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/sho...ht=advancement

[Okla-homey]

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

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/sho...ht=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.

[85Sooner]

Call me when they start farming in Greenland again.