My thoughts on global warming

[Okla-homey]

In the spirit of spawning a nice discussion, let me try to explain why I think this whole global warming thing is such a tough nut to crack.

To begin, I think global warming is a fact. I also think humans are very probably at least partially responsible for the phenomenon. I think we should all try to do what we can to reduce our emissions. My fear however, is that despite our best efforts, we may be unable to do anything to avert, reverse or even stabilize warming. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop warming, but I think we also need to spend real time and money in efforts to adapt to the phenomenon.

Fortunately, the two paths are not mutually exclusive. I thinks it's irresponsible not to pursue both goals with equal vigor since the scientists seem to be split on whether we can stop it even if worldwide greenhouse gas emissions completely ceased tomorrow. Therefore, we need to start getting the most vulnerable people away from coastal regions now.

After reading some materials assigned on the issue in an international law class, it seems to me the biggest and most significant collective emitter of greenhouse gasses is simply our automobiles. IMHO, the open question is simple. Is there any evidence to suggest we in the US can do anything to substantially and materially reduce our greenhouse gas emissions short of redesigning our cities to make them more compact and liveable thus reducing our need to drive soooo many flipping cars?

It seems to me it may not matter much if we try to go green in other areas of our lives while still driving too often and too far. I'm suggesting that our long term goal of emissions reduction is probably unattainable unless we are willing to do something about sprawl and give people mass transportation alternatives to the overwhelmingly pervasive use of single-occupant vehicles in the country that is the world's worst greenhouse gas spewer.

To sum up, we should all do what we can in the meantime, but, if we in the US are going to take a serious swing at reducing our emissions, I think we must give people an attractive alternative to spewing these gasses from our automobile tailpipes. Low population density suburban sprawl and Americans' insistence on driving our cars everywhere we go may well turn out to be the impenetrable barrier to substantial emissions reductions in the US.

Since the US appears to be responsible for about a third of the world's greenhouse gas emissions and that seems to be the result of the longstanding US trend favoring a house in the suburbs, a long daily commute by car and a car for everyone in the family of driving age, we better get serious about adapting to global warming at the same time we try to stop it

[Vaevictis]

Really, the ways we can address the issue to slow down emissions have been flogged to death -- lower emission cars, electric cars, green energy, better city design, etc. We know how to do it, the issue is just deciding to do it. It's expensive, and there are a lot of entrenched interests that make a lot of money by doing things the old way.

Really, as far as adapting to the issue, that's important too, and IMHO, the single most important issue on this front is India. India is going to be a destabilizing force in the global warming scenario -- it's got hundreds of millions of people in the regions that are likely to be effected by rising sea levels. Those people are going to have to migrate north and west, and given that it's Pakistan to the north and west, things might get mighty violent between two regional nuclear powers. And worse, the violence *might* destabilize the Pakistani government, and if that happens, you know who is fairly likely to get their grubby little hands on nukes.

[Okla-homey]

Really, as far as adapting to the issue, that's important too, and IMHO, the single most important issue on this front is India. India is going to be a destabilizing force in the global warming scenario -- it's got hundreds of millions of people in the regions that are likely to be effected by rising sea levels. Those people are going to have to migrate north and west, and given that it's Pakistan to the north and west, things might get mighty violent between two regional nuclear powers. And worse, the violence *might* destabilize the Pakistani government, and if that happens, you know who is fairly likely to get their grubby little hands on nukes.

Very insightful observation. I agree, it's not going to be as simple as putting people on notice they must move a few miles inland or to higher ground. The whole system of real property will be challenged in an unprecedented way.

[OklahomaTuba]

Nothing bad can come from being cleaner and more sustainable.

The bad thing is pretending things such as carbon offsets can do anything. Or that treaties like Kyoto are realistic.

At this point, global warming has way more to with politics than with science.

[Vaevictis]

The bad thing is pretending things such as carbon offsets can do anything. Or that treaties like Kyoto are realistic.

Carbon offsets actually can do something. It's just how you go about doing them. The very best companies use carbon offsets to subsidize the installation of green energy power supplies, such as wind farms, solar farms, etc.

That really does make a difference. What if they also subsidized moving poorer people from old 1970's cars that emit gasses like mad to more modern PZEV cars? That would also make a difference.

The issue with carbon offsets is that there is a limit to how much of a difference they can make. There's only so many wind turbines, solar panels, etc, you can install before you get diminishing returns.

[Okla-homey]

I still think its our cars. I submit that a 30 mile roundtrip commute each day in a normally aspirated combustion engined car or truck emits more greenhouse gasses than can be offset by the "greenest" feasible lifestyle that commuter might otherwise live. IOW, a green lifestyle can't offset all that driving, Sure, the gross emissions drop, but its only a drop in the bucket.

I don't have the data at hand to prove my theory, but I bet I could get it.

[SicEmBaylor]

I went to a lecture a few weeks ago presented by the head of Baylor's Meteorology Department who was also the Chief Meteorologist for 12 years at a local affiliate and was apparently one of the guys that analyzed all the data to come from the '99 tornado.

Anyway, the topic was Global Warming and I took some pretty good notes but I don't have them with me right now. The jest of his lecture is that there simply isn't enough data to properly evaluate the role that humans have on the environment. For one thing he pointed out, the mathematical models that they use are changing and in some cases they aren't even able to come up with proper mathematical models because we just don't know enough about weather and climate patterns to create one in the first place and that without those models we can't really evaluate with any degree of certainty the effect that something like a factory in Michigan has on the environment.

He also pointed out that most climatologists/meteorologists haven't signed off on the global warming theory and that when you go to an actual climatology conference that nobody there can say with any certainty what degree human activity has with climate change.

Finally, he pointed out that the atmosphere is only something like .003% CO2 and that a much bigger portion of the atmosphere is made up of water vapor which does contribute, in a very large way, to the greenhouse effect by trapping heat and that the absurdity of hydrogen power is that the byproduct is water vapor which contributes more to the greenhouse effect than C02 does. He wrapped up by saying that several studies have been done on precisely what effect we'd have on the temperature if everyone, today, started complying with the Kyoto treaty that would it would only cause a 1 degree temperature change over a long period of time (I forgot the exact time frame but I'm pretty sure it was over 25 years).

I may be fuzzy on some of the details there but I believe that's an accurate representation of the presentation.

[Okla-homey]

I went to a lecture a few weeks ago presented by the head of Baylor's Meteorology Department who was also the Chief Meteorologist for 12 years at a local affiliate and was apparently one of the guys that analyzed all the data to come from the '99 tornado.

Anyway, the topic was Global Warming and I took some pretty good notes but I don't have them with me right now. The jest of his lecture is that there simply isn't enough data to properly evaluate the role that humans have on the environment. For one thing he pointed out, the mathematical models that they use are changing and in some cases they aren't even able to come up with proper mathematical models because we just don't know enough about weather and climate patterns to create one in the first place and that without those models we can't really evaluate with any degree of certainty the effect that something like a factory in Michigan has on the environment.

He also pointed out that most climatologists/meteorologists haven't signed off on the global warming theory and that when you go to an actual climatology conference that nobody there can say with any certainty what degree human activity has with climate change.

Finally, he pointed out that the atmosphere is only something like .003% CO2 and that a much bigger portion of the atmosphere is made up of water vapor which does contribute, in a very large way, to the greenhouse effect by trapping heat and that the absurdity of hydrogen power is that the byproduct is water vapor which contributes more to the greenhouse effect than C02 does. He wrapped up by saying that several studies have been done on precisely what effect we'd have on the temperature if everyone, today, started complying with the Kyoto treaty that would it would only cause a 1 degree temperature change over a long period of time (I forgot the exact time frame but I'm pretty sure it was over 25 years).

I may be fuzzy on some of the details there but I believe that's an accurate representation of the presentation.

That is generally why I favor a public policy that requires for every dollar we spend to reduce emissions, we spend a dollar on adaptation to life in a warmer world.

[Vaevictis]

I still think its our cars. I submit that a 30 mile roundtrip commute each day in a normally aspirated combustion engined car or truck emits more greenhouse gasses than can be offset by the "greenest" feasible lifestyle that commuter might otherwise live. IOW, a green lifestyle can't offset all that driving, Sure, the gross emissions drop, but its only a drop in the bucket.

Let's say, in theory, you've managed to move the entire electrical grid to green, zero emission energy.

Then let's say you move everyone into an electrical car (or a car that uses fuel cells using hydrogen from electrolysis). Emissions problem wrt commutes is basically solved then, yes?

Really, you wouldn't necessarily even have to move the entire grid to green zero emission energy -- power company steam turbines are faaaar more efficient than ICEs in terms of energy extracted from a fuel.

[SicEmBaylor]

That is generally why I favor a public policy that requires for every dollar we spend to reduce emissions, we spend a dollar on adaptation to life in a warmer world.
I'd rather not spend a dollar on either one to be perfectly honest with you.

At any rate, I was looking through his power point presentation (and I suppose I could send it to anyone who wanted it but it's just the slides and not his lecture though it's still pretty interesting), and one of his last points is pretty interesting. The polar ice caps on Mars have also been steadily shrinking lately at a comparable rate as they are on Earth. So unless someone can find a way to blame an SUV on the polar ice caps of Mars melting...

[Howzit]

And here's my thoughts. I don't have a clue as to the validity of humans' contribution to the current warming trend. Admittedly, I tend to think it is significant.

I also don't have a clue at this point as to what humans can due to curb the current warming trend. My fear is that it is insignificant.

My biggest problem is with those whose beliefs and position on the situation is based on political expediency, or lack thereof. Based on the potential impact on our world, and our children's world, it doesn't make sense to me to ignore it because one does not like the answer. Can we do everything the climate extremists want? No. But we can do a lot more.

And yes, China and India are probably a greater long-term concern than us, but that doesn't mean we should do nothing.

SicEm, again I am no expert, but isn't a 1% impact on global temperature significant?

[Okla-homey]

Let's say, in theory, you've managed to move the entire electrical grid to green, zero emission energy.

Then let's say you move everyone into an electrical car (or a car that uses fuel cells using hydrogen from electrolysis). Emissions problem wrt commutes is basically solved then, yes?

Really, you wouldn't necessarily even have to move the entire grid to green zero emission energy -- power company steam turbines are faaaar more efficient than ICEs in terms of energy extracted from a fuel.

Can we move everyone into an electric car without law that requires automakers to make the switch? If the answer to that question is no, then I submit it won't happen otherwise. If you think about, even auto safety advances among US automakers have largely been the result of federal rules.

What do you think of nuke powerplants? Apparently the French are leading the charge in the EU to get everyone in Europe wired to nuke-based grid. They think the answer to the spent fuel problem lies in recyling of the spent material and they are investing heavily in that technology.

[Jerk]

-Replace all the coal plants with nuclear energy.

-build the the giant windmill farm, next to Ted Kennedy's home at Martha's Vinyard.

-invest more in highways and roads at the major communiting routes so people will be stuck in traffic less, thus reducing idle time.

-any international treaty should apply to all nations equally, whilst not giving favor to China and the smaller tin-pot dictatorships.

-have the u.n. write a nasty letter to the Sun and warn it that 'any further necessary temperature increases on Earth, Mars, or Uranus, will be followed by a very strong condemnation and another very nasty letter.

-yeild to large semi-trucks. It takes ALOT of energy to get 40 tons moving again after it had to stop. It shouldn't have to delay it's 500 mile run for your 5 minute trip to 7-11, anyway.

[SicEmBaylor]

Let me say that I do actually support a "Manhattan project" sized program to develop a cheap, renewable, and might as well make it clean energy source. I support this not on the very iffy global warming theory but on the very real national security problem.

[Okla-homey]

Let me say that I do actually support a "Manhattan project" sized program to develop a cheap, renewable, and might as well make it clean energy source. I support this not on the very iffy global warming theory but on the very real national security problem.

The cool part about that is it would have very broad appeal becuase it serves both purposes -- security and green.

I still think that we need to rethink all the coastal living in this country. Not that we necessarily need to do anything this drastic, but just think of the impact of having "residence-free" zones below a certain MSL elevation threshold within five miles of the sea. Not outright no-mans land, but no homes.

[tommieharris91]

If we follow the new SCOTUS ruling, we need to stop breathing.

[SicEmBaylor]

If we follow the new SCOTUS ruling, we need to stop breathing.
That's pretty much where I assumed too much Federal power would lead.

[KC//CRIMSON]

In the spirit of spawning a nice discussion, let me try to explain why I think this whole global warming thing is such a tough nut to crack.

To begin, I think global warming is a fact. I also think humans are very probably at least partially responsible for the phenomenon. I think we should all try to do what we can to reduce our emissions. My fear however, is that despite our best efforts, we may be unable to do anything to avert, reverse or even stabilize warming. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop warming, but I think we also need to spend real time and money in efforts to adapt to the phenomenon.

Fortunately, the two paths are not mutually exclusive. I thinks it's irresponsible not to pursue both goals with equal vigor since the scientists seem to be split on whether we can stop it even if worldwide greenhouse gas emissions completely ceased tomorrow. Therefore, we need to start getting the most vulnerable people away from coastal regions now.

After reading some materials assigned on the issue in an international law class, it seems to me the biggest and most significant collective emitter of greenhouse gasses is simply our automobiles. IMHO, the open question is simple. Is there any evidence to suggest we in the US can do anything to substantially and materially reduce our greenhouse gas emissions short of redesigning our cities to make them more compact and liveable thus reducing our need to drive soooo many flipping cars?

It seems to me it may not matter much if we try to go green in other areas of our lives while still driving too often and too far. I'm suggesting that our long term goal of emissions reduction is probably unattainable unless we are willing to do something about sprawl and give people mass transportation alternatives to the overwhelmingly pervasive use of single-occupant vehicles in the country that is the world's worst greenhouse gas spewer.

To sum up, we should all do what we can in the meantime, but, if we in the US are going to take a serious swing at reducing our emissions, I think we must give people an attractive alternative to spewing these gasses from our automobile tailpipes. Low population density suburban sprawl and Americans' insistence on driving our cars everywhere we go may well turn out to be the impenetrable barrier to substantial emissions reductions in the US.

Since the US appears to be responsible for about a third of the world's greenhouse gas emissions and that seems to be the result of the longstanding US trend favoring a house in the suburbs, a long daily commute by car and a car for everyone in the family of driving age, we better get serious about adapting to global warming at the same time we try to stop it


Wait a minute homeboy. I thought you believed in "natural cycles" not myths?

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90664&highlight=advancement

[Okla-homey]

Wait a minute homeboy. I thought you believed in "natural cycles" not myths?

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90664&highlight=advancement

If you read my post from this morning carefully, you'll see that I'm not convinced it's all mans fault, that's also why I think its critical that we don't give short shrift to adapting to life in a warmer world.

The important thing is that most everyone agrees the world is getting warmer. I've come around to believe its fine and right that we try to reduce emissions in case it's our fault and it is reversible. I'm not convinced we can, but we oughtta try

Anyway, I generally ascribe to the notion that it's more important to be right than to be consistent. See, I try to be the kind of person who can study an issue with an open mind and actually have that study affect my opinions.:D

[85Sooner]

Call me when they start farming in Greenland again.

[SicEmBaylor]

Frankly, I detest cold weather. We could stand to heat this place up a bit.

[Jerk]

Call me when they start farming in Greenland again.

Most people will brush over this statement and not realize the utter relevance of it.

[Rogue]

Homey's gone green. Granted it's a "qualified" green, but green nonetheless. And the solution is some big gubmint policies, laws, and such along with some common sense. This is surely a sign of the impending apocalypse! :eek:

[SicEmBaylor]

Homey's gone green. Granted it's a "qualified" green, but green nonetheless. And the solution is some big gubmint policies, laws, and such along with some common sense. This is surely a sign of the impending apocalypse! :eek:
I'm really not entirely sure why you are surprised.

[Okla-homey]

Homey's gone green. Granted it's a "qualified" green, but green nonetheless. And the solution is some big gubmint policies, laws, and such along with some common sense. This is surely a sign of the impending apocalypse! :eek:

actually, just a light shade of chartreuse.

[85Sooner]

Most people will brush over this statement and not realize the utter relevance of it.


And they are the ones who need to do a bit more common sense researching.

[mdklatt]

Baylor's Meteorology Department

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[sitzpinkler]

And they are the ones who need to do a bit more common sense researching.

I think it's probably you and Jerk that need to do that.

[SicEmBaylor]

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
earth science, astronomy, climatology...I don't know what the hell they call it. I avoid anything outside of Draper, Old Main, and Burleson like the plague.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Really, the ways we can address the issue to slow down emissions have been flogged to death -- lower emission cars, electric cars, green energy, better city design, etc. We know how to do it, the issue is just deciding to do it. It's expensive, and there are a lot of entrenched interests that make a lot of money by doing things the old way.

Really, as far as adapting to the issue, that's important too, and IMHO, the single most important issue on this front is India. India is going to be a destabilizing force in the global warming scenario -- it's got hundreds of millions of people in the regions that are likely to be effected by rising sea levels. Those people are going to have to migrate north and west, and given that it's Pakistan to the north and west, things might get mighty violent between two regional nuclear powers. And worse, the violence *might* destabilize the Pakistani government, and if that happens, you know who is fairly likely to get their grubby little hands on nukes.My sentiments exactly...haha!

[soonerbrat]

I'll just say that global climate changes have been occurring long before humans came into the picture and will continue to occur long after humans leave the picture.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'll just say that global climate changes have been occurring long before humans came into the picture and will continue to occur long after humans leave the picture.Didja see one of the cable channel's presentation of what would happen if the volcanoes in Yellowstone Park went postal? 6 years of no growing season, among a multiplicity of disasters!

[soonerbrat]

Didja see one of the cable channel's presentation of what would happen if the volcanoes in Yellowstone Park went postal? 6 years of no growing season, among a multiplicity of disasters!

yep....and that's not caused by driving too many cars. or raising too many cattle.

[OUstud]

To quote Dennis Miller, excuse me for not trusting temperature readings from the year 1905 as a basis for our planet heating up in the past century or so.

[Mixer!]

http://blogs.indystar.com/varvelblog/02282007.jpg

[Fraggle145]

I'll just say that global climate changes have been occurring long before humans came into the picture and will continue to occur long after humans leave the picture.

To me this is the point. If we are influencing climate change (and I believe we are) then we may be expediting the time frame for us leaving the picture.

[Fraggle145]

I went to a lecture a few weeks ago presented by the head of Baylor's Meteorology Department who was also the Chief Meteorologist for 12 years at a local affiliate and was apparently one of the guys that analyzed all the data to come from the '99 tornado.

Anyway, the topic was Global Warming and I took some pretty good notes but I don't have them with me right now. The jest of his lecture is that there simply isn't enough data to properly evaluate the role that humans have on the environment. For one thing he pointed out, the mathematical models that they use are changing and in some cases they aren't even able to come up with proper mathematical models because we just don't know enough about weather and climate patterns to create one in the first place and that without those models we can't really evaluate with any degree of certainty the effect that something like a factory in Michigan has on the environment.

He also pointed out that most climatologists/meteorologists haven't signed off on the global warming theory and that when you go to an actual climatology conference that nobody there can say with any certainty what degree human activity has with climate change.

Finally, he pointed out that the atmosphere is only something like .003% CO2 and that a much bigger portion of the atmosphere is made up of water vapor which does contribute, in a very large way, to the greenhouse effect by trapping heat and that the absurdity of hydrogen power is that the byproduct is water vapor which contributes more to the greenhouse effect than C02 does. He wrapped up by saying that several studies have been done on precisely what effect we'd have on the temperature if everyone, today, started complying with the Kyoto treaty that would it would only cause a 1 degree temperature change over a long period of time (I forgot the exact time frame but I'm pretty sure it was over 25 years).

I may be fuzzy on some of the details there but I believe that's an accurate representation of the presentation.

What this misses is the time component of global climate change and our response to it if we are causing the changes. I have posted in similiar threads why many of these ideas spouted by your professor have been contested or disproven. I will see if I can find it and repost it.

Edit: here it is: http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1837497&postcount=144

[Vaevictis]

Can we move everyone into an electric car without law that requires automakers to make the switch? If the answer to that question is no, then I submit it won't happen otherwise. If you think about, even auto safety advances among US automakers have largely been the result of federal rules.

Heh, I suspect we're going to move into electric cars whether we want to or not -- either the automakers decide that's what we're going to do, the feds decide that's what we're going to do, or the price of gas decides that that's what we're going to do. It's just a matter of which one, when, and how much it hurts when it happens.


What do you think of nuke powerplants? Apparently the French are leading the charge in the EU to get everyone in Europe wired to nuke-based grid. They think the answer to the spent fuel problem lies in recyling of the spent material and they are investing heavily in that technology.

I have a strong distrust with regards to nuclear power plants because I have a strong distrust of the bean counters who run them and the bureaucrats who would monitor them. Sooner or later, both will fail simultaneously. Something like SOX where someone has to certify and that person goes to jail if something bad happens would make me feel a lot better.

The spent fuel issue I am less concerned about. If we get desperate enough, we'll just fling it into space and out of the solar system. But recycling would be better ;)

[soonerbrat]

To me this is the point. If we are influencing climate change (and I believe we are) then we may be expediting the time frame for us leaving the picture.



that's your point? that we influenced climate before we even existed? because it happened many, many times before we were even a thought.

[soonerbrat]

here, read these

http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070414/APC0601/704140616/1036

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

and calm down.

[Jerk]

I'll just say that global climate changes have been occurring long before humans came into the picture and will continue to occur long after humans leave the picture.


Holy Crikey, I'm in love!

oh wait..im married. :eek:

[Fraggle145]

that's your point? that we influenced climate before we even existed? because it happened many, many times before we were even a thought.

That is not what I said. I said if we are influencing climate change we may be expediting how fast we leave the picture. You should look at my previous post in reply to SicEm with its citations as well.

here it is reposted:

http://www.inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html

For a rebuttal of the video with links to the science articles and some other sources... unfortunately some of the links assume you have subscription access to the peer reviewed literature, but they can be looked up as well. I went through and relinked the copied text with the links that were provided.


Deconstructing Channel 4's Great Global Warming Swindle
Those of you watching Channel 4's slick documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html), may be forgiven for second guessing the foundations upon which many of us rest our policy research. The big guns were wheeled out to cut into Global Warming theory, and to the layman it could have appeared to be a bloodbath. Even the Channel 4 announcer took a swing before the start: "Climate change; is it down to the car you drive, the airmiles you clock, the light you didn't turn off? Questionable."

The documentary had plenty of big names, and much name-dropping of institutions and awards. The content, however, was riddled with old half-truths and some straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)arguments thrown in for good measure. The main content is summarized below, and annotated with comment and links for better info. I would be happy to discuss any of my comments here - feel free to make corrections, improvements, additions below.

1. Climate is always changing, this temperature is not strange. We shouldn't worry, as warming will bring "vineyards ... [a] wonderfully rich time." (Philip Scott) Climatologists have never denied that temperature variation has been a part of the Earth's history. What is worrying, however, is that the levels of CO2 are higher than they have been for 650,000 years (link (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2211568.ece)) and likely in 20 million years (link (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/096.htm)), and the rate that current changes are taking place (see here (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1603667.ece) and here (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8850-atmospheric-cosub2sub-accumulating-faster-than-ever.html)) are much faster than they have been in the past. And while we may have vineyards and a wonderful time here in the UK, the developing countries will certainly get the short end of the stick (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/658.htm).

2. Historically, CO2 trends appears to lag global mean temperature increases; CO2 doesn't drive temperature change. Yet another old argument. Oddly, they laugh at Al Gore's comment that the relationship between CO2 and temperature change is "complicated", suggesting he was glossing over the details and hid the truth. (If the carbon cycle isn't complicated, I don't know what is!) They then proceed to give an overly simplistic view of the climate, stating that during the heaviest industrialisation post-WWI, there was global cooling - therefore CO2 had no effect. They fatally neglect the time lag for warming from CO2, or the cooling impact from aerosols like SO2. But Real Climate to debunk their claim here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13): the apparent lag of CO2 from temperature in the historical records is a result of feedbacks which release more CO2.

3. Human's can't change the atmosphere - it's so immense. [Update 15.03.07: Having read the transcript, I see that misheard Stott's comment. He indicated the Sun was so immense, suggesting we were just small fry with no impact. I think my comment still holds, however.] Logical fallacy here - appealing to emotion and wonder. For a really accessible example of humans impacting the climate, we just have to look at the impact that the lack of airplane contrails had on temperature in the US after 9/11 (link (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6898/full/418601a.html)).

4. Humans contribute only a minor part of total CO2. This is also not disputed. However, we do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas), and that humans have contributed to recent increases in CO2 concentrations (link (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87), link (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/096.htm)). It appears, that by disrupting the natural balance of the carbon cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas) (which involves the atmosphere, plants, animals, oceans, and geology), we are able to warm the planet.

5. The surface of the Earth is warming faster than the troposphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere), which is the opposite of what greenhouse warming theory would suggest. This argument has been going on for years. However, a 2004 article in Nature (link (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6987/abs/nature02524.html), and more discussion here (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7017/full/nature03210.html)) puts rest to these concerns, and the IPCC Fourth Assessment report will conclude that the troposphere is warming at least as quickly as the surface - consistent with theory. The confusion of whether the troposphere was warming quickly enough arose from a cooling bias from the stratosphere (which cooled as a result of less ozone). [Update 15.03.07: See also a US CCSP report which Christy himself co-authored here (http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf). It said: "Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. ... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected."]

6. Media and scientific self-interest in reporting more and more dramatic results. The global warming community needs to perpetuate itself to keep the money flowing. This, however, is not an argument against the science, but a clever tactic by the documentary makers to get the audience thinking that it is all a big conspiracy. Yet they fail to mention that hysteria is not new to the media - see crime, pedophilia, and immigrants as other examples. As for self-interest in science, it is of course in anyone's interest to promote the importance of their work - for publicity or money. However, the documentary makers failed to show how this debunked the theory of global warming.

7. Cosmic rays can explain warming, as they affect cloud cover - which has a cooling affect. The argument from Nigel Calder and Danish space science skeptics has featured on this blog before, and on BBC's Newsnight - where Calder was thoroughly demolished by an atmospheric physicist from Imperial College. Basically, the Danes have found that cosmic rays produced ionized particles, an published it in a peer reviewed paper here (http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(hlpg5b45kymtlknghgameijk)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,5,19;journal,3,137;linkingpublication results,1:102023,1). The article made no mention of global warming or climate change, but Calder and the Danes wrote a book anyway, making numerous jumps of assumption to say that those ionized particles would produce more clouds and thus cool the Earth. However, those assumptions have not been peer-reviewed, and there exists no long-term trend for cosmic ray flux, while global mean temperature keeps rising. RealClimate has discussed his claim (here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/)). More arguments for cosmic rays came from Nir Shaviv et al. These have also been questioned in peer-reviewed literature here (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004.html) and discussed in RealClimate.org here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=308#comment-13470).

8. Environmentalists say industrialisation causes global warming, and thus want to stop industrialisation and the great improvments it has given our lives. A straw man argument if I've ever seen one. By associating CO2 emissions with industrialisation and economic growth, the documentary plays an emotional trick by making us think that the quality of life we have will be taken away from us if the environmentalists had their way. While CO2 emissions are indeed associated with industrialisation, it is not a relationship that cannot be undone. For example, Vestas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestas) in Denmark have generated immense wealth by producing wind power generators. China has recently decoupled economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions growth (link (http://www.china.org.cn/english/environment/189348.htm)) [Update 15.03.07: Better info in this (http://ccso.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2001/200105/200105.pdf) and this (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VC6-3YRVR07-8&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b5525b8cd5b8aafbdb123bfaac3f3f0c) article. Thanks, Bruce, for the comment.].

9. "Developing countries are coming under intense pressure not to develop." They finally claimed that environmentalists are stopping developing countries from installing fossil fuel plants, forcing them instead to use expensive renewable source of energy instead. This was called "anti-human". Unfortunately, no evidence was presented on this point - no data on World Bank projects, or similar. They did, however, visit a hospital that had been fitted with a solar panel, which could power either the fridge or the lights - but not both. The inference was that if environmentalists hadn't stopped the building of a fossil fuel power stations, the hospital could use the fridge and lights at the same time. Yet did the documentary prove that the hospital was in proximity to be wired to the grid at lower cost than the panel? You bet they didn't! [Update 15.03.07: See a further discussion regarding rural renewables in a new post by Chiara from In the Green here (http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/remote_generati.html).]



And I dont think I need to "calm down." You dont see me sounding an alarm. I am giving you my opinion. I have read the literature and I know how global climate change has already affected many environments.

[soonerbrat]

1. what I said was that it has been happening since before humans and you said "that's my point"

2. I don't read sic'em's posts when he posts them or when anyone responds to them

3. the "calm down" comment wasn't for you.

[Fraggle145]

1. what I said was that it has been happening since before humans and you said "that's my point".

Then I misspoke/typed, I was trying to emphasize the part of your post that brought up the potential for humans not to be in it.


2. I don't read sic'em's posts when he posts them or when anyone responds to them.

heh. understandable ;)


3. the "calm down" comment wasn't for you.

cool.

I think the 1st point in my post addresses the cyclical climate pretty well.


1. Climate is always changing, this temperature is not strange. We shouldn't worry, as warming will bring "vineyards ... [a] wonderfully rich time." (Philip Scott) Climatologists have never denied that temperature variation has been a part of the Earth's history. What is worrying, however, is that the levels of CO2 are higher than they have been for 650,000 years (link) and likely in 20 million years (link), and the rate that current changes are taking place (see here and here) are much faster than they have been in the past. And while we may have vineyards and a wonderful time here in the UK, the developing countries will certainly get the short end of the stick.

[soonerbrat]

30 years ago, the concern was "global cooling"

now it's global warming.

this too will pass.

[soonerbrat]

and by the way:


Sunday, March 24, 2002

Science published a study last week claiming that a tree ring analysis found striking similarities between 20th century increases in global temperature and the Medieval Warm Period -- a period lasting from 1330 AD to 1600 AD which saw similar increases in temperature.

Researchers examined ancient tree rings at 14 sties on three continents. According to Edward Cook of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory,


We don't use this as a refutation of greenhouse warming, but it does show that there are processes within the Earth's natural climate system that produce large changes that might be viewed as comparable to what we have seen in the 20th century.

Not surprisingly, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's climate models simply ignore the Medieval Warm Period. The models simply compare current temperatures to those of the immediately preceding pre-industrial societies. It is almost as if the Medieval Warm Period simply never happened as far as the IPCC is concerned (which makes it a lot easier to claim the current warming trend is completely unprecedented and, therefore, must be due to human-induced changes in the climate.

Source:

Tree Ring Study Shows Warm Cycles. Paul Recer, The Associated Press, March 21, 2002.

[85Sooner]

I think it's probably you and Jerk that need to do that.


Trolling????????:pop:

[soonerscuba]

Heh. The Democrats (including Al Gore) clearly have the moral highground on this issue, but in true Democrat fashion, shot themselves in the face with it. Our addiction to carbon flew planes into the WTC. Glaciers, poles, and far off snowcapped mountains aren't politically sexy, so shift the debate. The best, and only good, 100% correct reason for conservation is that it makes us safer from the obvious danger of terrorism, if we end up helping making the planet a cleaner place, that is fine by me. If today somebody came up with a non-petroleum solution that emitted twice the emissions, I would prefer it over oil.

Also, the window for altering the American lifestyle is shut. We, as a nation have clearly fallen off the cliff as far as conservation is concerned. When the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor, we entered into a fight and every person in America sacrificed something. When the terrorists did the same thing, we gave ourselves a tax break. Good luck with that.

[OklahomaTuba]

The Democrats (including Al Gore) clearly have the moral highground on this issue
If by moral highground you mean blatent hypocricy and fear mongering, then you might just be right for once.

[SicEmBaylor]

I tend not to trust fear mongering politicians especially when the result of that is much more power for them and far less liberty for me.

[Jerk]

I tend not to trust fear mongering politicians especially when the result of that is much more power for them and far less liberty for me.

That, and the support of the Hollywood crowd and U.N., is a huge honking RED FLAG.

[Fraggle145]

That, and the support of the Hollywood crowd and U.N., is a huge honking RED FLAG.

Oh and the fear mongering of fox news et al. on the other side of the issue is any better!

The fact that this issue is politicized is making it hard for anyone on either side to see the forest through the trees. Look at the data and make up your own mind, but dont put the whole issue on Al Gore or any other polical position when making your decision.

[Fraggle145]

I tend not to trust fear mongering politicians especially when the result of that is much more power for them and far less liberty for me.

So then the question for you should be what is the benefit of everyone that is touting the position that humans have nothing to do with global warming and that we dont need to do anything about it...

Are there people that benefit from this point of view on that side of the argument...






ummm ya.

[SicEmBaylor]

So then the question for you should be what is the benefit of everyone that is touting the position that humans have nothing to do with global warming and that we dont need to do anything about it...

Are there people that benefit from this point of view on that side of the argument...






ummm ya.


Yeaaaa....you see the difference in the position that people don't have anything to do with it is that they seek to retain the status quo. What additional powers to the Federal government come as a result of people not affecting global warming? If you can find one then that would be great. I'm willing to bet that there aren't even too many whose elections depend on taking a negative view of global warming. How many candidates have you heard of who won an election by saying, "global warming is bunk?" Anyone who would win in a district with that negative of a view toward global warming is probably going to elect whoever is saying it in anyway (my guess is a conservative Republican).

That being said, the business community does have a big stake in the global warming debate but as I said above that's an effort to retain the status quo. What rights or liberties am I losing in that particular case?

I'm not talking about political interests. There are political interests on both sides. I'm talking about the serious loss of liberty and the devastating changes to how we live our life if global warming because of humanity is accepted as the gospel truth.

[Ike]

We could power the entire US AND curb global warming by simply putting a giant turbine directly above Washington DC. The rising hot air spewed by the windbags in that city would power america, and in doing so would be cooled a bit before it's deposit in the atmosphere.

there. thats my solution.

[SicEmBaylor]

We could power the entire US AND curb global warming by simply putting a giant turbine directly above Washington DC. The rising hot air spewed by the windbags in that city would power america, and in doing so would be cooled a bit before it's deposit in the atmosphere.

there. thats my solution.

As long as it isn't taxpayer funded.

[Ike]

As long as it isn't taxpayer funded.
we're funding the windbags producing the hot air already.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

As long as it isn't taxpayer funded.Somebody musta flipped your "ON" switch this AM. Today, you're making sense.

[OCUDad]

Holy Crikey, I'm in love!

oh wait..im married. :eek:What does either of those statements have to do with the other?

[Ike]

Can we move everyone into an electric car without law that requires automakers to make the switch? If the answer to that question is no, then I submit it won't happen otherwise. If you think about, even auto safety advances among US automakers have largely been the result of federal rules.
The fact that the Japanese auto makers have taken the ball and run with it with respect to hybrids and other fuel economical measures, and succeeded, tells me that at the point that such cars become cost competitive with the gasoline engine, we will see them on the markets...Based upon recent performance in Detroit, that may also be the last nail in the coffin for US automakers. In fact, I submit that laws requiring US automakers to make some of these kinds of cars are actually good for US automakers....they don't seem to respond well to changing times. And as much as they resist higher CAFE fuel economy standards, you'd think that they would realize that fuel economy is what Japan has been kicking their *** at for the last 20 years, and that that strategy is starting to pay off for the Japanese companies.


What do you think of nuke powerplants? Apparently the French are leading the charge in the EU to get everyone in Europe wired to nuke-based grid. They think the answer to the spent fuel problem lies in recyling of the spent material and they are investing heavily in that technology.

I've said for a long time that space is a perfect place for spent nuke fuel. Obviously there is the danger of launching it up there with a rocket and the rocket going boom, so I propose a big trebuchet! (actually, I would propose a big rail gun to shoot it into space, which may be doable)

[Fraggle145]

The fact that the Japanese auto makers have taken the ball and run with it with respect to hybrids and other fuel economical measures, and succeeded, tells me that at the point that such cars become cost competitive with the gasoline engine, we will see them on the markets...Based upon recent performance in Detroit, that may also be the last nail in the coffin for US automakers. In fact, I submit that laws requiring US automakers to make some of these kinds of cars are actually good for US automakers....they don't seem to respond well to changing times. And as much as they resist higher CAFE fuel economy standards, you'd think that they would realize that fuel economy is what Japan has been kicking their *** at for the last 20 years, and that that strategy is starting to pay off for the Japanese companies.


I've said for a long time that space is a perfect place for spent nuke fuel. Obviously there is the danger of launching it up there with a rocket and the rocket going boom, so I propose a big trebuchet! (actually, I would propose a big rail gun to shoot it into space, which may be doable)

I always thought the best place for spent nuclear fuel would be off of one of the trenches in the ocean near the continental divides. In theory it would be burned up in liquid hot magma.

[Fraggle145]

Yeaaaa....you see the difference in the position that people don't have anything to do with it is that they seek to retain the status quo. What additional powers to the Federal government come as a result of people not affecting global warming? If you can find one then that would be great. I'm willing to bet that there aren't even too many whose elections depend on taking a negative view of global warming. How many candidates have you heard of who won an election by saying, "global warming is bunk?" Anyone who would win in a district with that negative of a view toward global warming is probably going to elect whoever is saying it in anyway (my guess is a conservative Republican).

That being said, the business community does have a big stake in the global warming debate but as I said above that's an effort to retain the status quo. What rights or liberties am I losing in that particular case?

I'm not talking about political interests. There are political interests on both sides. I'm talking about the serious loss of liberty and the devastating changes to how we live our life if global warming because of humanity is accepted as the gospel truth.

Personally, I think that the staus quo, both in our government right now and in how we treat the environment sucks.

Big business is exactly who I am talking about. Instead of allowing them to be lazy and letting the cats get fatter, I want a better product. Instead of making it about losing liberties it should be about becoming more efficient, IMO. And I dont think the the changes to our lives to adjust to becoming more efficient have to be "devastating," they can be as subtle as taking the recycling out to the street corner with the trash and using better lightbulbs.

[SicEmBaylor]

Personally, I think that the staus quo, both in our government right now and in how we treat the environment sucks.

Big business is exactly who I am talking about. Instead of allowing them to be lazy and letting the cats get fatter, I want a better product. Instead of making it about losing liberties it should be about becoming more efficient, IMO. And I dont think the the changes to our lives to adjust to becoming more efficient have to be "devastating," they can be as subtle as taking the recycling out to the street corner with the trash and using better lightbulbs.

When the market demands a better product then you'll get a better product but if you think a government beauocracy is going to mandate what a "better" product is by reducing or entirely eliminating choice then you are very much mistaken.

[Ike]

When the market demands a better product then you'll get a better product but if you think a government beauocracy is going to mandate what a "better" product is by reducing or entirely eliminating choice then you are very much mistaken.

in theory, thats true, but not always in practice.

Just look at the big telcos and ISPs and their service in rural areas for an example. The demand is there, but they aren't supplying, and not only that, but at every step of the way, they actively try to block others from getting a better product to rural areas. The town of Lafayette Louisiana is just one good example. (and why do east asian countries have far better internet service than is available here in the states? Where's the fiberoptic internet that the telcos promised 10 years ago when laws favorable to them were passed?)

My point in bringing that up is that demand does not always get you a better product even when a) you are willing to pay for it and b) there is someone willing to provide it. Big businesses make a lot of money doing things "the old way", and are not afraid to send smaller competition through lengthy and costly protracted legal battles if and when the smaller companies come up with a better way of doing things. Better products not only have to compete in the market place these days. They also have to compete in a legal system through lawsuits that are primarily aimed at eliminating competition through legal fees.

[Fraggle145]

in theory, thats true, but not always in practice.

Just look at the big telcos and ISPs and their service in rural areas for an example. The demand is there, but they aren't supplying, and not only that, but at every step of the way, they actively try to block others from getting a better product to rural areas. The town of Lafayette Louisiana is just one good example. (and why do east asian countries have far better internet service than is available here in the states? Where's the fiberoptic internet that the telcos promised 10 years ago when laws favorable to them were passed?)

My point in bringing that up is that demand does not always get you a better product even when a) you are willing to pay for it and b) there is someone willing to provide it. Big businesses make a lot of money doing things "the old way", and are not afraid to send smaller competition through lengthy and costly protracted legal battles if and when the smaller companies come up with a better way of doing things. Better products not only have to compete in the market place these days. They also have to compete in a legal system through lawsuits that are primarily aimed at eliminating competition through legal fees.

Ya! What he said!

[Vaevictis]

You know what's especially awesome about hyrbrid cars and Detroit?

My boss was telling me about how when he was a student here at OU, one of the ECE professors was getting funding from a local auto dealership to build a hybrid car. This would have been at least 8 years ago, possibly more. The ECE prof came up with a system very, very similar to the one Toyota is using now. He built a prototype, and presented it to the guy at the local auto dealership. This guy got very, very excited, and called up a VP in Detroit to come down and see it.

The VP came and saw it. He said it was pretty cool. The ECE prof said he'd be happy to sell them all of the patents, etc, on the project, straight up. When he and the guy from the dealership got back to the dealership after the meeting, he told the guy from the dealership that if he gave another cent to these ECE guys from OU that he'd have his dealership license revoked.

Here we are in 2007, and Detroit has hybrid cars. Only guess what? Instead of having their own designs, they're licensing them from Japan.

Bunch of ****ing incompetent *********s.

[Ike]

You know what's especially awesome about hyrbrid cars and Detroit?

My boss was telling me about how when he was a student here at OU, one of the ECE professors was getting funding from a local auto dealership to build a hybrid car. This would have been at least 8 years ago, possibly more. The ECE prof came up with a system very, very similar to the one Toyota is using now. He built a prototype, and presented it to the guy at the local auto dealership. This guy got very, very excited, and called up a VP in Detroit to come down and see it.

The VP came and saw it. He said it was pretty cool. The ECE prof said he'd be happy to sell them all of the patents, etc, on the project, straight up. When he and the guy from the dealership got back to the dealership after the meeting, he told the guy from the dealership that if he gave another cent to these ECE guys from OU that he'd have his dealership license revoked.

Here we are in 2007, and Detroit has hybrid cars. Only guess what? Instead of having their own designs, they're licensing them from Japan.

Bunch of ****ing incompetent *********s.

#1...I don't think the prof could have sold the patents to Detroit even if he wanted to. If he did patent it, the patent would automatically belong to OU if he was a prof at OU. now, if he had gotten OU onboard with selling the patent, then thats another story, but thats more difficult.

anyway, I just wanted to point that out because OU has a pretty strict policy when it comes to patentable material produced by profs or grad students.

[Vaevictis]

#1...I don't think the prof could have sold the patents to Detroit even if he wanted to. If he did patent it, the patent would automatically belong to OU if he was a prof at OU. now, if he had gotten OU onboard with selling the patent, then thats another story, but thats more difficult.

Yeah, I know about that. But there are ways around that if you know them.

For example, if you get the OTD to approve a spin-off company -- which is not hard -- if I understand the process correctly, you can quite easily spin it off, liquidate, and give OU their share of the proceeds.

[usmc-sooner]

you know if this global warming doesn't hurry up and get here we'll be wearing coats until June.

[TopDawg]

He wrapped up by saying that several studies have been done on precisely what effect we'd have on the temperature if everyone, today, started complying with the Kyoto treaty that would it would only cause a 1 degree temperature change over a long period of time (I forgot the exact time frame but I'm pretty sure it was over 25 years).

I may be fuzzy on some of the details there but I believe that's an accurate representation of the presentation.

This may have been addressed in one of Fraggle's posts so I apologize if it has, but this information was also presented at a debate I attended before Al Gore's presentation at OU.

The prof arguing against man's affect on global warming used the same fact (only he used a 30 year timeline). Then the prof arguing for validated his data. He said it was true that there would be little-to-no difference in 30 years. But after 30 years, that's when we'd start to see a difference...a difference that would be quite significant in 100 years.

Now it could be that his information is incorrect and that the models they were using (which have been accepted by the Bush administration) are invalid. I can't say whether or not it's scientifically valid or not. But just from a debating standpoint, the fact that the first guy used the same information in a misleading fashion just made his side of the argument seem much less convincing to me. Don't tell me that these predictions show there will be no difference in 30 years while neglecting to say that the same predictions show there will be a significant difference in 100 years.

Scientific tests show that if I stop breathing now, there will be no difference in my life 10 seconds from now. Ignore what will happen 5 minutes later.

[TopDawg]

Anyway, I generally ascribe to the notion that it's more important to be right than to be consistent. See, I try to be the kind of person who can study an issue with an open mind and actually have that study affect my opinions.:D

FLIP FLOPPER! :mad:

;)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Personally, I think that the staus quo, both in our government right now and in how we treat the environment sucks.

Big business is exactly who I am talking about. Instead of allowing them to be lazy and letting the cats get fatter, I want a better product. Instead of making it about losing liberties it should be about becoming more efficient, IMO. And I dont think the the changes to our lives to adjust to becoming more efficient have to be "devastating," they can be as subtle as taking the recycling out to the street corner with the trash and using better lightbulbs.Oh dude, that's so caring.

[Fraggle145]

Oh dude, that's so caring.

:confused:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

:confused:The market is the natural arbiter. Big govt. is inherently more capable of subjugation than is big business, due to the power of law.

[Fraggle145]

The market is the natural arbiter. Big govt. is inherently more capable of subjugation than is big business, due to the power of law.

They both suck, IMO.

Edit: and a lot of things in the current government favor big business. So when our gov is sucking the hind tit of big business it makes big business the subjugator

[mdklatt]

#1...I don't think the prof could have sold the patents to Detroit even if he wanted to. If he did patent it, the patent would automatically belong to OU if he was a prof at OU. now, if he had gotten OU onboard with selling the patent, then thats another story, but thats more difficult.


Not so much anymore. About the seven years ago OU got really big into allowing researchers to spin their work off into commercial applications.

[TopDawg]

Not so much anymore. About the seven years ago OU got really big into allowing researchers to spin their work off into commercial applications.

You pretty much have to these days. It's a recruiting tool. If your "rules" on intellectual property are too skewed toward the school, you might lose out on some of the top research professors.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

They both suck, IMO.

Edit: and a lot of things in the current government favor big business. So when our gov is sucking the hind tit of big business it makes big business the subjugatorThe entity with the power to fine and imprison is the one with the most power. A true monopoly of an item that is vital would be almost as powerful, but the govt. can regulate that monopoly, so the govt. has the REAL power. Just a fact.

[Fraggle145]

The entity with the power to fine and imprison is the one with the most power. A true monopoly of an item that is vital would be almost as powerful, but the govt. can regulate that monopoly, so the govt. has the REAL power. Just a fact.

When they choose to do so (i.e., when big business isnt funding their campaigns and every other damn thing they do)...

[LittleWingSooner]

The more facts I'm presented with the more I believe global warming is a bit more of a hoax then anything. I'm not saying there's no global warming at all. I think there may be global warming but I think it may have more to do with the sun. I don't think there's anyway we can impact the weather that much. And I still have yet to see a study saying CO2 is bad. If there's no CO2 there is no life. There's no way we currently know that we have too much CO2. We won't know till sometime in the future for sure. I could see a better argument for global warming in the 70's or 80's but our cars today are really efficient in burning fuel correctly, more efficient then in before. Yet it's getting warmer? I think there's a chance the sun has more to do with the warming.

[Fraggle145]

The more facts I'm presented with the more I believe global warming is a bit more of a hoax then anything. I'm not saying there's no global warming at all. .

Make no mistake about it there is global warming, the debate is whether or not humans are causing it.


I could see a better argument for global warming in the 70's or 80's but our cars today are really efficient in burning fuel correctly, more efficient then in before.

In Japan maybe... The US is behind everyone in this department and they really arent that much better than in the 70s and 80s.

Edit: BTW did you read this post and some of the associated links? http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1863869&postcount=42
If you cant access any of the papers I will be glad to get them and send them to you.

[mdklatt]

The more facts I'm presented with the more I believe global warming is a bit more of a hoax then anything.

Where are you getting these "facts"?



I think there may be global warming but I think it may have more to do with the sun.


Based on...wishful thinking? Intuition? The sun certainly has an effect on our climate, but the amount of insolation reaching the Earth hasn't changed significantly during the satellite era. And yet things keep getting warmer. GWD (global warming deniers) like to point to a study showing a correlation between cosmic rays and global temperature, but the causation is tenuous at best. It's not even certain there's a correlation based on the statistics used.



I don't think there's anyway we can impact the weather that much.


Again...wishful thinking? Your gut feeling?




And I still have yet to see a study saying CO2 is bad.


It's not that CO2 is "bad", it's that it's a greenhouse gas. This is basic physics. CO2 is also a byproduct of burning fossil fuels. This is basic chemistry. Does it not seem at least plausible to you that increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere might also increase the greenhouse effect?



There's no way we currently know that we have too much CO2.


Except for that fact that global warming is happening--as even you admit. And that the observed rise in CO2 correlates very well with the observed global warming (statistical correlation). And that when you put the observed CO2 increases into climate models they replicate the warming trend (physical causation). And that other plausible explanations keep getting ruled out.




We won't know till sometime in the future for sure.


After all the glaciers have melted? If only there was a way to predict the future. Maybe using a computer or something....



I could see a better argument for global warming in the 70's or 80's but our cars today are really efficient in burning fuel correctly, more efficient then in before. Yet it's getting warmer?


Do you think there are more or less cars now than in the 80s? Do you think there is more or less industrialization now than in the 80s? Besides, warming lags CO2. Even if we capped CO2 emissions right now, we'd still see additional warming based on what's already in the atmosphere. Even worse, more warming will result in natural CO2 increases, such as melting permafrost, and oceanic CO2 coming out of solution. If warming results in increased vegetation there will be a negative feedback, but it's uncertain what the net effect will be. Of course, warming could also result in more droughts (less vegetation) and more forest fires (less vegetation AND more CO2). Round and round we go...we're conducting a global experiment right now.


The anti-GW position:

We don't know exactly what's going on or where it's going to lead, so let's not panic.


The pro-AGW position:

We don't know exactly what's going on or where it's going to lead--it's time to panic!

[mdklatt]

where are you reading up on all this stuff

Some of it is from book lernin', but www.realclimate.org has tons of information. Warning: It can get pretty technical. In the last big GW thread around here I posted a link to a URL that had a lot of the stuff from realclimate.org in layman's terms, laid out as point-by-point rebuttals of all the common GW denier arguments.

There's another URL that comes up near the top when you Google "global warming": www.globalwarming.org. This appears to be a global warming denier site. Note the responsible party for this web site: Competitive Enterprise Institute--obviously not a scientific organization. Most of the scientific you see here is also addressed (rebutted, usually) on globalwarming.org.

This seems to be the pattern:

GWDeniers: Global warming is a hoax because...
GWExperts: No, see, you're wrong about that because...
GWD: [crickets chirping]

[Fraggle145]

http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/

isnt bad either.

[LittleWingSooner]

It's not that CO2 is "bad", it's that it's a greenhouse gas. This is basic physics. CO2 is also a byproduct of burning fossil fuels. This is basic chemistry. Does it not seem at least plausible to you that increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere might also increase the greenhouse effect?

CO2 isn't a bad greenhouse gas as others are. It's probably one of the least dangerous greenhouse gases. It's naturally produced and necessary for life. And there is no way to say we can have too much. We can have too little CO2.

About the burning of fossil fuels causing too much CO2, that's something I don't know about. But we may run out of fossil fuels in the next hundred or so years.

A volcano eruption puts out so much more greenhouse then any humans can put together. And throughout the billions of years Earth has been around there have probably been thousands or millions of volcanic eruptions, yet the earth isn't over because of them and the greenhouse gases they put out.

What people do is so little compared to what some people want to think we do. I'm not saying we're perfect, but I don't think we are really that advanced to where we are messing everything up so bad. Like some people believe, or some want us to believe.

[soonerbrat]

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b274/soonerbrat/funny%20pics/why-i-hate-people.jpg

[Fraggle145]

And there is no way to say we can have too much.

About the burning of fossil fuels causing too much CO2, that's something I don't know about.

So which is it? theres is no way we can have to much or it is something you dont know about. I promise we could have too much, have you seen Venus?


A volcano eruption puts out so much more greenhouse then any humans can put together. And throughout the billions of years Earth has been around there have probably been thousands or millions of volcanic eruptions, yet the earth isn't over because of them and the greenhouse gases they put out.

What people do is so little compared to what some people want to think we do. I'm not saying we're perfect, but I don't think we are really that advanced to where we are messing everything up so bad. Like some people believe, or some want us to believe.

Do you have any supporting data for these assumptions? I suggest that you read up on some of the sites suggested earlier as well as the IPCC report.

Greenhouse gasses are "naturally produced" the problem is that CO2 isnt at natural levels anymore. And this is taking into effect all of the volcanos and everything else that have been cycling throughout the earth's history. So holding evertything else constant what changed? what caused the increase? That would be humans. It is at higher levels now than at any other time in the measurable history of the world ~800,000 years.

Another thought to ponder, when the earth was all volcanoes, spewing forth greenhouse gases, before the dinosaurs where were humans? where was anything else besides microbes for that matter?

[Fraggle145]

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b274/soonerbrat/funny%20pics/why-i-hate-people.jpg

heh. you know it doesnt work on that time scale... I like it better when it is cold anyway.

[mdklatt]

CO2 isn't a bad greenhouse gas as others are. It's probably one of the least dangerous greenhouse gases.


Erm, what do you mean by dangerous?

Dangerous or not, CO2 is the likely culprit. It can be shown empirically, it can be shown through modelling. Researchers have tried to correlate our current observed warming (this isn't just some hypothesis) with all kinds of natural phenomena, but rising CO2 keeps coming up as the best explanation.



A volcano eruption puts out so much more greenhouse then any humans can put together.


Link?



And throughout the billions of years Earth has been around there have probably been thousands or millions of volcanic eruptions, yet the earth isn't over because of them and the greenhouse gases they put out.


It's not about the Earth being "over". It's about an abrupt climate shift that we're going to have to deal with or we may be over. Not to mention millions of other species. The earth was warmer in the past. But we weren't around then. We are headed into the unknown. Global warming is probably not a good thing for us in the short term, regardless of whether we have anything to do with it or not.

Oops! Greenland melted. But it's the earth's fault, so Manhattan can suck it.




What people do is so little compared to what some people want to think we do. I'm not saying we're perfect, but I don't think we are really that advanced to where we are messing everything up so bad. Like some people believe, or some want us to believe.

I think you're the one with the wishful thinking. What basis do you have for claiming that people have little effect on the environment? We've overfished oceans. We've killed entire watersheds with pollution. We caused havoc with acid rain. We've made entire places uninhabitable due to nuclear testing or accidents. The ozone hole didn't create itself.

[Okla-homey]

Here's the thing. With respect to all who have posted here, and gratitude we've actually had dialogue (for the most part) and not much "shut-up poo-poo head" talk.

I remain convinced that the phenomenon is real. The proximate cause of the phenomenon remains largely theoretical and debatable. However, I believe mankind probably played a role in jacking-up the atmosphere to the point that even if the warming is part of the natural ebb and flow of things, we have'nt helped the situation -- and probably have made it worse.

I also think, since we in America are responsible for about a third of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions, if anything substantive is to be done, America must lead.

Problem is, I don't think there is sufficient will among the folks to do much to cut back on our emissions. Such a cutback would require personal sacrifice. Specifically, we'd need a willingness to avoid driving our cars so dang much. We probably also need mandatory MPG standards.

Bill Maher, a liberal comedian recently stated on his HBO show that in his opinion, even if people could be convinced that simply throwing away their TV remote would reverse warming, most Americans would say "pfft" and blow it off. IOW, we would'nt start getting off the couch to change the channel even if it could solve the problem. Now, he sad that to be funny, but we know that comedy is funniest when it has an element of truth to it. In short, I'm afraid I agree with Maher.

The cool part about this whole thing is that there are national security interests which can be advanced by doing the above which are also served by cutting back on our emissions. Specifically, less driving and higher MPG standards means less importation of foreign oil. That helps us all. It may be that this fact is what will encourage us to do the right thing in this area.

[jk the sooner fan]

i have a question, and i'd like a serious answer

what caused global warming when we went from the ice age to the "non-ice age"

[Okla-homey]

i have a question, and i'd like a serious answer

what caused global warming when we went from the ice age to the "non-ice age"

Well, I'm no scientist, but I reckon it was that natural cycle thingy. The troubling part about this phenomenon is that this time, we aren't witnessing the recovery from an ice age. Instead, we are looking at a warming trend amid a status quo in which we had already been pretty stabilized at the warm end of the curve for a few thousand years.

[jk the sooner fan]

Well, I'm no scientist, but I reckon it was that natural cycle thingy. The troubling part about this phenomenon is that this time, we aren't witnessing the recovery from an ice age. Instead, we are looking at a warming trend amid a status quo in which we had already been pretty stabilized at the warm end of the curve for a few thousand years.

since that last global warming period, has the sun either a) grown larger 2) moved closer to the earth

because as i understand the life cycle of any star - they grow and expand, albeit slowly

but its been a few thousand years since our last one, and i just wonder if something other than humans can be the reason for a ONE DEGREE warming over 100 years....

[usmc-sooner]

The more facts I'm presented with the more I believe global warming is a bit more of a hoax then anything. I'm not saying there's no global warming at all. I think there may be global warming but I think it may have more to do with the sun. I don't think there's anyway we can impact the weather that much. And I still have yet to see a study saying CO2 is bad. If there's no CO2 there is no life. There's no way we currently know that we have too much CO2. We won't know till sometime in the future for sure. I could see a better argument for global warming in the 70's or 80's but our cars today are really efficient in burning fuel correctly, more efficient then in before. Yet it's getting warmer? I think there's a chance the sun has more to do with the warming.


I'm pretty much in this camp

[usmc-sooner]

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b274/soonerbrat/funny%20pics/why-i-hate-people.jpg

I'm in this camp as well

[LittleWingSooner]

Also it's not like the planet is warming up a ton. It's an average of about 1 degree warmer over the last century. Some research has it less then 1 degree. And over the last 20 or so years it's about the same or cooler in temperature depending on which research you read.

The bigger worry about the burning of fossil fuels is simply that we may not have some fossil fuels in a not so distant future. I'm not sold on the fact that some would want you to believe that we can burn up CO2 fast enough to cause a big temperature change. Some of those type of people don't realize how much bigger the earth is then we are.

Also most research shows that it was warmer 1000 years ago then it was today. What the hell were we doing in the middle ages to cause global warming?

[mdklatt]

since that last global warming period, has the sun either a) grown larger 2) moved closer to the earth


There is no evidence that either of these two have occurred. Our historical climate variations were not due to changes in distance from the sun, but the earth's orientation to it. Since we've been accurately able to measure the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth, it hasn't changed significantly.





but its been a few thousand years since our last one, and i just wonder if something other than humans can be the reason for a ONE DEGREE warming over 100 years....

One degree of warming in the atmosphere over the entire planet represents an enourmous amount of energy. One degree of warming in even the top layer of the ocean represents even more. And by most accounts, that one degree is just the beginning. Upper-end estimates point to, what, 6 degrees of warming in 100 years? And that's in Celsius, which is 11 F.

[jk the sooner fan]

you're saying the sun is not a living star that grows and expands over time?

there's no evidence of that?

i'm no scientist but i clearly remember the lecture on the life of a star during my astronomy course in college.....

[mdklatt]

It's an average of about 1 degree warmer over the last century.

Do you know anything about specific heat? That's a lot.



And over the last 20 or so years it's about the same or cooler in temperature depending on which research you read.


It's warmer. The only "research" that says otherwise has been repeatedly debunked. They always stop at 1998 for some reason. Actually, the reason is obvious--every year since 1998 has been significantly above average, which messes up the conclusion they're trying to pimp.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101202498.html



The bigger worry about the burning of fossil fuels is simply that we may not have some fossil fuels in a not so distant future.


This is true. It's mind-boggling thing to me is that the pubs have so much hate for the "tree huggers" that they ignore the national security interests of reducing our fossil fuel dependence. For everybody worried abour wrecking the economy with a carbon tax, do you have any idea what the true cost of oil is? We're spending a lot more than $2.75/gallon for gasoline. How much money have we spent on our military in the Middle East since oil was discovered there? Do you really think we'd be involved there if it wasn't for the oil? Hell no; they'd be as relevant to us as Africa. And without oil money, all those fuggers would be able to do is ride around on camels throwing stones at each other.




I'm not sold on the fact that some would want you to believe that we can burn up CO2 fast enough to cause a big temperature change. Some of those type of people don't realize how much bigger the earth is then we are.


Who are "those people"? What is your background that you're such an expert in climate science?




Also most research shows that it was warmer 1000 years ago then it was today.

This is wrong, but even if it was true it's irrelevant. By this reasoning, OU couldn't have a possibly won a championship in 2000 because all of our previous championship teams had dominant running games.

[mdklatt]

you're saying the sun is not a living star that grows and expands over time?

there's no evidence of that?



There's no evidence that the sun has anything to do with the current period of warming.

[jk the sooner fan]

really?

that just strikes me - and i'm just an ordinary idiot........as really funny

[oilmud]

Fred Thompson's blog

April 13, 2007
Plutonic Warming

Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever. Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming: Martian warming. It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto.

NASA says the Martian South Pole's ice cap has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter's caught the same cold, because it's warming up too, like Pluto.

This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non-signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle.

Silly, I know, but I wonder what all those planets, dwarf planets and moons in our SOLAR system have in common. Hmmmm. SOLAR system. Hmmmm. Solar? I wonder. Nah, I guess we shouldn't even be talking about this. The science is absolutely decided. There's a consensus.

Ask Galileo.

[TopDawg]

Fred Thompson's blog

April 13, 2007
Plutonic Warming

Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever. Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming: Martian warming. It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto.

NASA says the Martian South Pole's ice cap has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter's caught the same cold, because it's warming up too, like Pluto.

This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non-signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle.

Silly, I know, but I wonder what all those planets, dwarf planets and moons in our SOLAR system have in common. Hmmmm. SOLAR system. Hmmmm. Solar? I wonder. Nah, I guess we shouldn't even be talking about this. The science is absolutely decided. There's a consensus.

Ask Galileo.

I thought all opinions from Hollywood were de facto wrong.

[usmc-sooner]

There's no evidence that the sun has anything to do with the current period of warming.


you hear that people!!! there's no evidence that the sun has anything to do with how warm the earth is now, maybe in the past but not now. :rolleyes: :
hahahahahahahahaha

[TopDawg]

I also think, since we in America are responsible for about a third of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions, if anything substantive is to be done, America must lead.

Problem is, I don't think there is sufficient will among the folks to do much to cut back on our emissions. Such a cutback would require personal sacrifice. Specifically, we'd need a willingness to avoid driving our cars so dang much. We probably also need mandatory MPG standards.

I agree. The "why should WE have to have higher standards than THEM" argument disturbs me. It sounds like something some girl on My Sweet 16 would say. What's wrong with setting an example for the rest of the world?


Bill Maher, a liberal comedian recently stated on his HBO show that in his opinion, even if people could be convinced that simply throwing away their TV remote would reverse warming, most Americans would say "pfft" and blow it off. IOW, we would'nt start getting off the couch to change the channel even if it could solve the problem. Now, he sad that to be funny, but we know that comedy is funniest when it has an element of truth to it. In short, I'm afraid I agree with Maher.

Maher says some really off-the-wall stuff and I find him highly offensive at times, but he also says a lot of stuff that is dead-on.

[mdklatt]

you hear that people!!! there's no evidence that the sun has anything to do with how warm the earth is now, maybe in the past but not now. :rolleyes: :
hahahahahahahahaha

Reading comprehension is a bitch, ain't it.

[mdklatt]

Fred Thompson's blog


Well he's certainly an expert. :rolleyes:

Let's not listen to the people who know more about anybody else in the world about this stuff, let's quote blogs from actor/politicians who happen to agree with our own predetermined conclusions.



It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto.


Pluto's solar year is 234 years. Pluto was discovered less than 100 years ago. We've never even set foot on it. And somehow we know Pluto's entire climate cycle. Meanwhile, those silly scientists can't possibly know that global warming is happening here because they don't know enough about Earth's climate cycle.

Outstanding.

[Fugue]

Well he's certainly an expert. :rolleyes:

Let's not listen to the people who know more about anybody else in the world about this stuff, let's quote blogs from actor/politicians who happen to agree with our own predetermined conclusions.



Pluto's solar year is 234 years. Pluto was discovered less than 100 years ago. We've never even set foot on it. And somehow we know Pluto's entire climate cycle. Meanwhile, those silly scientists can't possibly know that global warming is happening here because they don't know enough about Earth's climate cycle.

Outstanding.

wow, you get cranky over this whole global cooling deal. :texan:

[mdklatt]

Ask Galileo.

Global warming skeptics are not like Galileo. The people who were worried about global warming 20 years ago when the rest of the climatologists where still saying "hold on a minute" were like Galieleo. At this point, global warming skeptics are like the Flat Earth Society and these people (http://www.fixedearth.com/).

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

Hey, Fugue...

Kiss my Pluto.

[Fugue]

Hey, Fugue...

Kiss my Pluto.

sssss, OW, too :hot:

burnted my lips

[jk the sooner fan]

Well he's certainly an expert. :rolleyes:

Let's not listen to the people who know more about anybody else in the world about this stuff, let's quote blogs from actor/politicians who happen to agree with our own predetermined conclusions.



Pluto's solar year is 234 years. Pluto was discovered less than 100 years ago. We've never even set foot on it. And somehow we know Pluto's entire climate cycle. Meanwhile, those silly scientists can't possibly know that global warming is happening here because they don't know enough about Earth's climate cycle.

Outstanding.

ok you convinced me on pluto - what about those other planets he mentioned

and please.....you know, your side has Al Gore as your pitchman, so I think its ok if our side employs the services of Fred Thompson for an afternoon

[oilmud]

Your next POTUS Thompson seems to have touched a nerve.


:pop:

[mdklatt]

ok you convinced me on pluto - what about those other planets he mentioned

The only thing we have in common with other planets is the sun. So if that's not the culprit, it doesn't matter what's happening anywhere else.

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



A 2006 study and review of existing literature, published in Nature, determined that there has been no net increase in solar brightness since the mid 1970s, and that changes in solar output within the past 400 years are unlikely to have played a major part in global warming.



Let's not forget the tortured logic of GWD who use the "Mars is warming too" argument. Why are the same people who think that the climate of this planet is too complex to understand so quick to affirm that we can know what is going on with any certainty on other plantets?




and please.....you know, your side has Al Gore as your pitchman, so I think its ok if our side employs the services of Fred Thompson for an afternoon

Have I ever used an Al Gore quote to make a point? The science has been hijacked by the pundits and politicians, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the science.

[mdklatt]

Your next POTUS Thompson seems to have touched a nerve.




Damn straight. Ignorance and stupidity ****es me off to no end.

[TopDawg]

Your next POTUS Thompson seems to have touched a nerve.

It seems like the scientists arguing that Global Warming exists touched a nerve with him.

hmmm...funny how that works, eh?

[Fugue]

Hey, Booty....

go touch a nerve

[Howzit]

with gravy

[mdklatt]

with gravy

Dude, that's totally sausage.

[Howzit]

nuh uh.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

Hey, Booty....

go touch a nerve

YOU GO TOUCH A WARM GLOBE, BUSTER!!!

[mdklatt]

YOU GO TOUCH A WARM GLOBE, BUSTER!!!

:hot: :texan:

[Fugue]

YOU GO TOUCH A WARM GLOBE, BUSTER!!!


Sounds perky, I may just have to. :cool:

[mdklatt]

Sounds perky, I may just have to. :cool:

I already am.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

This one's done, too...I think.

:dean: