up about 100 years ago--just at the time that the burning of coal and oil led to an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.


Unfortunately, this chart was flat out wrong. Whether it was wrong due to bad science, or political gamesmanship is really immaterial: it was one of the biggest clubs used to gain attention and credibility for man made global warming - and it was completely incorrect.

You can Google, or read this: Global Warming Bombshell.

quote:

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!


Obviously, you are not familiar with this issue with the first, critical IPCC report. For me, with an already suspicious mind, the question becomes: If the bellwether report on Global Warming could be so wrong, on so critical an issue as basic scientific mathematical reporting ... why the hell should anyone give any credibility to any other part of the IPCC reports? (And don't look for any IPCC correction and/or explanation - the chart simply disappears from later reports, and vanishes down the memory hole.)

There are a multitude of other questions that I have about "man made Global Warming" including the entire "C02 as the cause of, or the result of" temperature change, and the question of whether C02 is really more important than the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere that is really important to climate fluctuations.

I'm still awaiting better and more detailed science on the issue, and hoping that the politicization of the entire issue has not so poisoned the pool that coming to a true understanding is even possible in the short term.

In the meantime, regardless of how well meaning a proponent of either side of the issue is, anyone who takes a position of "knowing absolutely, positively" the facts tends to be viewed with a skeptical eye.

Firm



Dnomyar -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/14/2009 3:52:59 AM)

It is -15 here. I need some of that global warming crap.



samboct -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/14/2009 7:35:16 AM)


AM  "The earth is a far more complex system with un known factors.  Absolulty in a sealed terarium, more Co2 = warmer.  The earth is far more complex than that.  You know it.  that some things can not be tested in a lab does not make all lab results false."

Actually if you'd observe the earth in space as a thermodynamic system- it's not closed and the temperature to a first order approximation is largely in homeostasis.  This means that the cooling processes balance out the heating processes.  There are only two cooling mechanisms.  One- photons ejected from the planet cool the planet.  Two- gases leaving the atmosphere cool the planet.  That's it.  No other processes, complex or otherwise.  For all your other comments- see previous posts.
 
Azss- Mythbusters actually use good scientific methodology- they formulate a hypothesis and design an experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis.  Their experiments are generally pretty good.  OK, they could be done in triplicate and with more rigorous error analysis, but that doesn't mean that the basic ideas aren't sound.  Clearly you don't need a Ph.D. to do good science.  And most chemists are deep down pyros at heart- who doesn't love to see stuff blown up?
 
Firm-The IPCC reports are fraught with the perils that accompany any science document which attempts to make policy suggestions based on findings.  Since everybody here likes history (me too) I will point out that when Einstein wrote to Roosevelt saying that Germany was attempting to develop an atomic bomb, he made an error and assumed that the German atomic weapons program was much further along than it was.  Nevertheless, his letter to Roosevelt is often used as an example of when scientists have a moral obligation to warn- to translate their findings into policy prescriptions.  This is rarely done in the science community.  Oh sure, in most papers published in scientific journals there are typically a few sentences attempting to tie work to a broader picture to help justify the grants received, but most papers represent very small bricks in a large wall.  What is the duty to warn here?  Maybe cutting scientists some slack in terms of how they go about doing the warning is called for- really, they're out of their comfort zone.  Most scientists are perfectly happy with the idea that we'll do the science- the politicians can figure out how to use it for good/bad.
 
As to some of the specific comments you raise- I went to the Wikipedia article on Solar Variance- the quote you cited "Apart from solar brightness, more subtle influences on climate from cosmic rays or the Sun's ultraviolet radiation cannot be excluded, say the authors. However, these influences cannot be confirmed, they add, because physical models for such effects are still too poorly developed."  is basically a weasel statement.  As noted in the article, the solar output of 1,366 watts/m2 shows less than a 0.1% variation over the decades we've had satellites in orbit, although aperiodic solar activity (flares, sunspots) can change this.  No scientist ever admits to understanding something fully- at least not such a complex system as the sun.  Does this mean that we should wait until we do understand things fully?  What kind of time frame is required?
 
" was especially interested in seeing that the latest report's conclusions have been toned down quite a bit since their original conclusions several years ago, as more information and research has become available. In fact, the trend of the reports conclusions has been to reduce the expected impact of man made climate change over time."

Not surprising.  Consider the advances in computer technology which enables more accurate modeling in the time frames that these reports are being released.  Moore's law has had quite an impact on science as well.
 
"In the meantime, regardless of how well meaning a proponent of either side of the issue is, anyone who takes a position of "knowing absolutely, positively" the facts tends to be viewed with a skeptical eye."
 
Well, let's look at the data that's been presented as a recap- 
 
Humans are putting into the atmosphere about 7 gigatonnes of CO2/yr.  (ref-http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/prtm320/commons/carbon3.html)
 
Questions-
1)  Where does it go?
2)  What does it do?
3)  How is it measured?
 
Measurements from Mauna Loa observatory (see ref. in prev. posts) have shown that there has been an increase from something like 315 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere to 385 ppm (off the top of my head- feel free to check the ref.) over the past 50 years.  This clearly is at least part of an answer to question 1.  Question 2 has been shown by lab experiments in the 1950s to function as a photon trap.
 
Is it possible that something here is wrong?- sure- the sampling done at Mauna Loa may be inaccurate.  What if it's not representative of CO2 throughout the atmosphere?
 
Second chunk of the hypothesis-has the earth's temperature increased?  Agreed- this is hard to measure and fraught with the possibilities of error.  Theres lots of noise in the data and it does require sophisticated modeling and analysis.  Could this be wrong?  Yup- but the more data we get seems to keep confirming this.
 
Third leg of the hypothesis- linking the two- could this be wrong?  Yup- but show me a compound that has the required mass and heat capacity/photon trapping to replace CO2 as the likely culprit.  You throw out H20 as a possibility.  Well, let's look at it-
 
Can H20 increase over time in the atmosphere?  Umm, not really.  To a first order approximation, H20 levels in the atmosphere have to be relatively constant since they're dictated by the phase diagram of H20.  In contrast to CO2, H2O readily forms a liquid precipitate at temperatures over 0 C, and forms crystalline solids (broad variation in density) below 0 C.  Thus, unless there's been a dramatic shift in the temperature of the atmosphere- the amount of H2O vapor over decades is relatively constant.  Note that in atmospheric temperatures, the only phase of CO2 observed is a gas- which is good, because if you see liquid or solid CO2- it's chilly. 
 
I haven't seen the "anyone who takes a position of "knowing absolutely, positively" the facts" people you speak about in the scientific community.  Most scientists I've spoken to are cognizant of the flaws in the modeling and the data collection process.  Nevertheless, there have been enough people gathering data and analyzing it to make this theory robust.  Given the complexity of the system and the data collection- you're never going to have something as elegant as Sidi Carnot's laws of thermodynamics.  From my perspective- it seems like that's what you're waiting for.
 
Let me throw down a challenge to all the folks that think global warming is a hoax- Feel free to design an experiment which proves your hypothesis.  AM- no time machines allowed.  In other words- we have to be able to go and gather the data on the planet today- not in the historical record- or run an experiment in a lab which shows that the CO2 photon trapping hypothesis is in error in the presence of x- and that x exists in large enough quantities to affect the volume of CO2 out there.  Before you run off though- let me point out that AEI offered money to anyone who could refute the global climate change hypothesis- and nobody has come up with anything better yet.
 
A last historical analogy- When the Titanic hit the iceberg- the skeptics said, this boat can't sink- don't panic- and don't bother getting in a lifeboat.  Of course, no ship that size had ever rammed an iceberg before at full tilt.  I'm a poor slob-science has been a lousy career for decades and I'd have been one of the folks in steerage- but I know damn well that anything made of metal can sink.  Furthermore- there's nothing to be lost by getting in a lifeboat.  If the ship stays afloat- I'll get back on.  If it sinks- well, I told you so.  However, most of the rich folks said don't panic- and don't fill the lifeboats until the ship took on a pretty good list.  By that point the first lifeboats some of which were not even close to half full (one lifeboat had 4 passengers IIRC in a boat designed for 60 and some carried over 80 that night) were long gone.
 
As I've pointed out numerous times before- the worst thing that happens if the theory that global climate change is wrong is that we move off of fossil fuels a bit earlier than we had to.  The assumption that we'll suffer economic calamity by doing so is on far shakier ground than the science presented to date.
 
Sam
 
 




Mercnbeth -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/14/2009 7:59:41 AM)

quote:

Let me throw down a challenge to all the folks that think global warming is a hoax- Feel free to design an experiment which proves your hypothesis.  AM- no time machines allowed.
 
How telling - design an experiment that can't be used against similar prior occurrences. Therein lies the problem with your 'science'. Meanwhile change the economy based upon a theory that can't be substantiated by observation. Is this truly the scientific community you are a part of and support?  
quote:

the worst thing that happens if the theory that global climate change is wrong is that we move off of fossil fuels a bit earlier than we had to
No, we are living through the 'one true way' "worst thing" right now; costing jobs, and inhibiting economic stimulation. The facts all around are on much firmer ground than any religious theory of human self importance and ego influencing the world.



Sanity -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/14/2009 8:08:23 AM)

 
The fossil fuels are going to be used, regardess... by someone. If we cut back in order to "save the planet" then that's just more fuel for everyone else to use.

We're just shooting ourselves in the foot with this folly!


quote:

the worst thing that happens if the theory that global climate change is wrong is that we move off of fossil fuels a bit earlier than we had to



samboct -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/14/2009 9:47:16 AM)

You guys are a crackup!  I needed a good laugh...Sanity- it's good to see that the temperature in Hell has climbed back up to its normal equilibrium value.

To anybody else still reading this thread-

Consider-back in the 1930s (OK, history and economics work well, we've got decent data) to fly from California to Hawaii was IIRC- something like $2,000 or a years wages.  It's a bit less expensive today- and a bit faster (although not necessarily more comfortable.)  Where on earth does the assumption that the energy technology that will be used to replace fossil fuels will be more expensive come from?  Based on an economic system which is designed to encourage energy consumption, yet puts special surcharges for renewables?  Note that the tax incentives, leases, and taxpayer support (such as the nuclear industries waste disposal and insurance) add up to a pretty penny which isn't reflected in your current electric bill but shows up as taxes.  Please- as noted in previous posts- the likelihood is that renewable energy will be less costly than fossil fuels- a Berkeley study on the tax rebate for solar installations in CA already showed that.

Sam



winterlight -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/14/2009 10:32:09 AM)

I live in California. What exactly is Earthquake Weather?



ArticMaestro -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/14/2009 10:33:34 AM)

Homeostatis---a relatively stable state of equilibrium or a tendency toward such a state between the different but interdependent elements or groups of elements of an organism, population, or group .

Why are you missuing this word.  I guess some folks swoon at big words, I just google em.  When was the earths Temperature a constant?  When was the Climate stable for any long period of time. 

I guess I understand why you want to ignore the geological and written record of Climate change  being a constant process, always changing.  And that we are in a long term (over 10,000 year) warming trend.  And that the modern era began at the end of a cooling phase, when it was clearly much warmer in the past.  You can't dispute any of that. 

That is a simple experiment...I could easily build a larger terarium, set it up so it is slowly warming, and then block out some of the light for a while, get it to cool, and then remove the block and watch it quickly warm up.  That would be a very simple experemint to design.  Or even simpler, I could lay in the sunshine on a  nice summer day, and observe what happens when a cloud passes in front of the direct sunlight. 

Of course the amount of water vapor can change in the atmosphere.  The historical and geological record is quite clear on that.  a small change in temperature makes a huge difference.

So basically you are still pretending that a sealed terrarium is an valid model for the earth, while admiting it is not one.

Can you make a model of global warming which doesn't include historical data?  Meet your own standard?

Interesting also that you deny the validity of scientific dating.   I imagine if you get into a creationism debate, that will get thrown back in your face, not by me.



ArizonaSunSwitch -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/14/2009 12:38:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: awmslave

quote:

How's about 78* in NorCal when is should be raining so hard we're practically swimming?

Global warming means average Earth atmosphere temperature near the surface. Melting permafrost or glaciers are valid pro arguments because they are the result of larger scale temperature increases, local weather is not. Personally, I think, if we can not trust official peer previewed science (some here suggest they lie for money), we are in deep trouble and the Empire is officially dead.



Sorry you missed the recent news. Ice cover at the poles is the same as it was in the 1970's. This study was done with actual measurements instead of some computer model. It wasn't widely reported because it's methodology and conclusion are easy to understand and it doesn't fit the leftist template of "The earth is dying so you have give us all your money".



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/14/2009 12:51:22 PM)

quote:

No, we are living through the 'one true way' "worst thing" right now; costing jobs, and inhibiting economic stimulation.


I have a question regarding this particular sentence. I understand the "costing jobs" part... for the folks who are involved in continuous-use technology (ie., energy dependent on limited resource or high-particle-output sources... gas, oil, coal, etc.) or who depend on a mythological ever-expanding economy for their job, yeah, they're probably losing their jobs right about... (checks watch)... now. However, there is a whole wide universe of new technologies, brilliant ideas, and new products... many of which we don't have sufficient supply of for those folks who want them... electric or solar-powered vehicles, human-augmented-power vehicles, 'minimal footprint' plants to produce things in the US that are currently being produced overseas... It seems to me that if folks are ready to walk a little more gently on the planet, regardless of whether it's true or a bunch of crap, that doesn't have to mean the end of our economy... if we were -good- human beings, using half the brains we posess, we'd be clambering for the chance to be top dog again in innovating newer, brighter, less expensive, and more productive ways to capitalize on this amazing opportunity dropped at our feet.... Instead, we're trying to either turn back the hands of the clock to the days of conspicuous consumption and 'found money'... or at least hold them still so we don't have to work at new ideas that might hurt our brains.

Frankly, I don't give a hoot whether or not the ice caps are melting or whether the glaciers are going to march right down I-45 through the center of Houston... we need to stop whining about who's right and who's wrong and expend some energy into finding newer, better, brighter ways to take advantage of opportunities opening up... you know... I'm sure y'all have heard it before... Whenever one door closes, another opens. If anything, this new direction should be STIMULATING OUR ECONOMY to the point of our exhaustion... so why are we all shlumping around and whining?



ArizonaSunSwitch -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/14/2009 1:03:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

"Actually I am going to disagree.  While the things you refer to are indeed more complicated than just saying, "More CO2= warmer...Duh", they are far simpler to do science on.  In all of those you can isolate all the factors, change them and test them.... ie. do science.  You can't run experiments on the global climate, and we have no idea all of the inputs and factors that matter."

If you had to do science on the exact system that you observe in nature- we wouldn't need laboratories.  Either we can run a controlled experiment in a microcosm of an environment (laboratory) and have it apply to the real world or we can't- all the last couple centuries of lab science is a fraud.  It's a pretty easy experimental setup to increase CO2 in an atmospheric sample in the lab and monitor the temperature as it absorbs photons.  None of the links I've seen address why this model fails in the real world.  It's certainly made a bit more complex by the addition of particulates from things like volcanic explosions, but nevertheless, the model is reasonably straightforward- it could be an undergraduate lab.



Water holds more CO2 in suspension when it's colder than when it's warmer. The vast majority of the planet is covered with water. When ocean temperatures rise the ocean's release CO2 when they cool they absorb it. The amount of CO2 the oceans release or absorb dwarfs all other CO2 production (of which man is only a minor actor to begin with). Your model treats an effect as a cause and is therefore scientifically useless. If the greenhouse effect was real it's interaction with ocean released CO2 would have created a positive feedback loop that would of boiled the oceans long before Al Gore could have created the Internet we're currently misusing.

CO2 levels *trail* atmospheric temperature changes in lock step with ocean temperature changes (which themselves are the planetary temperature average of the past several hundred years since water has a far higher specific heat capacity than either land or air).





ArizonaSunSwitch -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/14/2009 1:26:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

You guys are a crackup!  I needed a good laugh...Sanity- it's good to see that the temperature in Hell has climbed back up to its normal equilibrium value.

To anybody else still reading this thread-

Consider-back in the 1930s (OK, history and economics work well, we've got decent data) to fly from California to Hawaii was IIRC- something like $2,000 or a years wages.  It's a bit less expensive today- and a bit faster (although not necessarily more comfortable.)  Where on earth does the assumption that the energy technology that will be used to replace fossil fuels will be more expensive come from?  Based on an economic system which is designed to encourage energy consumption, yet puts special surcharges for renewables?  Note that the tax incentives, leases, and taxpayer support (such as the nuclear industries waste disposal and insurance) add up to a pretty penny which isn't reflected in your current electric bill but shows up as taxes.  Please- as noted in previous posts- the likelihood is that renewable energy will be less costly than fossil fuels- a Berkeley study on the tax rebate for solar installations in CA already showed that.

Sam


Oh good god, *tax rebates* don't make solar *cheaper* It means the government put a gun to your neighbour's head and *forced* them to pay a significant portion of *your* solar panel installation. Will you still consider it cheaper when your neighbour does the same to you ?

Alternative fuels are several times more expensive than fossil fuels. "Future Technology" doesn't exist by definition. Anyone that comes up with energy technology that is cheaper than fossil fuels will be rich beyond Bill Gates and Warren Buffets combined imagination. Because of that fact, people have been trying to come up with a cheaper alternatives since the invention of modern fossil fuel refining processes.

Your assumption that some new technology is going to magically appear in some useful time period merely because environmentalists decree that it shall is naive. There's a better chance of an alien spaceship landing on the white house lawn in broad daylight and yoda crawling out and handing obama a few hundred dvd's on how to harness vacuum energy.



redwoodgirl -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/14/2009 3:20:50 PM)

quote:


Your assumption that some new technology is going to magically appear in some useful time period merely because environmentalists decree that it shall is naive. There's a better chance of an alien spaceship landing on the white house lawn in broad daylight and yoda crawling out and handing obama a few hundred dvd's on how to harness vacuum energy.



That comicstrip would be wayyy funnier than the Obama/Spiderman strip anyday!!!



Mercnbeth -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/14/2009 3:32:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

quote:

No, we are living through the 'one true way' "worst thing" right now; costing jobs, and inhibiting economic stimulation.
However, there is a whole wide universe of new technologies, brilliant ideas, and new products... many of which we don't have sufficient supply of for those folks who want them... electric or solar-powered vehicles, human-augmented-power vehicles, 'minimal footprint' plants to produce things in the US that are currently being produced overseas... It seems to me that if folks are ready to walk a little more gently on the planet, regardless of whether it's true or a bunch of crap, that doesn't have to mean the end of our economy...

Calla,
It doesn't "have to" but one town seems to be moving forward in that direction. All for the sake of 'global warming'. No new development, not stores, no restaurants; and the associated people to build them and work in them.

It's already happening; "Adapt to Climate Change", Madison Wisconsin.
quote:

10. Zoning should adapt to meet the demands of climate change; use zoning to address or mitigate effects, or adapt to climate change; remove any barriers to mitigating the effects, adapting to climate change (trees, green space, mobility, renewable energy, land use).

 

11. Write the code to allow the city to function when automobile travel will be severely limited and oil-related products, including food and heating fuel, become prohibitively expensive because of the scarcity and high-cost of fuel.

Other proposals throughout the document would push for use of alternative energies (solar, geothermal and wind), conservation, electric cars and urban agriculture. Other more Draconian regulations throughout the document would:

 


Limit waterfront development in the name of water sustainability,
Require two trees to be planted if one is removed from your property
Limit the “number/density of fast food outlets and drive-through windows” in the name of public health
Discourage individual parking options to promote public transportation usage
Source: http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090114094613.aspx 



Termyn8or -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/14/2009 6:29:49 PM)

Hell of a place to pick Merc, not that YOU picked it, but a hell of a place.

One of the highest percapita tax bases in the union percentage wise, a large contingent of temporary resident AKA college students, and a quite competent university in comparison to most in this country. From what I heard it is harder to get into UMW than it is to get into Harvard.

But that notwithstanding I have heard other things. I wonder if the frat houses would be affected, because they are certainly emitting greenhouse gases :-).

All kidding aside, try that in Cleveland and you won't get very far, the demographics are different in Madison, to say the least. It may well be the perfect place to test new technologies when they come out, or get develeoped and become more feasible. It's not like trying to find free heat in Florida or free cooling in Alaska. The actually have seasons.

It might be interesting to see what they come up with.

T



samboct -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/15/2009 7:27:04 AM)

"Water holds more CO2 in suspension when it's colder than when it's warmer. The vast majority of the planet is covered with water. When ocean temperatures rise the ocean's release CO2 when they cool they absorb it. The amount of CO2 the oceans release or absorb dwarfs all other CO2 production (of which man is only a minor actor to begin with). Your model treats an effect as a cause and is therefore scientifically useless. If the greenhouse effect was real it's interaction with ocean released CO2 would have created a positive feedback loop that would of boiled the oceans long before Al Gore could have created the Internet we're currently misusing."

It's called solubility- and if the ocean's turnover, you're right, it's a problem because we don't breathe CO2 real well.  However, its likely that ocean turnover has happened before and while animal life may be in trouble, the ocean's are nowhere near boiling.

If the anthropogenic CO2 contribution is nonexistant or insignificant- then please explain the Mauna Loa data.   Also- do you want to come up with some numbers as to show how the roughly 7 gigatonnes of CO2 humans produce/yr doesn't affect the atmosphere?

CO2 levels *trail* atmospheric temperature changes in lock step with ocean temperature changes (which themselves are the planetary temperature average of the past several hundred years since water has a far higher specific heat capacity than either land or air).

Large bodies of water do have a higher heat capacity than land, but it's not far greater.  Both land and ocean have much higher heat capacity than atmosphere per cu. meter.


"Your assumption that some new technology is going to magically appear in some useful time period merely because environmentalists decree that it shall is naive. There's a better chance of an alien spaceship landing on the white house lawn in broad daylight and yoda crawling out and handing obama a few hundred dvd's on how to harness vacuum energy."

Oh- so the calls to build an atom bomb didn't culminate in a couple of cities getting zorched, military requirements to build circuits to withstand hundreds of gravities didn't lead to the chip, and we didn't put a man on the moon in less than a decade?  I'd point out that some of our greatest technological advances have been in response to political decree- because the money is finally committed to achieving a goal.  None of the three major sources of renewable energy- wind, solar, and geothermal have any fundamental flaws- and wind is currently probably one of the cheapest forms of generating electricity out there when the total costs of fossil fuels are added in.  The cost of oil for example, should reflect our military budget since a large fraction of our military expenditure is geared toward making sure our supply of foreign oil is secure.  If we don't need Mideast oil- we can let that region of the world go to hell it's own way- and save how many billions?  Seems to me that your economics is as badly flawed as your science.

General observation-

Is it only me or does this topic draw people that have little interest or understanding of science in other areas to have deeply held beliefs about how science works and what it can do?  There's a simple litmus test- absent the financial aspects of global climate change- how many people would give a damn?  Because what strikes me is that there are a lot of folks going through some impressive contortions concerning science they don't understand that they want to have a particular result so that they don't have to welcome some change in their lifestyle.  I must admit, from my perspective, I have no love of any oil company (don't know many coal companies) and I'll be delighted when they hit the scrap heap of history.  I mean really, do you people enjoy spending thousands of dollars with Exxon, Shell, BP, or whichever every year?  And why wouldn't you prefer owning your own electrical generating capacity to having to spend additional thousands with your utility?  Because with cheap enough solar on a roof or as part of a solar/wind collective and electric vehicles- we're independent of both of these oligopolies.  It why I keep saying that although the transition may be expensive, in the long run, we'll save money.
 
Sam




Mercnbeth -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/15/2009 9:37:48 AM)

quote:

Is it only me or does this topic draw people that have little interest or understanding of science in other areas to have deeply held beliefs about how science works and what it can do? 
Is it just me, or do people who follow the religion of 'global warming' ignore any facts contrary to their religious faith? For example..."There's a simple litmus test- absent the financial aspects of global climate change" Isn't that another way of saying, "okay, I can't argue with the financial aspects so lets take it out of the equation"?

Is it just me, or when they can't hold their position to the same standards they require of the opposition they discount, ignore, and attempt to denigrate the source of the information as opposed to challenging it on its merit?

Meanwhile, here's what to expect...
quote:

WASHINGTON – The chairman of a key House committee says he wants to pass a climate change bill before Memorial Day.
California Rep. Henry Waxman said Thursday the environment and U.S. economy depend on congressional action to confront the threat of climate change. Waxman, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, spoke as he opened Congress' first hearing on climate legislation.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090115/ap_on_go_pr_wh/climate_hearing_2 


An interesting counter attack tactic against some of those living in the glass houses of Hollywood as well as the 'carbon offset' political phoniness of Al Gore:
Hollywood's Sundance Kid is hurting poor people.
quote:

So say some East Coast ministers and conservative activists, who took to the streets in front of a downtown Salt Lake City theater on the eve of Robert Redford's Sundance Film Festival to accuse the actor of holding down low-income Americans with his opposition to oil and gas drilling near national parks in Utah.
The protesters, led by the Congress of Racial Equality's national spokesman Niger Innis, suggested Redford should "relinquish his wealth" and live like a poor person. They complained that the filmmaker's anti-drilling stance could lead to higher energy prices for inner-city residents, forcing them to accept a lower standard of living.
Source: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11455096 



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875