Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Philippe Binette on February 03, 2011, 01:36:39 PM
-
I'll go for climate change, not global warming...
too cold to start the round in Scottsdale Arizona... current temp : 38F... hig for today 52 F
-
Philippe,
I agree that the terms "climate change" and "global warming" are often contradictory. However, I don't think I would prove or refute either phenomenon based on the weather of one day.
-
One medium size volcano erupting would match what Man has done in a 100 years of pollution. Two would probably match what Man has done since the Industrial Revolution. Three covers the full damage Man has done since he first farted.
So what we have is The Earth and Mother Nature – not Man doing their thing. We do not need to conserve or ration but discover more Natural ways forward instead of playing the blame game.
What will be will be – can’t you invent a cart that copes with the cold and snow, after all that’s why many of you say you use a cart in hot zones.
Just think “Its Good News Week” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4KzGKnuUuc
Melvyn
PS Still cheating IMHO if using distance aids
-
I didn't buy in to global climate change until Lou Duran convinced me.
-
climate change is self evident, the questions seems to be whether man has made any difference to it. I'm still open to be convinced but at the moment I side with Melvyn's view.
Niall
-
One medium size volcano erupting would match what Man has done in a 100 years of pollution. Two would probably match what Man has done since the Industrial Revolution. Three covers the full damage Man has done since he first farted.
So what we have is The Earth and Mother Nature – not Man doing their thing. We do not need to conserve or ration but discover more Natural ways forward instead of playing the blame game.
What will be will be – can’t you invent a cart that copes with the cold and snow, after all that’s why many of you say you use a cart in hot zones.
Just think “Its Good News Week” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4KzGKnuUuc
Melvyn
PS Still cheating IMHO if using distance aids
OTM Spins in his grave while beseeching God... "Oh Lord, why did you have to take young Tommy so soon and leave this one on the earth... "
Melvyn, most of your opinions come from the lunatic fringe, but your completely ill-informed opinions on this subject matter tend to reduce the credibility of even your saner ramblings.
Global warming reflects the fact temperatures measured throughout the globe show the planet is heating up on average .5 celsius degrees per decade. This could change due to certain events the previous decades of warming may cause i.e. Thawing of the permafrost, Greenland breaks apart and disturbs the gulf-stream current which sends northern Europe back to the ice age... It's mostly referred to as climate change because that is the effect of global warming. It also stops half the idiots in the world from saying... "There's no such thing as global warming. I got XX inches of snow in my backyard last night."
Climate change reflects the reality of what people notice. Accepted weather patterns are broken up. Many weather related incidents become more intense or prolonged. People notice their flowers are dying, not that it's .05 degrees warmer than last year.
-
Mr Anthony Butler
Rather nasty thing to say “OTM Spins in his grave while beseeching God... "Oh Lord, why did you have to take young Tommy so soon and leave this one on the earth... " What the hell do you know about Old Tom anyway.
AS for this bollocks about Global warming. No one knows not even you. I am reminded of the talk in the 1960’s of the new pending mini Ice Age about the spread over the Earth, that turned out to be an even hotter 1970’s than expected. Then the 1980’s all seem to settle but by the end up came the hot weather and water reserves very low, running into the 1990’s. Then we move into the 21st Century we are getting mixed messages. But do all our scientist’s agree, of course NOT its still open for debate not to mention the farce of was it Essex Uni who caused some problem last year knowingly pass on false info to back up global warming. The point is no one knows, not even the gifted Anthony Butler, defender of free speech and global warming.
Seems you missed the cull, but with people like you this site is even more limited and restricted because you seem to know it all but alas all you are good for is to vomit crap.
There is a difference in not agreeing with someone and being blood rude about them and introducing dead family members.
What a nice man you are not
Melvyn
-
Melvyn, you get my vote too! I can't apologize for Anthony Butler being rude but I've found so many people being rude now-a-days when they disagree with almost anything. Usually Republicans, but not always.
-
Interesting that Mars is warming up at the same rate as Earth...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1890339.htm
Could it be global climate change is more solar related than man-made?
-
Over morning coffee this morning, my wife and I were speaking of this very subject. The climate/political events this past week have given me great cause for concern.
And two numbers jump out at me: 350 and 600,000,000.I
In 1650, there were roughly 600,000,000 people on Earth.
350 years later, that number is about 7,000,000,000, an increase of 6,400,000,000. That's BILLION.
Estimates indicate that there were about 200,000,000 at 0 AD.
Those numbers kind of frighten me....
David, the cover story of last month's National Geographic was about the increasing global population. Interesting article.
-
I didn't buy in to global climate change until Lou Duran convinced me.
Yes, me, the teacher of teachers; or is it the pedagogue to pedagogues?
Melvyn Hunter Morrow,
You've risen in my estimation, for whatever that's worth.
May I expect your sympathy if not your blessings should I be forced to obtain my doctor's permission to ride a cart during the upcoming King Putter in Bandon?
BTW, while at St. Andrews back in 2003, my family did pay our respects to your famous ancestors. Even my wife, a non-golfer, found the experience to be quite moving.
-
Science does not care if you "believe" or not and science does not care if some talkingheads on cable news network disputes it.
Science is about discovering truths and facts. The fact is the average temperature of the earth is rising and rising pretty fast (at least in geology scale).
That fact does not change just because your house is getting hammered by snow storm. It is just another point of measure among millions. In fact, rise in average temperature means there is more energy in the atmosphere. More energy means you will have more violent storms. That does not mean that the storm that the much of this country is experiencing is due to that, but in the long run you should expect more violent weather swings.
To put it in golfer's point of view, just because Tiger or Phil has a bad tournament or two does not mean that their career is on a decline. That can only be observed over a long period of time.
-
Phillippe, why in the world would you want to throw the chum of global warming to this pack of ravenous piranha?
-
Phillippe, why in the world would you want to throw the chum of global warming to this pack of ravenous piranha?
Some men just want to watch the world burn...
Name the movie.
Gary, Anthony sure isn't a Republican... :)
-
No offense to anyone here, but if you have not studied in this area, or have read extensive scientific journals on the subject then what you are saying is your opinion. And to be honest opinion in science is worth absolutley nothing.
Fact: Climate change is NOT a controversial subject. Climate change is real and 99% of scientists will tell you this. There is not even a debate because we have data to back this up.
The only debate there potentially is is whether or not climate change is anthropogenic or not. In this regard there is slightly less consensus, however the scientific community is still vastly on the side of climate change being anthropogenic.....this means the data is telling us this. Therefore, anthropogenic climate change is not 100% in the bag, however the evidence points us there and computer models support the theory.
To me this is like people saying the Big Bang is wrong because they can't get past the bronze-age myth that the universe was created by God. Follow the science and the data, not your opinions.
-
I didn't BUY into either until Al Gore bought his mansion in Malibu. Happy belated birthday Ayn
-
Mr Anthony Butler
Rather nasty thing to say “OTM Spins in his grave while beseeching God... "Oh Lord, why did you have to take young Tommy so soon and leave this one on the earth... " What the hell do you know about Old Tom anyway.
AS for this bollocks about Global warming. No one knows not even you. I am reminded of the talk in the 1960’s of the new pending mini Ice Age about the spread over the Earth, that turned out to be an even hotter 1970’s than expected. Then the 1980’s all seem to settle but by the end up came the hot weather and water reserves very low, running into the 1990’s. Then we move into the 21st Century we are getting mixed messages. But do all our scientist’s agree, of course NOT its still open for debate not to mention the farce of was it Essex Uni who caused some problem last year knowingly pass on false info to back up global warming. The point is no one knows, not even the gifted Anthony Butler, defender of free speech and global warming.
Seems you missed the cull, but with people like you this site is even more limited and restricted because you seem to know it all but alas all you are good for is to vomit crap.
There is a difference in not agreeing with someone and being blood rude about them and introducing dead family members.
What a nice man you are not
Melvyn
Melvyn,
The point is people do know about global warming... it is real and according to 99.9% of the scientific data available it is caused mostly by our activity here on earth. (The other .1% percent being either inconclusive or paid for by the Cato Institute)
The best scientific knowledge available tells us there have been fluctuations in the earth's temperature since as far back as we can accurately establish, but never at the scale or speed of what's happened since the Industrial Revolution. It is ironic that many people in various parts of the world insist that people live their life according to whatever someone called Jesus or Mohammed or Brigham Young or.. allegedly said hundreds or even thousands of years ago, yet want to call into question everything that the finest scientific minds of today say simply because it doesn't fit into their world view.
Go ahead and have your own ignorant opinions, but don't fault anyone else for believing in what has actually been proved or calling you out when you try to infect people with your bull---t theories.
As far as Old Tom Morris goes, since he probably spent a lot more of life outside than either you or me dealing with the elements, I imagine he would be a lot more sensitized as to the impact our activities are having on the environment. That's why farmers were the first environmentalists. That being the case, he'd probably whack you upside the head with a baffin' spoon for trading on his name instead of following in his footsteps.
-
What, exactly, is the scientific definition of "a long period of time?" How long does a weather pattern have to exist before it is "an accepted weather pattern?"
The earth is 4.5 billion years old. My irons are 20 years old. I think I've had my irons for a very long period of time.
-
I didn't BUY into either until Al Gore bought his mansion in Malibu. Happy belated birthday Ayn
If Al Gore bought a mansion in Malibu it's because he believed in Google, not global warming.
-
What, exactly, is the scientific definition of "a long period of time?" How long does a weather pattern have to exist before it is "an accepted weather pattern?"
The earth is 4.5 billion years old. My irons are 20 years old. I think I've had my irons for a very long period of time.
We have very detailed and precise temperature records (using ice cores and mud cores) going back about several hundred thousand years. We also have more broad temperature records based on fossil and sediment layer information going back several hundred millions years.
I will admit that we have very little record on what the temperature pattern was first 3 billion years or so...
-
What, exactly, is the scientific definition of "a long period of time?" How long does a weather pattern have to exist before it is "an accepted weather pattern?"
The earth is 4.5 billion years old. My irons are 20 years old. I think I've had my irons for a very long period of time.
We have very detailed and precise temperature records (using ice cores and mud cores) going back about several hundred thousand years. We also have more broad temperature records based on fossil and sediment layer information going back several hundred millions years.
I will admit that we have very little record on what the temperature pattern was first 3 billion years or so...
It would be rather spectacular science if they are able to isolate any given 150-year period out of the last 1.5 billion years and study the ups and downs of the thermometer during that time. But then again, if a scientist says he or she can do that, I certainly don't have the expertise to say it can't be done.
-
If climate change is man made, we, as a species, lack the will to stop or reverse it. If it's not, there's probably little we could do anyway. Either way, what will be, will be. In my opinion.
-
I will admit that we have very little record on what the temperature pattern was first 3 billion years or so...
Ask Tom Paul ...
-
I will admit that we have very little record on what the temperature pattern was first 3 billion years or so...
Ask Tom Paul ...
Mucci could give you temperature AND prevailing winds.
-
We have very detailed and precise temperature records (using ice cores and mud cores) going back about several hundred thousand years. We also have more broad temperature records based on fossil and sediment layer information going back several hundred millions years.
I will admit that we have very little record on what the temperature pattern was first 3 billion years or so...
I haven't been here in a while, but I'm glad to see your Geology background can help explain something more worthwhile than Chambers' Doak rating. Which, if I remember correctly falls somewhere in the neighborhood of the UM football win total over FBS schools the past two seasons.
By the way, good luck with your new corch.
-
As per my first paragraph re my post regards volcanoes doing more damage to this small planet, let’s just look to one – which has a potential caldera of 35miles x 45miles and is regarded as a ‘supervolcano’.
When this little beauty goes bang it will not only do more damage than Man has ever achieved but may have the possibility of wiping out life on Earth. This little ball of happiness is located in Yellowstone Park and to my knowledge has no connection to Man and his destructive ways, this is Mother Nature saying whatever we think we can do she can do it so much better.
Or are you going to blame Man, don’t you just love it when people underestimate potential enemies, seems to be Man never ending story, well in some quarters anyway.
Another possibility, why could it not be God and not Man that is causing these problems, after all it life on Earth that is suffering - ops oh yes realize now why it may not be God, the Scientist don’t all believe in him.
Melvyn
-
Another possibility, why could it not be God and not Man that is causing these problems, after all it life on Earth that is suffering - ops oh yes realize now why it may not be God, the Scientist don’t all believe in him.
I vote this the funniest thing I read on the board. This is why you are NOT a scientist.
If you start any unknown problem with "maybe God did it" then you will not go very far in life as a scientist. Tell your God of the gaps that I say hi.
:)
-
Phillippe, why in the world would you want to throw the chum of global warming to this pack of ravenous piranha?
Some men just want to watch the world burn...
Name the movie.
Gary, Anthony sure isn't a Republican... :)
I think that is from the Dark Knight
-
Yep.
-
Science does not care if you "believe" or not and science does not care if some talkingheads on cable news network disputes it.
Science does not have the capacity to "care" as it is not a living, breathing thing. Rather it is an enterprise populated by scientists. These creatures are human and like you and me imperfect beings.
-
Melvyn,
Your volcano rift is interesting. First you mention one or two or three medium volcanos, then counter with the Yellowstone super volcano (and I agree with your stance, up to a point. That is like discussing miniature golf and proving it with the Old Course. Two volcanos are erupting this week. Volcanoes generally affect weather, not climate. Krakatoa emitted so much ash that it is credited with affecting weather for a year. But ash falls from the atmosphere and weather returns to normal.
Great Britain has an interesting history regarding man and weather/climate. The big cities weather has improved many fold with lesser dependence on coal for heating. Ask yourself how many pea-soupers were experienced in the 1850s, 1900 and 1950s versus now?
When you comsider "man-made" remember it includes among other things use of fossil fuels for heat, power and transportation, deforestation for fuel and crop growing, transportation of fuel, raw materails, food and work-commute, the oxygen/carbon-dioxide transfer of all people. It gets worse as the per capita standard of living increases.
I just retrieved my copy of the January 2011 National Geographic magazine (check it out at your library) and the figures earlier provided were as published.
1 AD 200 million people (est.); 1800 - 1 billion; 1930- 2 billion, 1960- 3 billion; 1974 - 4 billion; 1987- 5 billion; 1999- 6 billiom. This year will see us at 7 billion and the projected rates are 8 billion in 2024 and 9 billion in 2045. Looking at the progression of numbers are each milestone is reached 'they' must be predicting a lower birth rate, shorther life span, natural distaters, wars, migrations from Earth or some combination.
-
Mucci could give you temperature AND prevailing winds.
Don't you know WIND is always capitalized
-
Melvyn,
Your volcano rift is interesting. First you mention one or two or three medium volcanos, then counter with the Yellowstone super volcano (and I agree with your stance, up to a point. That is like discussing miniature golf and proving it with the Old Course. Two volcanos are erupting this week. Volcanoes generally affect weather, not climate. Krakatoa emitted so much ash that it is credited with affecting weather for a year. But ash falls from the atmosphere and weather returns to normal.
Great Britain has an interesting history regarding man and weather/climate. The big cities weather has improved many fold with lesser dependence on coal for heating. Ask yourself how many pea-soupers were experienced in the 1850s, 1900 and 1950s versus now?
When you comsider "man-made" remember it includes among other things use of fossil fuels for heat, power and transportation, deforestation for fuel and crop growing, transportation of fuel, raw materails, food and work-commute, the oxygen/carbon-dioxide transfer of all people. It gets worse as the per capita standard of living increases.
Why would you go confuse Melvyn with facts and figures when the man only likes to truck in superstitions and wild theories i.e. Yellowstone Park is out to get us?
To paraphrase someone famous. "We have looked for the enemy and it is us."
Do you think God would have it any other way?
-
Anthony Butler
"Why would you go confuse Melvyn with facts and figures when the man only likes to truck in superstitions and wild theories i.e. Yellowstone Park is out to get us? "
If only, if only but I am not God
So you have decided to ignore Ran request to behave, that show some serious disrespect not only to him but to all the members on this site. You continue having a go, I will not react to a rather unpleasant individual who should know better.
Melvyn
-
Do people need attention from strangers that badly that they start threads simply because it was too cold to start their round in AZ?
Am I missing something?
-
Science does not care if you "believe" or not and science does not care if some talkingheads on cable news network disputes it.
Science does not have the capacity to "care" as it is not a living, breathing thing. Rather it is an enterprise populated by scientists. These creatures are human and like you and me imperfect beings.
Yes, they are imperfect, but that is why the peer-review system is in place. It ensures that "bad science" is eliminated because others can demonstrate flaws thru reasoned argument, data, and calculations. If I were you I wouldn't be so quick to look down upon this method. Science and the peer-review process has been "the process" that has developped every technology in our world that makes our lives better. This is the same process that is saying that climate change is real and anthropogenic.
I do no get offended very easily. But I do find it very insulting when people spout out their opinions as if they think they are right when people like myself have gone to school and studied the research and friends of mine are actually DOING the research. Would you not find it insulting if I told you that at your job, as say a doctor, you do not know how to practice medecine, or are doign it incorrectly, all the while all I know about medecine is what I learned watching a hospital-based television drama? For some reason people feel like their opinion on the subject matter of climate change counts for something. Just something for you detractors, and people in general to keep in mind, because what I just said could apply to many things.
-
The flaw in Melvyns theory of volcano's and climate change is obvious....the volcano is not spewing CO2 resulting in a chemical change in the atmosphere...the buring of fossil fuels is. Anyone that thinks man is not changing his climate probably believes the earth was created in seven days and evolution is a hoax.
-
Science does not care if you "believe" or not and science does not care if some talkingheads on cable news network disputes it.
Science does not have the capacity to "care" as it is not a living, breathing thing. Rather it is an enterprise populated by scientists. These creatures are human and like you and me imperfect beings.
Yes, they are imperfect, but that is why the peer-review system is in place. It ensures that "bad science" is eliminated because others can demonstrate flaws thru reasoned argument, data, and calculations. If I were you I wouldn't be so quick to look down upon this method. Science and the peer-review process has been "the process" that has developped every technology in our world that makes our lives better. This is the same process that is saying that climate change is real and anthropogenic.
I do no get offended very easily. But I do find it very insulting when people spout out their opinions as if they think they are right when people like myself have gone to school and studied the research and friends of mine are actually DOING the research. Would you not find it insulting if I told you that at your job, as say a doctor, you do not know how to practice medecine, or are doign it incorrectly, all the while all I know about medecine is what I learned watching a hospital-based television drama? For some reason people feel like their opinion on the subject matter of climate change counts for something. Just something for you detractors, and people in general to keep in mind, because what I just said could apply to many things.
Matt,
Try being a Superintendent.
-
Rick...ice core samples can tell you quite a lot...dust, plant life, and chemicals in the atmosphere are all preserved in an ice core sample and they have looked at samples going back 100's of thousands of years...keep in mind that all sorts of things travel on the winds and settle out eventually...often on ice sheets....what better place to look at how things were on earth thousands of years ago.
-
Don,
What do you mean? Sorry if I am a little dim!
Craig,
On the last reasearch paper I critiqued the researchers were able to go back 800 000 years.
-
Science does not care if you "believe" or not and science does not care if some talkingheads on cable news network disputes it.
Science does not have the capacity to "care" as it is not a living, breathing thing. Rather it is an enterprise populated by scientists. These creatures are human and like you and me imperfect beings.
Yes, they are imperfect, but that is why the peer-review system is in place. It ensures that "bad science" is eliminated because others can demonstrate flaws thru reasoned argument, data, and calculations. If I were you I wouldn't be so quick to look down upon this method. Science and the peer-review process has been "the process" that has developped every technology in our world that makes our lives better. This is the same process that is saying that climate change is real and anthropogenic.
I do no get offended very easily. But I do find it very insulting when people spout out their opinions as if they think they are right when people like myself have gone to school and studied the research and friends of mine are actually DOING the research. Would you not find it insulting if I told you that at your job, as say a doctor, you do not know how to practice medecine, or are doign it incorrectly, all the while all I know about medecine is what I learned watching a hospital-based television drama? For some reason people feel like their opinion on the subject matter of climate change counts for something. Just something for you detractors, and people in general to keep in mind, because what I just said could apply to many things.
Matt,
Try being a Superintendent.
or a golf pro
or a coach
or a referee
or a waitress
This is probably not a good time to mention how cold of a winter we're having '-'
-
A cold winter or a hot summer is weather....
When you look at the bigger picture...what's the cause of the rain in Austrailia...what's the cause of La Nina...you begin to see how climate change impacts our weather...
Ironically as I type this there's a Chevron commercial on TV and the Chevron shill is saying his company is investing "millions" in alternative energy.....millions...so what would that be? 1% of their oil profits?
-
Science does not care if you "believe" or not and science does not care if some talkingheads on cable news network disputes it.
Science does not have the capacity to "care" as it is not a living, breathing thing. Rather it is an enterprise populated by scientists. These creatures are human and like you and me imperfect beings.
I am sorry, but this is about the dumbest thing I have heard in a long time.
Just because humans are fallible does not mean that facts are fallible otherwise it would not be a fact. For something to be a scientific fact it has to be reproducible and falsifiable. It does not matter if the person who comes up with a scientific theory is not perfect as long as the theory can be tested by anyone and everyone arrives at the same results.
Einstein was far from a perfect human being but he imparted scientific truths that literally moved the heavens and earth. He was also very wrong about Quantum Mechanics, but that didn't matter as the facts from experiments showed how wrong Einstein was.
To say that science is imperfect because humans are imperfect is just dumb and lazy and is an insult to the amazing scientific discoveries throughout the ages.
-
I think China is on to the real way to determine if the AGW science is right. Keep emitting and see what happens.
-
Guys,
Regardless of what you think of the science involved, it's in all our interests to reduce our carbon footprint and particularly to end our dependence on oil imports....How much of the last 100 years of geopolitical history and our current deficit military spending is the result of our getting in bed with oil producing countries?
-
My friend Don,
Superintendents are hardly infalible. In fact, they are wrong quite often. You just happen to be an exception to the rule. :-> (suppose to be a grin emoticom here).
Some "subject experts", particularly those who resort to bullying others with so-called "facts", often make mistakes in the application of their heavily-worn knowledge to a multi-variate world. Unfortunately, when heavily-invested "view-of-the-world" beliefs- and that's all these are- are challenged, out come the insults and invectives. Afterall, both sides can't own the "facts", so, the thinking process goes something like thies "given that I am intelligent, knowledgeable, and 'good', others who differ with me must be 'dumb', 'ignorant', 'stupid', and perhaps not so well motivated".
One of the sorrows of being a parent is watching your child suffer the consequences of mistakes that you could so clearly see coming down the pike, but were unable to disuade them from committing. You just pray that they can cope with the outcomes, and perhaps learn from them. The solace in the aftermath when they come to you and say, "you were right, Dad, I wish I'd had listened to you" hardly offsets the pain of seeing them fail in the first place. But at least you can see it is a positive sign that the cock-shuredness of "youthful exuberance" is being tempered somewhat by experience, maturity, and broader-scope rationality.
Yes, the climate is changing. Like with all natural things, change is the rule. And as is reflected in this thread and several others lately, it has been a difficult weather week in many places. We have several inches of snow on top of ice in North Texas. As "dumb" and "stupid" as this might be, I would welcome a return to some of that global warming.
-
Maybe we could use another GREAT environmentalist like Genghis Khan ! read:
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/was-genghis-khan-historys-greenest-conqueror
-
Everyone needs to see this video. This is why people who are scientifically illiterate should have no opinions on science.
''Sun goes up, sun goes down. Tides comes in, tides goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that!''
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlQj078-uGA
-
Matt - That is very funny.
Hey - I will go with the science on climate change right AFTER they explain how the pyramids got built. How did they get there??
-
Matt,
According to these "scientists" its already too late..
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/02/living-underwater-in-the-year.html
Better start building nuclear plants as fast as you can!
-
Maybe we could use another GREAT environmentalist like Genghis Khan ! read:
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/was-genghis-khan-historys-greenest-conqueror
Green is the new red.
-
I believe the saying goes...."There is no fact in science". The point being just when you think you have the answer you discover something that totally blows your last "fact" right out of the water.
-
Craig, there is no such a thing as "saying" in science.
As we discover new things, our understanding becomes more complete. It does not "blow" away previously established facts.
Newtonian motion was replaced by Relativity because Newtonian motions broke down when scales got incredibly large or very very small. It does not mean that Newtonian motion was wrong. It was indeed correct and factual, it was just not complete.
-
Guys,
Regardless of what you think of the science involved, it's in all our interests to reduce our carbon footprint and particularly to end our dependence on oil imports....How much of the last 100 years of geopolitical history and our current deficit military spending is the result of our getting in bed with oil producing countries?
We import more oil from Canada and Mexico. Do we spend military money on these countries? I have often wondered if a country like ours could ever meet it's demand for energy from completely internal and or friendly sources. Seems to me that the answer is no. I hope I will be proven wrong.
-
Guys,
Regardless of what you think of the science involved, it's in all our interests to reduce our carbon footprint and particularly to end our dependence on oil imports....How much of the last 100 years of geopolitical history and our current deficit military spending is the result of our getting in bed with oil producing countries?
We import more oil from Canada and Mexico. Do we spend military money on these countries? I have often wondered if a country like ours could ever meet it's demand for energy from completely internal and or friendly sources. Seems to me that the answer is no. I hope I will be proven wrong.
Well let's see, Saudi Arabia is 3rd on the list, Venezuela 4th, Nigeria 5th, Algeria 6th, Russia 7th, Iraq 9th, Angola 10th and Kuwait 15th. Wouldn't it be nice to give all these folks the heave-ho? By the way, if the sh*t hit the fan in either Canada or Mexico who do you think would be riding to the rescue?
-
Jud,
What are your solutions?
-
Your point about the rest of our suppliers is well taken. It was just too easy to pick the first 2, but it makes a point. Should all trade with these other countries be given the heave-ho?
Regarding the riding to the rescue of Canada and Mexico, it doesn't make your point for you. We would show up whether we bought oil from them or not. I guess what I am saying is that our military spending is not perfectly aligned with our oil purchases. The carbon question is an economical question disguised as an environmental question. Combine health care reform with cap and trade and you pretty much have control over every breath and action that an American citizen will take in their lifetime. Sounds like freedom to me; not really.
-
Jud,
What are your solutions?
Well for starters I just went from a car getting 18 mpg to one getting 36 and my wife went from 14 to 41. We should all be driving plug-in diesel hybrids that get 50-100 mpg. Don't get me started on health care...
-
Some of us live in snowy hilly areas and use our vehicles to transport things for work. Please don't attempt to speak for us.
My vote is that global warming/climate change is the single most toxic subject on here. I'd be curious to read others' nominations.
-
My vote is that global warming/climate change is the single most toxic subject on here. I'd be curious to read others' nominations.
Merion!
-
Jud,
What are your solutions?
Well for starters I just went from a car getting 18 mpg to one getting 36 and my wife went from 14 to 41. We should all be driving plug-in diesel hybrids that get 50-100 mpg. Don't get me started on health care...
Well that's all well and good, however I was thinking much bigger like switching all long haul trucks to CNG, build lots more nuclear power plants, utilize wind, water and solar as much as possible, higher taxes on oil, etc..
If you want to reduce emissions and reduces our dependance on foreign oil, its going to take a lot more than buying a prius. Especially if you live in a region where all the power is generated by coal.
-
George,
Phil beat me to the punch.
If climate change causes us to focus on cleaner, locally produced energy, then I'm all for it. I'd like to hope that 17 years from now, when my newest grandchild turns 18, he won't be going off to war for oil (or water, for that matter).
-
Some of us live in snowy hilly areas and use our vehicles to transport things for work. Please don't attempt to speak for us.
My vote is that global warming/climate change is the single most toxic subject on here. I'd be curious to read others' nominations.
George,
They're fully capable of making Trucks and SUV's that get dramatically better mileage. It's just a question of time and money...Eventually it'll be cost effective if the will's there. What percentage of SUV and truck owners either live in the mountains or have more than 3 children?
-
Some of us live in snowy hilly areas and use our vehicles to transport things for work. Please don't attempt to speak for us.
My vote is that global warming/climate change is the single most toxic subject on here. I'd be curious to read others' nominations.
Ah, another list thread. I am in.
-
Jud,
What are your solutions?
Well for starters I just went from a car getting 18 mpg to one getting 36 and my wife went from 14 to 41. We should all be driving plug-in diesel hybrids that get 50-100 mpg. Don't get me started on health care...
Well that's all well and good, however I was thinking much bigger like switching all long haul trucks to CNG, build lots more nuclear power plants, utilize wind, water and solar as much as possible, higher taxes on oil, etc..
If you want to reduce emissions and reduces our dependance on foreign oil, its going to take a lot more than buying a prius. Especially if you live in a region where all the power is generated by coal.
Craig,
I agree that a large gas tax would be the most effective tool to move us in this direction, but it's way too politically incorrect...
-
So you have decided to ignore Ran request to behave, that show some serious disrespect not only to him but to all the members on this site. You continue having a go, I will not react to a rather unpleasant individual who should know better.
Melvyn
If Ran has a problem with this thread, I expect to hear it from him. If Old Tom Morris has a problem with what I'm saying, I'd like to hear it from him as well.
Taking offense on behalf of other people is a tactic I'm rather familiar with since every third sentence out of my wife's mouth is; "... your mother (passed away 2008)/father (1996) would be ashamed of you." I don't think this is one of these occasions.
With regard to the word 'opinions' being thrown around here, I seem to recall the tobacco companies used the tactic that scientific data was also "opinion' for many years while they tried to squeeze the last dime out of our grandparents' hacking, wheezing corpse...
-
Jud,
What are your solutions?
Well for starters I just went from a car getting 18 mpg to one getting 36 and my wife went from 14 to 41. We should all be driving plug-in diesel hybrids that get 50-100 mpg. Don't get me started on health care...
Well that's all well and good, however I was thinking much bigger like switching all long haul trucks to CNG, build lots more nuclear power plants, utilize wind, water and solar as much as possible, higher taxes on oil, etc..
If you want to reduce emissions and reduces our dependance on foreign oil, its going to take a lot more than buying a prius. Especially if you live in a region where all the power is generated by coal.
Craig,
I agree that a large gas tax would be the most effective tool to move us in this direction, but it's way too politically incorrect...
too politically incorrect, too economically inefficient, and too tyrannical. How about a large tax on beef. Think of the carbon savings on the front end and the carbon and methane savings on the back end (pardon the pun). Then we have the health care savings to boot. I think we are on to something. Let's tax ourselves into submission.
-
Jeff,
Why do you thing Europe is so much more fuel efficient?
-
My vote is that global warming/climate change is the single most toxic subject on here. I'd be curious to read others' nominations.
Merion!
Damn, how'd I miss that one? I admit to only really considering the OT threads... but Merion is definitely the most toxic overall.
Some of us live in snowy hilly areas and use our vehicles to transport things for work. Please don't attempt to speak for us.
My vote is that global warming/climate change is the single most toxic subject on here. I'd be curious to read others' nominations.
Ah, another list thread. I am in.
:) Thanks, laughed out loud at this one.
-
Jeff,
Why do you thing Europe is so much more fuel efficient?
At what cost? A government mandate does not necessarily bring efficiency to the table. People pay a higher price for fuel and it does drive efficiency in it's use. Of course this comes at the expense of other things that Europeans could do with their hard earned money. Your point is a good one though. It is good to be reminded how effective it can be to simply restrict human activity in exchange for a possibility that a trace gas is the main driver of global average temperature and that the temperature should be lower than it is now.
-
Jeff,
How about not pissing away a Trillion dollars chasing more black gold and protecting our "strategic" interests in Iraq?
-
Jeff,
How about not pissing away a Trillion dollars chasing more black gold and protecting our "strategic" interests in Iraq?
OK.
-
Science does not care if you "believe" or not and science does not care if some talkingheads on cable news network disputes it.
Science does not have the capacity to "care" as it is not a living, breathing thing. Rather it is an enterprise populated by scientists. These creatures are human and like you and me imperfect beings.
Yes, they are imperfect, but that is why the peer-review system is in place. It ensures that "bad science" is eliminated because others can demonstrate flaws thru reasoned argument, data, and calculations. If I were you I wouldn't be so quick to look down upon this method. Science and the peer-review process has been "the process" that has developped every technology in our world that makes our lives better. This is the same process that is saying that climate change is real and anthropogenic.
I do no get offended very easily. But I do find it very insulting when people spout out their opinions as if they think they are right when people like myself have gone to school and studied the research and friends of mine are actually DOING the research. Would you not find it insulting if I told you that at your job, as say a doctor, you do not know how to practice medecine, or are doign it incorrectly, all the while all I know about medecine is what I learned watching a hospital-based television drama? For some reason people feel like their opinion on the subject matter of climate change counts for something. Just something for you detractors, and people in general to keep in mind, because what I just said could apply to many things.
Matt,
I find your response curious, as you make several assumptions and implications about me. I have made nothing more than a factual statement of which you agree in your first few words. From there you accuse me of "looking down" on the peer review process. I have done no such thing. You imply that I have forgotten, or discounted that science has developed every technology in the world. I have made no such statement, and hold no such belief that science has little value. As an aside I would point out that "science" has done no such thing. People have. We owe nothing to science, as it is not a living thing. Humans are responsible for our achievements and have developed the enterprise of science and the pursuit of truth. It is to us that we owe our accomplishments.
You go on to become offended because I have spouted opinion; again I have offered no opinion, just a statement of fact. You make an assumption that I must not have gone to school and studied the research. I must also not have friends DOING the research. Further you imply that I must be developing my opinions based on watching TV, or possibly you believe me not to have the mental acuity to recognize the facts for what they are. Wow, you really drew a lot of information from a few short sentences. Well done. I will now retire to my living room for cartoon watching. While doing so I will wipe the drool from my chin, eat the booger I just picked and contemplate how a man with your soaring intellect and brilliant friends managed to twice misspell medicine. Maybe you were speaking French.
Richard,
I tend not to post on these types of threads, as too many folks resort to name calling. You don’t know me, and I don’t know you, so I will not take offense to being called dumb and lazy. Life is too short to engage in discourse with someone that quickly resorts to such tactics. Candidly, I find it rather revealing.
You also have made some incorrect assumptions in your post. I did not state or imply that because humans are fallible, facts are therefore fallible. I believe no such thing. Furthermore, I am not insulting “the amazing scientific discoveries throughout the ages.” The quest for knowledge, truth and the betterment of the human condition is a noble and needed endeavor. I am not someone who believes that the earth came into existence 6,000 years ago.
It is clear from your response that you believe science to be perfect, as you take issue with my claim that it is imperfect. I stand by my statement. Just because scientists have discovered and proven facts, that does not make the enterprise of science perfect. That is a standard that is not reachable. I struggle to see how that is a controversial statement. The peer review process is not perfect either, as it was developed by and is practiced by humans. That does not mean that I don’t feel that it has value (obviously it does) nor am I dismissive of the discoveries that the peer review process has helped scientists achieve and document. To strive for total and perfect understanding is of great value to us. Let’s just not pretend the system in place eliminates the shortcomings of man. Rather it is the best that we can do.
As for climate change being definitively and factually proven to be anthropogenic, I don’t believe that it has. The imperfectness that I mentioned in my original post I believe to go a bit deeper than “bad science” subject to correction by peer review, as it applies to the research on climate change. I’m sure to you this makes me a boob, or whatever other insults you want to pile on. Somehow I’ll live.
As for now, I must retire to the living room as Bugs Bunny is on. Later, when the show becomes too complicated for me to grasp, I will likely blow bubbles and giggle uncontrollably.
-
Greg, you are welcome to join me watching cartoons anytime.
-
One time our Pumpkin Ridge superintendent Bill Webster explained to me how it felt at the yearly member's meeting, where he gave a "State of the Course" speech. He told me he looked around the room and said to himself,
"Friend, foe, foe, friend, friend, foe..."
People who know me know which side of this argument I stand. Regardless, assuming these energy rich hydrocarbons are a finite resource, name one good reason why we shouldn't try to minimize their use.
-
Butler, fire up the Prius. I want to take a drive in the country today!
-
Butler, fire up the Prius. I want to take a drive in the country today!
Wrong again John.....
For proper pretentiousness, it's "Driver, fire up the Prius. I want to take a drive in the country today!"
-
Science does not care if you "believe" or not and science does not care if some talkingheads on cable news network disputes it.
Science does not have the capacity to "care" as it is not a living, breathing thing. Rather it is an enterprise populated by scientists. These creatures are human and like you and me imperfect beings.
Yes, they are imperfect, but that is why the peer-review system is in place. It ensures that "bad science" is eliminated because others can demonstrate flaws thru reasoned argument, data, and calculations. If I were you I wouldn't be so quick to look down upon this method. Science and the peer-review process has been "the process" that has developped every technology in our world that makes our lives better. This is the same process that is saying that climate change is real and anthropogenic.
I do no get offended very easily. But I do find it very insulting when people spout out their opinions as if they think they are right when people like myself have gone to school and studied the research and friends of mine are actually DOING the research. Would you not find it insulting if I told you that at your job, as say a doctor, you do not know how to practice medecine, or are doign it incorrectly, all the while all I know about medecine is what I learned watching a hospital-based television drama? For some reason people feel like their opinion on the subject matter of climate change counts for something. Just something for you detractors, and people in general to keep in mind, because what I just said could apply to many things.
Matt,
I find your response curious, as you make several assumptions and implications about me. I have made nothing more than a factual statement of which you agree in your first few words. From there you accuse me of "looking down" on the peer review process. I have done no such thing. You imply that I have forgotten, or discounted that science has developed every technology in the world. I have made no such statement, and hold no such belief that science has little value. As an aside I would point out that "science" has done no such thing. People have. We owe nothing to science, as it is not a living thing. Humans are responsible for our achievements and have developed the enterprise of science and the pursuit of truth. It is to us that we owe our accomplishments.
You go on to become offended because I have spouted opinion; again I have offered no opinion, just a statement of fact. You make an assumption that I must not have gone to school and studied the research. I must also not have friends DOING the research. Further you imply that I must be developing my opinions based on watching TV, or possibly you believe me not to have the mental acuity to recognize the facts for what they are. Wow, you really drew a lot of information from a few short sentences. Well done. I will now retire to my living room for cartoon watching. While doing so I will wipe the drool from my chin, eat the booger I just picked and contemplate how a man with your soaring intellect and brilliant friends managed to twice misspell medicine. Maybe you were speaking French.
Richard,
I tend not to post on these types of threads, as too many folks resort to name calling. You don’t know me, and I don’t know you, so I will not take offense to being called dumb and lazy. Life is too short to engage in discourse with someone that quickly resorts to such tactics. Candidly, I find it rather revealing.
You also have made some incorrect assumptions in your post. I did not state or imply that because humans are fallible, facts are therefore fallible. I believe no such thing. Furthermore, I am not insulting “the amazing scientific discoveries throughout the ages.” The quest for knowledge, truth and the betterment of the human condition is a noble and needed endeavor. I am not someone who believes that the earth came into existence 6,000 years ago.
It is clear from your response that you believe science to be perfect, as you take issue with my claim that it is imperfect. I stand by my statement. Just because scientists have discovered and proven facts, that does not make the enterprise of science perfect. That is a standard that is not reachable. I struggle to see how that is a controversial statement. The peer review process is not perfect either, as it was developed by and is practiced by humans. That does not mean that I don’t feel that it has value (obviously it does) nor am I dismissive of the discoveries that the peer review process has helped scientists achieve and document. To strive for total and perfect understanding is of great value to us. Let’s just not pretend the system in place eliminates the shortcomings of man. Rather it is the best that we can do.
As for climate change being definitively and factually proven to be anthropogenic, I don’t believe that it has. The imperfectness that I mentioned in my original post I believe to go a bit deeper than “bad science” subject to correction by peer review, as it applies to the research on climate change. I’m sure to you this makes me a boob, or whatever other insults you want to pile on. Somehow I’ll live.
As for now, I must retire to the living room as Bugs Bunny is on. Later, when the show becomes too complicated for me to grasp, I will likely blow bubbles and giggle uncontrollably.
My first paragraph was addressed to you, the rest of it was not and was meant to be more general. Sorry for not making that clear. It would have saved you some typing and the ad-hominum attacks on my spelling. And yes, as a matter fo fact I live in Montreal, which is a french speaking place, so I often mistake the spelling of similar words.
But let me address one thing. Yes, you are right, humans are responsible for the incredible technological acheivements. However, I said it is the peer-review structure that is at the heart of these acheivements. It enables ideas to be shared and challenged. It is this very framework that ensures that the science is legitimate.
I hope I spelled everything correctly. I'm too lazy to re-read what I typed.
-
No, no. As those of us who have met him know, JK is a man of simple tastes if not modest means. His pilot and butler split driving duties in deference to current economic times and his sensitivity to not being seen as ostentatious or prolifigate. The Prius, however, is turbocharged.
Mr. Clark,
I must say, your screed is disturbing. Though I can't recommend picking one's nose, watching Bugs Bunny is greatly underrated. I do find that it often takes repeated viewings of the same episode to gain a full understanding. Catching Glen Beck right afterwards can facilitate absorption. However, for total immersion, you should set your TIVO to Joel Osteen and watch, in order, one episode of Bugs, a half segment of Beck, and 15 minutes of Osteen right before you go to bed. If you are anything like me, when you get up in the morning you'll feel much smarter, maybe like you're pushing your IQ quotient to just under three digits. :D)
-
Richard...perhaps the 'saying' is "there are no truths in science"?
-
I thought the saying was, "There are no truths outside the gates of Eden."
-
Richard...perhaps the 'saying' is "there are no truths in science"?
Newton's LAWS of motion. It has been tested and proven. So yes, there are truths in science.
Richard was trying to say that new understandings of our universe are built upon old understandings. It's not to say that these old understandings were wrong. In fact, they were correct, but did not maybe apply to the entire picture.
Like Richard (I think) said,
1915: Einstein's General throry of relativity BUILDS UPON Newtonian physics and gives us a new, more intricate understanding of the universe. Newton could calculate where a planet should be with tremendous accuracy, however he did not know WHY it was there. That is what einstein taught us.
In the 1920's quatum mechanics(led by Neils Bohr amongst others) showed that Einstein's view of the universe was limited. His equations only worked on large objects, but broke down at the atomic level. Quantum mechanics had a solution for this. However Einstein did not like quatum mechanics and did not take well to it. However, the PEER-Review process showed that Quantum mechanics was indeed reall, and that in fact the particles that make up our bodies are everywhere in the universe at the same time. Peer-review did not care that a genius like Einstein did not think this theory was right. So no, it is not individuals that necissarily are at the heart of science, it is the peer-review collection!
Right now physicists think string theory might be the answer to unite the world of small and the large. We do not know if they are right yet, however, even if they are it does not discredit what Newton, Einstein, or Neils Bohr did previously. What they did was right in certain scenarios, but ultimatley something new will come along that will build upon their knowledge and give us a more complete view of the world we live in.
-
I always like Newton's quotes.. specially the 2nd below from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
Amicus Plato — amicus Aristoteles — magis amica veritas
* Plato is my friend — Aristotle is my friend — but my greatest friend is truth.
These are notes in Latin that Newton wrote to himself that he titled: Quaestiones Quaedam Philosophicae [Certain Philosophical Questions] (c. 1664)
Variant translations: Plato is my friend, Aristotle is my friend, but my best friend is truth.
* If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.
Letter to Robert Hooke (15 February 1676) [dated as 5 February 1675 using the Julian calendar with March 25th rather than January 1st as New Years Day, equivalent to 15 February 1676 by Gregorian reckonings]
* I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called a hypothesis, and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.
Letter to Robert Hooke (15 February 1676) [5 February 1675 (O.S.)]
-
ALLRIGHT!!!!! Perhaps the saying is "There are no absolutes in science"?
-
Craig,
Absolute zero!!?? Getting closer in Chicago anyway!
Colin
-
The Republicans just put a guy who believes God will handle the challenge of global warming for us so there's no need for any carbon emissions policy or renewable energy investment.
Why will I not be surprised when Chevron and Exxon finally figure out how to globally manufacture and distribute some kind of renewable energy substitute for oil all of a sudden 'clean energy' will zoom to the top of the 'national agenda' for the GOP.
Honestly, it's so far past 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." with these people that anyone who keeps swallowing this garbage deserves everything they get. The unfortunate part is that the rest of have to suffer along with the fools.
-
I think all climate change and human caused climate change deniers should be locked in a room with prof brian cox until they see sense.
What a guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aXuQ9Dg2gE&feature=related
-
I think all climate change and human caused climate change deniers should be locked in a room with prof brian cox until they see sense.
What a guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aXuQ9Dg2gE&feature=related
Oooh lovely floppy hair on 'im...
I'll wager this guy gets more undergraduate p__ntang at the University of Nottingham than Prof. Indiana Jones
-
I do wish Al Gore would take some of the money earned on his zinc mine, courtesy of Armand Hammer, less the amount spend on his heated driveway and whatever is needed to clean up Caney Creek next to the zinc mine, and put out the second edition of his book.
-
Craig,
Absolute zero!!?? Getting closer in Chicago anyway!
Colin
how about -40 F = -40 C ?
-
Ross,
Perhaps that professor could explain how the traffic on the LIE melted the glaciers that covered Long Island.
I don't believe that anyone has been able to quantify the incremental impact that humans have had on global warming.
Are some environmentalists suggesting that we have a large scale thermonuclear exchange, thus causing a long term nuclear winter, which will in turn cool off the planet for quite a while ?(;;)
Do some suggest limiting our global population to its current number ?(;;)
And, do others think that the expansion and development of civilization should cease ?(;;)
I'd certainly like to see our dependency on oil, especially foreign oil reduced considerably.
While I hate to admit it, the French appear to have gotten it right, with solving most of their energy needs.
-
Global warming reflects the fact temperatures measured throughout the globe show the planet is heating up on average .5 celsius degrees per decade.
That doesn't seem right at all. That would reflect about a 10 degree fahrenheit increase in the last century, which no one is claiming. I thought the claim was that global average temperatures had risen .8 degrees Celsius since 1880.
Matt, what is it that you do?
-
Global warming reflects the fact temperatures measured throughout the globe show the planet is heating up on average .5 celsius degrees per decade.
That doesn't seem right at all. That would reflect about a 10 degree fahrenheit increase in the last century, which no one is claiming. I thought the claim was that global average temperatures had risen .8 degrees Celsius since 1880.
Matt, what is it that you do?
Sorry made a backwards conversion there. It's more like .2 celsius in the most recent decades. Again that's an average. In different parts of the world they are experiencing higher increases. Because global warming triggers extreme weather episodes, something like this winter will reverse things temperature-wise for a few years.
I'm no scientist, but I have done a lot of work in this area with environmental groups and energy efficiency organizations. From my vantage point, it seems water shortages will soon be a more urgent issue globally than climate change. although they are interrelated. An investment in the desalination industry might pan out in the long term. Energy prices will also become an issue in the next few decades. As the price of oil rises, of course, oil shale and oil sand extraction become more commercially viable.
The average Western European's carbon footprint is almost half that of the average US citizen is due to three major factors:
• Smaller/more energy efficient homes & buildings (unless your proposed structure is LEED Platinum-standard, you can't get a construction loan in some countries)
• Lower % of car ownership and smaller cars on average (due in large part to the cost of gas-a social engineering policy with enormous benefits for the countries who adopted this policy.)
• Large utility scale nuclear development and with solar energy on a similar scale coming.
-
Would anyone here debate the existence of dinosaurs? Probably not, so why question scientists when it comes to climate change?
-
Would anyone here debate the existence of dinosaurs? Probably not, so why question scientists when it comes to climate change?
Because 'scientists' would have you believe that dinosaurs pre-dated human habitation.
-
Global warming reflects the fact temperatures measured throughout the globe show the planet is heating up on average .5 celsius degrees per decade.
That doesn't seem right at all. That would reflect about a 10 degree fahrenheit increase in the last century, which no one is claiming. I thought the claim was that global average temperatures had risen .8 degrees Celsius since 1880.
Matt, what is it that you do?
I am an Environmental Scientist. Needless to say, my background had me studying a lot on paleoclimatology. Currently, I am working to reduce industrial wastewater pollution.
-
Regardless, assuming these energy rich hydrocarbons are a finite resource, name one good reason why we shouldn't try to minimize their use.
There isn't, all other things being equal, or assuming that doing so is cost-free. But it's not, of course, and even if you assume that the globe is warming as a result (at least in part) of human activity, that doesn't answer the very difficult question of how much we should be spending to try to stop it. One of the problems with the debate (not here, out in the real world) is that some people use concerns about global warming as a way to push for pre-existing agendas....
-
The average Western European's carbon footprint is almost half that of the average US citizen is due to three major factors:
Serious question -- what is their average economic output/person?
-
Global warming reflects the fact temperatures measured throughout the globe show the planet is heating up on average .5 celsius degrees per decade.
That doesn't seem right at all. That would reflect about a 10 degree fahrenheit increase in the last century, which no one is claiming. I thought the claim was that global average temperatures had risen .8 degrees Celsius since 1880.
Matt, what is it that you do?
I am an Environmental Scientist. Needless to say, my background had me studying a lot on paleoclimatology. Currently, I am working to reduce industrial wastewater pollution.
Thanks. What is your view on the current state of the science on whether the climate change that has occurred over the last century has caused/is causing extreme weather?
-
The average Western European's carbon footprint is almost half that of the average US citizen is due to three major factors:
Serious question -- what is their average economic output/person?
EU GDP 15.1 trilliion (IMF stat), pop. 500 million
US GDP 14.6 trillion (IMF), pop. 300 million
-
The average Western European's carbon footprint is almost half that of the average US citizen is due to three major factors:
Serious question -- what is their average economic output/person?
The more relevant comparison is GDP per capita. Here's the latest stats from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita
As you can see the top 10 is comprised of 6 Western European countries, three countries rich in natural resources (and not a lot of people) and the US in 9th place. The next 10 are 7 Western European countries. 1 resource rich country, another country that is essentially a large trading port and Japan.
You can, of course, distort the meaning of this question by including EU countries like Belarus and all the former Iron Curtain countries who were essentially operating third world economies until very recently
-
Pat Mucci...there are several ways to change the climate....Melvyn mentioned volcanic activity...and it would appear that has happened more than once...another would be a collision with a large object, such as a meteor....and it would appear that has happened more than once....THE DIFFERENCE between "man made" climate change, and those "naturally" occuring events...is we are changing the chemical make up of our atmosphere in a manner that allows more heating.
Interestingly, as the climate warms, areas that have been frozen and "holding" carbon, thaw and release that carbon, compounding the problem.
-
The average Western European's carbon footprint is almost half that of the average US citizen is due to three major factors:
Serious question -- what is their average economic output/person?
The more relevant comparison is GDP per capita. Here's the latest stats from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita
As you can see the top 10 is comprised of 6 Western European countries, three countries rich in natural resources (and not a lot of people) and the US in 9th place. The next 10 are 7 Western European countries. 1 resource rich country, another country that is essentially a large trading port and Japan.
You can, of course, distort the meaning of this question by including EU countries like Belarus and all the former Iron Curtain countries who were essentially operating third world economies until very recently
How about we pick three countries that are relatively similar to the US -- the UK, France, and Germany. Do you know what the ratio of their per capita carbon footprint is to their per capita GDP, and how that stacks up against the US? I have no idea what the answer is, but that seems to be at least a relevant comparison.
-
Would anyone here debate the existence of dinosaurs?
Probably not, so why question scientists when it comes to climate change?
That's a hell of an analogy.
One based on physical evidence and the other based on theory.
Which scientists shouldn't we question ?
Are you aware that accepted theories on cancer, developed by hard working, brilliant scientists, have subsequently been proven wrong ?
So, which scientists shouldn't we question ?
Never forget what Charlie Chan said to number two son.
I don't think anyone doubts that global warming is a fact. Maybe some do.
As to the incremental effect that humans have had on global warming, I don't think anyone has proven their incremental theory.
-
Have you scientists read the emails from East Anglia and the CRU?
Here's a summary:
"Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more."
Like anything else the main science here is economics -- just follow the money and incentives.
-
How about dinosaur dung? vs geochemical vs terrestial sources of hydrocarbons?
Do those claiming a finite supply of hydrocarbons in the world use that claim as a basis of slowing their use or increasing their use... i've lost track?
one could say france had "energy policy" right, but they have a pretty active chemical industry like most of europe.. one that's always been pressed for feestocks..
always interesting to think that mother earth has been producing and trapping hydrocarbons from the beginning, a little of this way, a little of that, a little of a lot here, a little or a lot there..
EXAMPLE
Molecular geochemical evidence for the origin of natural gas from dissolved hydrocarbon in Ordovician formation waters in central Ordos Basin
Li Xianqing, Hou Dujie, Tang Youjun, Hu Guoyi and Xiong Bo
Having studied the biomarker composition and maturity of dissolved hydrocarbons from Ordovician formation waters, the authors presented molecular geochemical evidence for the controversial origin of natural gases in central Ordos Basin. The dissolved hydrocarbons in Well Shan 12 and Well Shan 78 are relatively high in abundance of tricylic terpane, pregnane series and dibenzothiophene series and low in Pr/Ph (< 2) and hopane/sterane ratios, indicating the source input of marine carbonates. In contrast, the dissolved hydrocarbons in Well Shan 81 are free from tricyclic terpane and pregnane series, with trace dibenzothiophene series and high Pr/ Ph (3.27) and higher hopane/sterane ratios, which are the typical features of terrestrial organic matter. Furthermore, Well Shan 37 and Well Shan 34 are between the two situations, having a mixed source of marine carbonate and terrestrial organic matter. The maturity of biomarkers also supports the above suggestions. These results are consistent with the geological background and source rock distribution in this region.
-
Let's just start with getting off the middle east oil teat...
-
Have you scientists read the emails from East Anglia and the CRU?
Here's a summary:
"Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more."
Like anything else the main science here is economics -- just follow the money and incentives.
Buck:
There are also financial incentives in play for the powers that be; indeed, those financial incentives are what give them the money to fight the science so hard. Just follow the money and incentives.
-
Oil & Gas lobbying expenditures went from about $75mm/annum under Bush to about $175mm/annum under Obama...Coincidence?
-
That $175 million for lobbyist is a drop in the bucket when balanced against the BILLIONS in tax breaks and subsidies the oil and gas industry gets...last time I checked it was close to $90 billion a year.
-
Global warming reflects the fact temperatures measured throughout the globe show the planet is heating up on average .5 celsius degrees per decade.
That doesn't seem right at all. That would reflect about a 10 degree fahrenheit increase in the last century, which no one is claiming. I thought the claim was that global average temperatures had risen .8 degrees Celsius since 1880.
Matt, what is it that you do?
I am an Environmental Scientist. Needless to say, my background had me studying a lot on paleoclimatology. Currently, I am working to reduce industrial wastewater pollution.
Thanks. What is your view on the current state of the science on whether the climate change that has occurred over the last century has caused/is causing extreme weather?
Temperature = energy
Increase the temperature in a system = increased energy in a system
More energy = more potential for large/extreme weather systems
It's basically simple thermodynamics.
-
Have you scientists read the emails from East Anglia and the CRU?
Here's a summary:
"Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more."
Like anything else the main science here is economics -- just follow the money and incentives.
Buck:
There are also financial incentives in play for the powers that be; indeed, those financial incentives are what give them the money to fight the science so hard. Just follow the money and incentives.
Tom-
I don't disagree with that but lets not make scientists out to be some group of altruists. Would it be financially/professionally easier to be a climate change believer or denier? How many sceptics are going to get tenure in the PC environment we are in.
-
Interesting take on it Buck. I would think the real big money would come from the oil and gas industries and it is not going to those who preach climate change...
-
I don't understand what the denialists get out of doing their thing. Are they getting paid off by the carbon industry? Do they need to see a major city underwater to be convinced?
-
Here is Bill O'Reilly's response to the "pin-heads" who mocked him for his "time comes in, tide goes out" comments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M&feature=player_embedded#]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M&feature=player_embedded#]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M&feature=player_embedded# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M&feature=player_embedded#)
With logic like this, it is a wonder scientists even bother to even try and argue their case.
-
Buck,
".......but lets not make scientists out to be some group of altruists.........How many sceptics are going to get tenure in the PC environment we are in."
A more worrying question is how many scientists are able to get tenure fullstop?!!. I've watched science from the sidelines as a life-science/microscopy technician for the last 45 years and I believe scientists are very much altruistic. Why else would they keep plugging away at a relatively poorly paid job with long hours, a peer review second to none other, lack of promotional prospects and no promise of continuing employment. The vast, vast majority are passionate about truth in science and love the scientific paradigm. It verges on being vocational and I think this is altruistic.
Cheers Colin
-
Here is Bill O'Reilly's response to the "pin-heads" who mocked him for his "time comes in, tide goes out" comments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M&feature=player_embedded#]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M&feature=player_embedded#]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M&feature=player_embedded# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M&feature=player_embedded#)
With logic like this, it is a wonder scientists even bother to even try and argue their case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt5Xn9X6xtU&feature=channel
:)
-
First of all very few people actually deny that climate changes occur. I am old enough to remember the coming ice age in the 70's after all. :)
There are a number of problems with the human caused global warming claims. One is that the scientist offer no real solutions and another is that their spokes people are all filthy rich guys with multiple mansions who fly in jets to talk about how the little people are destroying the planet. Also people who claim the debate is over and ridicule people who don't believe the way they do, that just comes off a little preachy.
When Al Gore sells all his material goods and moves into a solar powered yurt and takes the train to his conferences maybe he will gain some credibility. Ed Begley Jr. should be the model that others aspire too.
I have faith that there the world's best scientists are working on real solutions, because that's what they do. However, like all professions however there are people who research problems (engineers) and there are people who actually fix problems (techicians). Spend less time preaching and more time fixing.
-
I am in the Kirk camp. Why in the hell do we have to argue about the impact of humans on the ecological system? Isn't it enough to know that we are falling far short of doing what we can (without endangering the economy) to reduce our footprint? I can understand turnng a blind eye to the science debate, but it takes a numbskull to ignore the concept of reducing the footprint as goal to strive toward.
Ciao
-
http://www.gizmag.com/volvo-v60-plug-in-hybrid-diesel-geneva/17712/
http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/25/volkswagens-xl1-concept-plug-in-diesel-hybrid-has-313mpg-fuel-e/
-
Anecdotal yes, but if temperature record and peer review cannot be trusted, then what are we to do? Is it really warming in an alarming fashion on the western peninsula of Antarctica?
http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/07/eric-steigs-duplicity/#comments
-
I am in the Kirk camp. Why in the hell do we have to argue about the impact of humans on the ecological system? Isn't it enough to know that we are falling far short of doing what we can (without endangering the economy) to reduce our footprint? I can understand turnng a blind eye to the science debate, but it takes a numbskull to ignore the concept of reducing the footprint as goal to strive toward.
Sean, I'd agree.
But, I have to ask, would you buy an electric car today ?
The pocketbook seems to be the fastest educator.
We have to educate and incentivize people to change their behavior and I don't think we've done a good job at that.
In addition, we've politicized the issue and process of conversion, and that's not good.
Asking people to return to nature, ala Ed Begley, isn't the answer.
Low cost, efficient alternatives may be the answer.
Solar power is a good example. It's too expensive to justify massive conversions.
-
I am in the Kirk camp. Why in the hell do we have to argue about the impact of humans on the ecological system? Isn't it enough to know that we are falling far short of doing what we can (without endangering the economy) to reduce our footprint? I can understand turnng a blind eye to the science debate, but it takes a numbskull to ignore the concept of reducing the footprint as goal to strive toward.
Sean, I'd agree.
But, I have to ask, would you buy an electric car today ?
The pocketbook seems to be the fastest educator.
We have to educate and incentivize people to change their behavior and I don't think we've done a good job at that.
In addition, we've politicized the issue and process of conversion, and that's not good.
Asking people to return to nature, ala Ed Begley, isn't the answer.
Low cost, efficient alternatives may be the answer.
Solar power is a good example. It's too expensive to justify massive conversions.
How about narrow fairways and small greens for everyone?
-
I am in the Kirk camp. Why in the hell do we have to argue about the impact of humans on the ecological system? Isn't it enough to know that we are falling far short of doing what we can (without endangering the economy) to reduce our footprint? I can understand turnng a blind eye to the science debate, but it takes a numbskull to ignore the concept of reducing the footprint as goal to strive toward.
Sean, I'd agree.
But, I have to ask, would you buy an electric car today ?
The pocketbook seems to be the fastest educator.
We have to educate and incentivize people to change their behavior and I don't think we've done a good job at that.
In addition, we've politicized the issue and process of conversion, and that's not good.
Asking people to return to nature, ala Ed Begley, isn't the answer.
Low cost, efficient alternatives may be the answer.
Solar power is a good example. It's too expensive to justify massive conversions.
However,
Pat
At the moment, no I wouldn't consider a hybrid car. However, that is as much about self preservation as anything as my wife works for Jag and there isn't that much upside compared to the well engineered diesels I can buy. That said, the day is coming! However, I do live in a smaller house and use smaller appliances than I would like and can afford. I drive a smaller engine car than I would like and can afford. I recycle and thats a drag. I used crappy energy saving light bulbs before they became black market items and use recyclable batteries which are never as good as a proper battery. I plan car journies to max out the efficiency of the journey. These are conscious choices to play my little part or at least off set my excesses of travel. After a while one doesn't even feel that much envy for others - tee hee.
Ciao
-
Pat,
I wouldn't buy an electric car today because they don't have the range or infrastructure. But I would buy a plug-in diesel hybrid that didn't sacrifice looks or performance (Fisker Karma anyone?). The technology is on our doorstep. Frankly, about the only thing Obama's done which I'm 100% behind is the increase in required fleet MPG.
-
I am in the Kirk camp. Why in the hell do we have to argue about the impact of humans on the ecological system? Isn't it enough to know that we are falling far short of doing what we can (without endangering the economy) to reduce our footprint? I can understand turnng a blind eye to the science debate, but it takes a numbskull to ignore the concept of reducing the footprint as goal to strive toward.
Ciao
This is the real shame of it. Global warming has become a religious issue in politics that in many ways is no different than the debate on abortion or gay marriage. There are extremists on both sides who are so dug into their POV that it is like speaking to a brick wall. Each major party in the US has their official position that is nearly a litmus test for being electable in that party (as a new candidate, as always, guys who have been around for decades can and will occasionally deviate from their party's doctrine)
If the debate wasn't so extreme, those who don't subscribe to global warming (or to global warming as being human caused) might have some incentive to at least do something. As it is, they fight any regulation that would help the environment, from higher MPG standards for cars to curbside recycling, because they see it all as a slippery slope where they will eventually be told what kind of car they're allowed to buy and fined for throwing away a magazine instead of recycling it.
If it wasn't for this siege mentality caused by the extremists on the other side, maybe their next vehicle would be higher mileage - maybe they still get a big honkin' SUV, but they pick the most efficient of the big honkin' SUVs. Or they can be convinced to conserve energy in their homes, if they can be shown it will save them money - even if that savings comes later in terms of avoiding future rate increases by helping to avoid building another power plant. They could do the easy recycling - maybe they recycle some stuff but not other stuff depending on how hard it is to sort and store.
But many anti-GW extremists almost take it as a point of pride to be wasteful, as if it is showing up those pro-GW extremists, who if they had their way would limit families to one car, hybrid/electric only, mandate immediate replacement of incandescent bulbs, and have thermostats that couldn't be set lower than 78* in summer or higher than 62* in winter. They have the same smug holier-than-thou air about their conservation efforts as they point to all the evidence for GW that a bible thumper has when they condemn gay marriage and point to verses from scripture supporting their position.
As a result we become fixated on pointless things, like the "phantom power" from charging devices that are plugged in when not in use. Sure, most little wall wart cell phone chargers wasting energy when plugged in without the phone attached, but it is such a tiny amount compared to even simple measures like retiring the 40 year old fridge you use in the garage to keep extra beer on hand, or fixing air leaks around ill-fitting windows. Worrying about a watt lost (even when it is 24x7x365) on a couple wall warts is like schoolchildren collecting pennies to help pay down the national debt. It might make you feel good, but it distracts from doing something that would have more impact.
-
Doug it is estimated that "phantom power" amounts to a little over 10% of your total home energy use....over the course of a year the savings would be a free month of energy!
My take on the whole GW issue is the fossil fuel industry has spent a few billion dollars to muddy the waters and plant a seed of doubt. Politicians from oil/gas/coal states use this seed of doubt or cover while racking in millions in campaign contributions.
Congress should be like NASCAR and our Congressmen should have to wear the patches of their sponsors on their suits.
-
Doug,
What I think you and many others forget is that people have greater concerns facing them than watching the wattage on their light bulbs.
Employment issues, income and expense issues, marital problems, problems with their kids, costs to educate, health issues, health costs, etc. etc..
All of these very real issues that people face every day demote environmental issues to low man on the totem pole.
It makes sense to be environmentally aware, but, "The Sky is Falling" mantra that we hear too often, is both extreme and far removed from the pressing problems of everyday life.
In addition, you seem to forget about "NIMBY".
Often a reasonable project gets shot down for no other reason than "NIMBY"
And, that includes pro-environmental folks too
Maybe Three Mile Island and/or the movie, "China Syndrome" contributed to that mindset, but, it's a very real impediment to energy saving installations, be they windmill farms or nuclear power plants.
And, what remains unquantified, is the degree to which man influences the GW process.
I like to recycle, I advocated recycling at clubs where I was a board member. I tried energy saving light bulbs and found out that many were defective and those that worked didn't throw off enough light for my impaired eyes. I thought smaller cars would be great until a woman on a cell phone driving at 50+mph hit me while I was waiting to make a left turn. The police tell me that my life was spared because I was in a big car. Advocates of smaller, energy saving cars should be forced to car pool with their kids friends before making any purchase. Again, life and life experiences influence the degree in which people respond to issues, environmental and otherwise.
What may concern you, may be of no concern to your neighbor and vice versa.
I think problems begin when one faction attempts to dictate a life style for other factions.
In the ultimate, whether you like it or not, the "pocketbook" is the great motivator.
If the incremental cost is negligible, people won't react or respond and environmental issues, to many people, are de minimis, today.
My point is, that most people don't place a high priority on environmental issues because they have so many, more immediate, issues to deal with and the environmental issues don't impact their pocketbook in a meaningful way.
If we could bury all of the used fisionable material that's a byproduct of nuclear reactors, safely on Mars, do you think we'd follow the French National energy policy and reduce our dependency on foreign oil ?
-
From the Unskeptical Guide to the Skeptics Handbook by Joanne Nova
"Carbon on it’s own causes 1 measly paltry pathetic degree of warming if carbon doubles. If feedbacks are negative, which Douglass, Spencer, and Lindzen show from three independent data sources, then the world will warm by around half a degree over 200 years. Carbon dioxide could well be warming the planet, but the entire quantitative effect is not worth worrying about. And yes, I’m aware of criticisms of Lindzen and Choi, but I’ve seen the update for 2010, and the results still suggest feedback is negative."
There is no catastrophic warming consensus except among those that have an interest in taking freedom from those less connected to protect it. Some may want an elimination of fossil fuel usage or a reduction to a level that can be supported nationally or at least by friendly sources. That is all well and good but cannot be tied to some future threat to climate. Divorcing the two thwarts the need to increase the cost of carbon based energy to a level that makes other sources of energy economically viable. Some countries can just dictate lifestyle changes for their citizens. Dr. Hansen praises China's methods in directing economic activity and finds it preferable to ours. This is no coincidence. America will be the last fruit to fall from the tree and rightly so. Man made catastrophic warming advocates hope that this happens before a cooling trend starts. Too late.
-
Pat and George,
Here you go. Plug-in hybrid Range Rover Sport by 2015:
http://www.egmcartech.com/2010/05/12/range-rover-hybrid-coming-in-2013-plug-in-hybrid-version-coming-in-2015/
-
Jeff Taylor...Joanne Nova has be totally debunked. She has a very flimsy grasp of the science....and for what its worth, the Heartland Foundation that employes her receives a lot of its funding from oil/gas/coal companies.
There absolutely is a consensus that man's burning of fossil fuels is impacting our climate. But I guess there are those, with a huge financial interest in the continued use of fossil fuels, who will repeat over and over and over again that there is no connection between burning fossil fuels and climate change until they have everyone believing them. Its the big lie...like Reagan was a tax cutter or Obama will set up death panels...they say long enough until it becomes the " truth".
-
Jeff Taylor...Joanne Nova has be totally debunked. She has a very flimsy grasp of the science....and for what its worth, the Heartland Foundation that employes her receives a lot of its funding from oil/gas/coal companies.
There absolutely is a consensus that man's burning of fossil fuels is impacting our climate. But I guess there are those, with a huge financial interest in the continued use of fossil fuels, who will repeat over and over and over again that there is no connection between burning fossil fuels and climate change until they have everyone believing them. Its the big lie...like Reagan was a tax cutter or Obama will set up death panels...they say long enough until it becomes the " truth".
You are correct Craig. There is no shortage of repetition on either side. If repetition is proof of being wrong then we both have a problem. I think it is Lindzen and Choi that needs to be debunked. So far, not so.
-
I think it is Lindzen and Choi that needs to be debunked. So far, not so.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/first-published-response-to-lindzen-and-choi/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042314.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL043051.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042911.shtml
-
The lack of understanding of science and the peer-review process on this messageboard is scary to me.
Grabbing one source that backs up your bullshit doesn't validate your point of view.
Watch how I can do the same thing. This is my theory: The Earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs lived with man and the grand canyon was caused by a global flood. My source, Kent Hovind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJXtXUcXw2U&feature=related
You can't prove me wrong because Kent Hovind says so.
-
Matt
Would you say there is any truth in the following statements or are they also just bullshit
“One medium size volcano erupting would match what Man has done in a 100 years of pollution. Two would probably match what Man has done since the Industrial Revolution. Three covers the full damage Man has done since he first farted.”
“………. regards volcanoes doing more damage to this small planet, let’s just look to one – which has a potential caldera of 35miles x 45miles and is regarded as a ‘supervolcano’.
When this little beauty goes bang it will not only do more damage than Man has ever achieved but may have the possibility of wiping out life on Earth. This little ball of happiness is located in Yellowstone Park and to my knowledge has no connection to Man and his destructive ways, this is Mother Nature saying whatever we think we can do she can do it so much better.”
Bullshit or possible?
Melvyn
-
The lack of understanding of science and the peer-review process on this messageboard is scary to me.
Grabbing one source that backs up your bullshit doesn't validate your point of view.
Watch how I can do the same thing. This is my theory: The Earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs lived with man and the grand canyon was caused by a global flood. My source, Kent Hovind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJXtXUcXw2U&feature=related
You can't prove me wrong because Kent Hovind says so.
And yet you still offer no solutions.
How'd the peer review process work out for the guy that connected autism and vaccinations?
Don't you have any faith in your fellow scientists to come up with solutions?
-
I think it is Lindzen and Choi that needs to be debunked. So far, not so.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/first-published-response-to-lindzen-and-choi/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042314.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL043051.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042911.shtml
Well done David.
http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/05/03/lindzen-and-chois-new-paper-out-confirms-negative-feedback-unlike-agw-climate-models/
The battle of the models continues. Sounds like good Super Bowl halftime fun.
-
The battle of the models continues. Sounds like good Super Bowl halftime fun.
First off, I don't think we are talking about a battle of the models here. As I understand it, Lindzen was severely criticized for playing fast and loose with data and selectively choosing start and finishing points in an already artificially limited data set, essentially throwing out portions of the data which would have undermined his claimed results. In other words, it was criticized as extremely shoddy science, at best.
So, contrary to your original claim, Lindzen's conclusions were thoroughly refuted, and even Lindzen acknowledged that his study was seriously flawed! "This work was subject to significant criticism by Trenberth et al. [2009], much of which was appropriate."
As for his 2010 paper and whether or not it actually corrected the flaws of the first paper as he claims, who knows? The paper is available online and was apparently submitted to professional publications for peer review, but has it ever been published in a reputable publication? I don't know. The paper does not appear in his list of publications on his website.
-
Matt
Would you say there is any truth in the following statements or are they also just bullshit
“One medium size volcano erupting would match what Man has done in a 100 years of pollution. Two would probably match what Man has done since the Industrial Revolution. Three covers the full damage Man has done since he first farted.”
“………. regards volcanoes doing more damage to this small planet, let’s just look to one – which has a potential caldera of 35miles x 45miles and is regarded as a ‘supervolcano’.
When this little beauty goes bang it will not only do more damage than Man has ever achieved but may have the possibility of wiping out life on Earth. This little ball of happiness is located in Yellowstone Park and to my knowledge has no connection to Man and his destructive ways, this is Mother Nature saying whatever we think we can do she can do it so much better.”
Bullshit or possible?
Melvyn
Melvyn,
Leaning towards BS. A quick check of Wikipedia for supervolcanoes lists major eruptions. The largest one, in Indoneisia, managed to wipe out about 60% of population, but there were nearby survivors. Eradication of the human race is very unlikely. A number of eruptions have created a volcanic winter. There was one VEI-7 (8 is tops) about 200 years ago, but the empire lived on. For what its worth, Krakatoa was a VEI-5.
-
There is no catastrophic warming consensus except among those that have an interest in taking freedom from those less connected to protect it.
There they go, there they go. Every time I start talking about global warming, some Republican has to pull freedom out of they ass. That's they one! That's they one! Freedom this. Freedom that. It's about freedom..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWvDao-MpOk
You're welcome.
-
The battle of the models continues. Sounds like good Super Bowl halftime fun.
First off, I don't think we are talking about a battle of the models here. As I understand it, Lindzen was severely criticized for playing fast and loose with data and selectively choosing start and finishing points in an already artificially limited data set, essentially throwing out portions of the data which would have undermined his claimed results. In other words, it was criticized as extremely shoddy science, at best.
So, contrary to your original claim, Lindzen's conclusions were thoroughly refuted, and even Lindzen acknowledged that his study was seriously flawed! "This work was subject to significant criticism by Trenberth et al. [2009], much of which was appropriate."
As for his 2010 paper and whether or not it actually corrected the flaws of the first paper as he claims, who knows? The paper is available online and was apparently submitted to professional publications for peer review, but has it ever been published in a reputable publication? I don't know. The paper does not appear in his list of publications on his website.
Thanks David. Yes you are correct. The models comment was a weak attempt at humor. Lindzen's methodology was criticized. His conclusion does not fall but the paper's credibility does. His 2010 submission maintains the claim about feedback being negative. Like you, I await publication. Can't wait to read it.
-
There is no catastrophic warming consensus except among those that have an interest in taking freedom from those less connected to protect it.
There they go, there they go. Every time I start talking about global warming, some Republican has to pull freedom out of they ass. That's they one! That's they one! Freedom this. Freedom that. It's about freedom..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWvDao-MpOk
You're welcome.
It is a good thing that hot air has not been banned yet. You can still speak and write freely. Your ass is probably safe for now.
How do you know I am a Republican? I could draw several conclusions about you from your writing. I choose not to.
-
Jeff,
The conclusion falls with the methodology.
Can't wait to read it.
Why?
-
Jeff,
The conclusion falls with the methodology.
Can't wait to read it.
Why?
Interest. I do want to see what the peer review process brings.
-
Hi Jeff,
Obviously I am blowing hot air. The comment happened to remind me of that clip, since I sometimes hear freedom identified as a legitimate concern with regards to global warming.
I'm a Democrat. Are you a Republican? I'll fix it if I'm wrong.
Perhaps the reason I respond with such sarcastic vitriol is my belief that global warming is so obviously affected by man. How we got to a point where 95% of scientists believe man is affecting the climate, while only about 50% of the population believes it, is a tragedy of such enormous magnitude that I can't stand the idiotic, so called serious discussion. It's so obvious what is happening here. If this had happened in 1970, the world would have responded more responsibly.
Why don't you want to believe this? Why would anybody want to stifle freedom? For that matter, why would anyone want to damage the overall prosperity of the world? How is the oil and gas industry "less connected from those who want to protect it."? It seems to me the oil/gas industries are sufficiently well represented a the highest levels of government. Do you really think that other forms of energy production wish to stifle the oil/coal/gas industries for their benefit? Maybe a tiny bit, but hydrocarbons are irreplaceable. They should be used responsibly so there is plenty left a hundred years from now.
OK, Jeff, sorry for the vitriol. I'll sit back down. Obviously, you're hot about my wise ass remark, but it's such an important issue, and even though the vast majority of scientists believe this is happening, the world is so concerned with economics that the issue is being swept under the rug.
Trust scientists, not the media, and not Mr. Businessman.
But you, and everybody else who challenges this assumption, doesn't give a damn what I think.
-
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/global-temps.shtml
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/
-
David
Was that an American Study?
Melvyn
-
John,
You obviously don't remember the 70's. Let's see Earth Day started in 1970, the world would soon be overpopulated, gas lines and oh the impending ice age.
I sorry it pisses you off that not everybody thinks like you. John Kavanaugh is the same way with people who aren't as smart as he is.
People will not change until they have to, when gas hits $5 a gallon then people will cut back on driving, get smaller cars etc.
Name me one legitimate 'clean energy' option?
-
Hi Jeff,
Obviously I am blowing hot air. The comment happened to remind me of that clip, since I sometimes hear freedom identified as a legitimate concern with regards to global warming.
I'm a Democrat. Are you a Republican? I'll fix it if I'm wrong.
Perhaps the reason I respond with such sarcastic vitriol is my belief that global warming is so obviously affected by man. How we got to a point where 95% of scientists believe man is affecting the climate, while only about 50% of the population believes it, is a tragedy of such enormous magnitude that I can't stand the idiotic, so called serious discussion. It's so obvious what is happening here. If this had happened in 1970, the world would have responded more responsibly.
Why don't you want to believe this? Why would anybody want to stifle freedom? How is the oil and gas industry "less connected from those who want to protect it."? It seems to me the oil/gas industries are sufficiently well represented a the highest levels of government. Do you really think that other forms of energy production wish to stifle the oil/coal/gas industries for their benefit? Maybe a tiny bit, but hydrocarbons are irreplaceable. They should be used responsibly so there is plenty left a hundred years from now.
OK, Jeff, sorry for the vitriol. I'll sit back down. Obviously, you're hot about my wise ass remark, but it's such an important issue, and even though the vast majority of scientists believe this is happening, the world is so concerned with economics that the issue is being swept under the rug.
Trust scientists, not the media, and not Mr. Businessman.
But you, and everybody else who challenges this assumption, doesn't give a damn what I think.
So you apologize for the vitriol and the assumptions about me and then claim that I don't give a damn about what you think. Well played sir.
I will be brief as I have to go home and pack for a golf trip to Florida. I hear it is nice and warm there.
1. I question the "95% of scientists" figure. Sorry. Maybe you can provide the list.
2. It is not so obvious to me that this (former) period of warming is carbon induced. Please point me to the research that eliminates natural variability as a cause of the warming from the 70's to 2000. It would help me in my thinking.
3. I do not want to stifle freedom. Not sure how I am doing so. I am more worried about the people in the world that cannot use carbon based energy to lift themselves out of poverty. Oil and gas companies can stand or fall on their own. Likewise for their competitors who also have a seat at the table.
4. While hydrocarbons may be irreplaceable, the "save it for later argument" is meaningless if we migrate to renewables. Hell, I would rather run out than let some with a discredited temperature database, rigged peer review process, and a manufactured consensus take it away from me.
5. Yes, the world is concerned with economics. That world includes people who own businesses, scientists, politicians, and school teachers. None of us are above scrutiny.
Be well and stay warm.
-
Craig,
I 'umbly submit nuclear energy will be the method of choice by the end of the century. "Legitimate, clean"? depends how you want to define it but nuclear will be top dog.
Cheers Colin
-
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the measured response. I'd rather not enter into a detailed defense of my commentary for reasons stated previously. I just don't want to delve deeply into it. I do want to mention was that my intent was not to say that you want to stifle freedom; I thought you were saying that global warming believers were trying to stifle freedom, and I was asking 'why would they do that?'.
Hi Craig,
I wish people would drive more efficient cars before gas hits $5 a gallon. I am still driving a car that gets 23-24 miles a gallon on the highway, but am committed to 40-50 mpg for the next car, which will be a year or two from now. People do actually make decisions for the greater good, though that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
I guess I would respond that the 1970s seemed to be a time when the opinion of scientists was held in higher regard. Didn't Richard Nixon establish the EPA?
Actually, you are right that I wish people thought the same way I do. At least about this issue. Here's one of many links that calculates that 97% of climatologists studying global warming believe man is making an impact:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm
I'm sure somebody will find fault with the list I've provided. Compare that to the survey (51% in 2007, down from 75%) in 2001 of the American public:
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/12/04/just-51-of-americans-believe-in-global-warming-down-from-71-in-2007/
I would suggest the reason for this discrepancy is a calculated campaign by moneyed interests to discredit and ridicule the science behind the theory.
Sorry again, Jeff, Craig and others. This is a golf forum. I shouldn't have shot my mouth off, and I feel uncomfortable discussing this issue publicly. You know where I stand. But here are my final thoughts, without attempting to justify them. The world is overpopulated at the expense of the other living beings on the planet. And there's less of that precious sweet crude oil than you think there is. If you are under 30, maybe 40 years old, you will live to see the effects.
-
Craig,
I 'umbly submit nuclear energy will be the method of choice by the end of the century. "Legitimate, clean"? depends how you want to define it but nuclear will be top dog.
Cheers Colin
Colin,
You are correct sir! It is the only legitimate replacement at this time. Solar, wind and hydro are limited/regional/marginal options at this time.
The scientists are going to have to figure out a way to save us from ourselves., I have faith they will, but there will be pain. Meanwhile I'm buying property in Canada!
-
Matt
Would you say there is any truth in the following statements or are they also just bullshit
“One medium size volcano erupting would match what Man has done in a 100 years of pollution. Two would probably match what Man has done since the Industrial Revolution. Three covers the full damage Man has done since he first farted.”
“………. regards volcanoes doing more damage to this small planet, let’s just look to one – which has a potential caldera of 35miles x 45miles and is regarded as a ‘supervolcano’.
When this little beauty goes bang it will not only do more damage than Man has ever achieved but may have the possibility of wiping out life on Earth. This little ball of happiness is located in Yellowstone Park and to my knowledge has no connection to Man and his destructive ways, this is Mother Nature saying whatever we think we can do she can do it so much better.”
Bullshit or possible?
Melvyn
About the medium-sized volcano....well, that is utter bullshit. That type of momentary effect does not have any sort of long term impact. The particles usually only linger for a few years in the stratopshere. Initially a cooling effect can even be observed in the troposhere.
In regards to a supervolcano, such as the one at yellowstone....yes, it can do a lot of damage and kill a lot of people. What is your point?
Climate variation is mainly driven by Milankovitch cycles; meaning the axial tilt of the planet, axial precession, and orbital eccentricity. When the periods of these cycles line up it can cause the Earth to be warmer, or cooler, depending on where we are in the cycles. There are other effects for global climate, but this is the major reason behind it. That is why ice ages are so periodic. We can basically predict when the next ice age will be, it wil come and we can't avoid it....unless we heat this planet ourselves to counteract it.
Here is some food for thought. For the last 800 000 years of climate record, the last 10 000 years, from the last ice age to the industrial revolution was the most stable period EVER in terms of global temperature. Since then there has be an exponential increase in temperature. Please tell me it is just a coincidence that the moment we started pumping toxic fumes into the atmosphere that the planet started heating up....after 10 000 years of stability.
-
The lack of understanding of science and the peer-review process on this messageboard is scary to me.
Grabbing one source that backs up your bullshit doesn't validate your point of view.
Watch how I can do the same thing. This is my theory: The Earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs lived with man and the grand canyon was caused by a global flood. My source, Kent Hovind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJXtXUcXw2U&feature=related
You can't prove me wrong because Kent Hovind says so.
And yet you still offer no solutions.
How'd the peer review process work out for the guy that connected autism and vaccinations?
Don't you have any faith in your fellow scientists to come up with solutions?
Do you want me to list all the discoveries that science has made that you use in your everyday life? Why do you not questions a scientists ability in most every field of research except for climate?
About autism and vaccinations. Seriously? SERIOUSLY?
ONE person made this paper and the PEER-REVIEW process destroyed it and showed all the flaws. The media reported on the INITIAL paper, before research was done to be able to test his "research".
-
That is why ice ages are so periodic. We can basically predict when the next ice age will be, it wil come and we can't avoid it....unless we heat this planet ourselves to counteract it.
Better be careful what you say or the next talking point might be: 'We need to heat the planet to prepare for the next ice age!'
-
Matt,
It took over 10 years for the PEER-REVIEW process to work.
Science is not now or ever has been infallible.
However I at least have faith that some scientists will quit griping and actually come up with some solutions.
-
Doug it is estimated that "phantom power" amounts to a little over 10% of your total home energy use....over the course of a year the savings would be a free month of energy!
This includes things like leaving your computer on all the time, leaving your cable box on, etc. Everyone knows that they can save power by turning off their computer, but they choose not to do so for reasons of convenience. I was specifically talking about the really silly stuff like leaving your cell phone charger plugged in, or leaving the microwave plugged in, which may add up to a kwh or two per month.
-
Matt,
It took over 10 years for the PEER-REVIEW process to work.
Science is not now or ever has been infallible.
However I at least have faith that some scientists will quit griping and actually come up with some solutions.
Trust me, they are. However, it isn't a sexy problem, because as you see far too many people don't think it is a problem because they think there is so invisible man in the sky who is telling them that this planet is here for us and we can't be doing anything wrong. Honestly, one of the areas that could help us the most would not be cutting NASA's budget so much. The number of things that NASA scientists have created for space endeveavours that the eventually found pratical applications in day-to-day life is staggering.
-
How could saving the planet not be a sexy problem?
The invisible guy you refer to wants everyone to be a good steward of the planet.
I agree the neutering of NASA was a huge blow to everyone.
If I was trying to solve the problem I would make my assumptions that the masses are not part of the solution.
-
How could saving the planet not be a sexy problem?
The invisible guy you refer to wants everyone to be a good steward of the planet.
I agree the neutering of NASA was a huge blow to everyone.
If I was trying to solve the problem I would make my assumptions that the masses are not part of the solution.
Because the masses are unwashed and stupid?
-
The globe is %&*#ing freezing here in Jersey!!!
-
Because the masses are unwashed and stupid?
Cleanliness is next to unstoopidliness.
-
Bill McBride,
No because the masses have other things on their mind, like eating, providing for their families, health care etc. As the polls show 51% of Americans don't believe its a problem. And surely India and and China aren't going to shutter their growing economies because of some climate stuff. Besides, I am part of those masses.
Now when gas prices hit $5 again people will change their behaviors. Of course our whole economy is built on cheap energy so that's other problem.
How about some George Carlin....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
-
Holland slashes carbon targets, shuns wind for nuclear
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/10/holland_energy_switch/
Are these guys legit?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/10/no_tipping_point_for_arctic_sea_ice/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/11/lewis_resignation_letter/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
The future of Grey Britain
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/carbon_budget_2030/
-
No, Harold Lewis is not legit. He did not study climatology as a physicist. Furthermore, that is old news; it happened eighteen months ago. Why would the Register report the story today without informing the reader that this is old news?
-
Bill McBride,
No because the masses have other things on their mind, like eating, providing for their families, health care etc. As the polls show 51% of Americans don't believe its a problem. And surely India and and China aren't going to shutter their growing economies because of some climate stuff. Besides, I am part of those masses.
Now when gas prices hit $5 again people will change their behaviors. Of course our whole economy is built on cheap energy so that's other problem.
How about some George Carlin....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
I'm part of those masses myself, and more concerned about what life will be like for my grandkids more than for me.
I have no doubt that a $2 per gallon tax on gasoline starting in 1973 would have resulted in energy independence, no Middle East wars and a modern infrastructure. A real opportunity was missed then.
The new governor of Florida's proposed budget calls for huge cuts in education spending, mostly offset by property tax cuts that make it all budget neutral. On a national level this could help out with the uneducated masses concept.
-
Shit. Lured back in. My bad.
Peace and love brother.
-
Bill,
I hear ya, I have 3 grandkids now and a 4th on the way!
-
Obama to try and eliminate tax breaks for oil/gas/coal companies...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-Seeks-to-End-462-bloomberg-1908888500.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=4&asset=&ccode=
-
Reagan once commented: "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
CA got the ball rolling on the housing meltdown when gasoline prices approached $5/gal and homeowners had to make a decision on whether to make mortgage payments or fill the tank so they could go to work. Unlike the govt., they made the right choice.
Here we a very small segment of this country made up in part by hard-core socialists turned "envrionmentalists" savagely attacking an industy which provides a myriad of hugely necessary products at relatively low prices, high-paying jobs to thousands of Americans in America, and tremendous amounts of all types of taxes. And what do they offer as solutions? More taxes, regulations, costs. Range Fuels?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576132453701004530.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
In this or another thread, a poster ridiculed those who believe that this whole "climate change" thing is little more than an episodic charade- e.g. all sorts of Malthusian catastrophies, new ice age, chimps and robots idling workers, nuclear winter, etc. He went on to lament about having to live with these non-believers and the consequences of their actions. Boy, do I share his frustrations but from a quite different perspective!
-
The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html
-
Craig:
We can agree on that, at least. I've felt for a long time that the weather only seems to be getting more severe, because there is so much more reporting on the weather nowadays. Forty years ago, Walter Cronkite might not have mentioned the typhoon in Australia; even the tsunami several years ago would have only been reported on days or weeks afterward. It's the same with sports reporting -- you see some kid make a half-court basketball shot every night, because every game everywhere is being filmed, and highlight shows are just begging for material.
At the same time, I wish we would be more like the Europeans, and tax the oil & gas industry enough that we could become less dependent on them. I am tired of watching us send kids off to war under false pretenses so that large Western corporations can continue to dominate the world -- not to mention being told we can no longer afford Social Security because we have spent too much on those same wars.
-
The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html
This is precisely why I asked Matt earlier if there's actually evidence that warming is actually causing extreme weather -- not whether there's a theory to support the proposition.
-
Wall Street Journal is owned by Newscorp. Is everything peer reviewed?
-
It's hard to imagine that anyone could still believe the settled "science" related to AGW after actually reading the emails from Climategate. They are easily viewable.
Take 15 minutes and read the below.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
How many physicists dispute this?
-
Great explanation of the emails and peer-review.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo&feature=related
-
Don't buy gas from companies that import most of their oil from the middle east...
http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/summary.html
-
So the climate change deniers don't think a 150 years of spewing the by product of fossil fuel burning is causing our atmosphere to change? When the rivers ran orange from the crap we dumped into them you could point at it say, "ya see!". So why is it so difficult to look at shrinking glaciers and data from thousands of sources and say "ya see!".
-
Craig,
No one really disputes that climate change is occuring..just whether man has any discernable affect on it.
There are many serious, non-poliitcized scientists who convincingly argue against AGW.
There are also many serious scientists who completely refute the impact of CO2 regarding climate change.
There's ample evidence of global cooling since 1998. This might have a far greater negative impact on our mutual love of golf than GW could ever have.
Climategate exposed the IPCC and most of the AGW science for what it really is- You-Tube propaganda videos and Wikipedia bias notwithstanding.
The science is far from settled.
-
Chris:
If you don't mind my asking, what do you do for a living?
-
No Tom, I don't mind you asking...I do consulting work for the Navy, mostly logistics.
No connection to big oil.
-
No Tom, I don't mind you asking...I do consulting work for the Navy, mostly logistics.
No connection to big oil.
The US Navy has no connection to Big Oil?
-
Chris...having some cooler years is not an indication of global cooling....it simply means we had some cooler weather. Climate change takes years...and looking at the long range data, we are warming.
I would love to see the names of scientist not connected to oil/gas/coal that dispute CO2 is not having an impact on our climate...
The deniers jumped all over the email scandal when it first came out, but over the next year, it turns out they were basically wrong and the data was 99% solid and legit.
-
Chris..maybe you forgot that the whole Climategate issue was looked into and the final reports supported the data and the scientist.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/07/climate-change-scientists-in-email-scandal-cleared-again.html
-
Craig S,
Why don't you have faith in science to save us from ourselves?
-
Chris:
If you don't mind my asking, what do you do for a living?
Tom, I already persued this line of questioning with others who think anthropogenic climate change is not real. I love how all these non-beleivers have no science background. Watch out Tom, soon they might start saying they know more about building golf courses than you. ;)
-
Craig- We'll just have to agree to disagree.
David- Whoops, forgot the USN was a subsidiary of Exxon-Mobil.
Matt- Right..only accredited scientists are allowed to have valid opinions on AGW. How many papers have you published on the subject?
-
There are many serious, non-poliitcized scientists who convincingly argue against AGW.
There are also many serious scientists who completely refute the impact of CO2 regarding climate change.
There's ample evidence of global cooling since 1998. This might have a far greater negative impact on our mutual love of golf than GW could ever have.
Climategate exposed the IPCC and most of the AGW science for what it really is- You-Tube propaganda videos and Wikipedia bias notwithstanding.
The science is far from settled.
Boy, I am probably going to regret this but...
Chris, would you mind posting some of these "ample evidence" for global cooling and "serious scientists" who dispute the role of CO2 in global warming?
I have yet to see any serious peer reviewed scientific paper that has come up with a better theory for global warming. Perhaps, I am just not looking in the right places. I would love to see what you are reading.
At least from the papers that I have seen, there is clear consensus among scientists that there is global warming (I mean, seriously, there is no climatologist of any standing who disputes this). There are questions about the exact cause, but the studies done on the climate over last 500,000 years or so have shown that the increase that we have seen over the last century is quite unique in the rate of change - that is also not in dispute.
The reason why CO2 is the likely culprit is many fold. First, it is the main change in atmosphere over the same time global warming has occurred. While correlation is not necessarily causational, the fact that heat is trapped more effeciently in CO2 makes it very likely cause. This has been backed by numerous climate simulations and temperature patterns of the last global warming where there were higher concentrations of greenhouse gases like CO2. Pretty much everywhere we have looked at, all the evidence points to increase in CO2.
While it is true that other scientist may question some of the logic or evidence related to CO2 and global warming, none have yet to come up with better explanations based on the physical evidences that we have. And if you cannot provide an alternative theory that can be tested or backed up by physical evidence, not matter how much you scream, it is not going to be accepted by the scientific community.
That is how science works. It doesn't matter what you think or what you believe. The physical evidence tells you what the truth is. If someone disagrees with global warming or its cause, all they have to do is to come up with testable theory to disprove it. But no one has yet has come up with a viable alternative so far so the current method of thinking around global warming will continue, climategate or not.
In the end, as I have said before, if you don't "believe" global warming, it makes absolutely no difference. All of the measurements say the temperatures are going up. You can deny it all you want, but it makes absolutely no difference and frankly, no scientist really cares.They are busy doing actual work, they couldn't care less if some significant number of ignorant population don't believe the facts, because facts don't change just because people don't want to believe them.
-
Chirping again is John...
I always try to find the simple explanation that easily dismisses the contrarian views on these sorts of things.
I thought the poll that asked climate scientists whether they thought anthropogenic global warming was significant. If you understand statistics, once you get to a 97% responses of "yes" among 2000 trials, you can make high confidence conclusions.
Here's another thought: If any one scientist, just one, produced a truly compelling scientific study which defied the conventional wisdom and showed that humans were NOT making an impact, that scientist would be the most popular guest on big business television shows. "We'd like to welcome back Professor XXXXXX, who has compelling evidence that shows...". Where's that guy?
-
Richard (and Craig)
Here is a letter to the UN Secretary General signed by 100 lprominent world scientists
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/un-signatories.html
And here is a petition currently signed by over 31,000 American scientists, including over 9000 PhDs. Wonder if they are all "ignorant"? I can only presume that a lot of them are in fact busy doing actual work.
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
Included in the above link is some good, peer reviewed data.
Some of this might qualify for that alternate theory that you're looking for and I'm pretty sure it's not just me that's "screaming".
John- you might want to take a peek at the above as well.
No offense taken.
-
Global Warming by country..
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1427/global-warming-major-problem-around-world-americans-less-concerned
-
Chris...I selected one name from the list of people that signed the letter to the Sec. General of the UN....Richard Courtney...I selected his name at random. i googled him....care to know who he works for? The coal industry...
When this letter first came out it was noted that even though it claimed to be signed by 100 "scientist" many of the signitore were not scientist. So, several names were dropped from the list in future letters.
Like I said, it is very difficult to find a scientist that is not being funded, or his organization funded, by the fossil fuel industry that does not believe man has a lot to do with global warming.
-
Craig E...I love science...and I think it will be the scientist that save our bacon...certainly not god.
-
Richard (and Craig)
Here is a letter to the UN Secretary General signed by 100 lprominent world scientists
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/un-signatories.html
And here is a petition currently signed by over 31,000 American scientists, including over 9000 PhDs. Wonder if they are all "ignorant"? I can only presume that a lot of them are in fact busy doing actual work.
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
Included in the above link is some good, peer reviewed data.
Some of this might qualify for that alternate theory that you're looking for and I'm pretty sure it's not just me that's "screaming".
John- you might want to take a peek at the above as well.
No offense taken.
Do you want me to research these professors one at a time and show you their bias one-by-one?
The first professor I googled in your list of "prominent" scientists was Timothy F. Ball. He is a consultant for the "Friends of Science" organization", and a Toronto Star article from January 2007 showed that one-third of their funding was from the oil industry. Wow, big surprise there. You are making this way too easy on me. I don't even think I am going to have to try.
Here is a quote from Mr. Ball:
"CFC's were never a problem.... it's only because the sun is changing."
If you like I could keep researching.
BY the way, I never published anything because i chose to enter the workforce and make a difference there instead of persuing research. During my time in university I studied under many professors doing the research, and right now I have friends doing the research. I just so happen to be currently proof-reading my friends masters thesis before she has to defend it. But you know, she is just one of those scientists fudging her data, right?
-
Oh yeah, and by the way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0
-
Matt,
Yes please...since Craig already outed one that means you only have 98 left to discredit.
Then maybe you can start on the other list of 31,000 that share similar views. They are even listed by state and scientific specialty so it'll make it easier for you.
In between can you refute the points in the letter and the review paper with specific ciitations?
Thanks.
-
Matt,
Yes please...since Craig already outed one that means you only have 98 left to discredit.
Then maybe you can start on the other list of 31,000 that share similar views. They are even listed by state and scientific specialty so it'll make it easier for you.
In between can you refute the points in the letter and the review paper with specific ciitations?
Thanks.
Just go watch the above video I posted. That will be my "refudiation" of the 31 000 "experts" from your list.
-
Matt,
Yes please...since Craig already outed one that means you only have 98 left to discredit.
Oh come on Chris, the depth of knowledge of that list of 100 scientists was discredited almost as soon as it was published.
How does an expert on virology or geotechnical engineering command respect in the field of climate science?
Matt,
Nice video.
-
Chirping again is John...
I always try to find the simple explanation that easily dismisses the contrarian views on these sorts of things.
I thought the poll that asked climate scientists whether they thought anthropogenic global warming was significant. If you understand statistics, once you get to a 97% responses of "yes" among 2000 trials, you can make high confidence conclusions.
Here's another thought: If any one scientist, just one, produced a truly compelling scientific study which defied the conventional wisdom and showed that humans were NOT making an impact, that scientist would be the most popular guest on big business television shows. "We'd like to welcome back Professor XXXXXX, who has compelling evidence that shows...". Where's that guy?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
I'm sure he's somehow unpure and owns 3 shares of an oil company in his 401k or something.
John-
How do you create a scientific experiment to disprove something that hasn't been proven? Maybe the sceptics should also prove there is no god while they're at it.
-
Buck,
I think you make a fine point. The burden of proof is on those who make the claim that global warming has a significant manmade component. Same as the proof required to make a case for evolution.
-
The average Western European's carbon footprint is almost half that of the average US citizen is due to three major factors:
Serious question -- what is their average economic output/person?
The more relevant comparison is GDP per capita. Here's the latest stats from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita
As you can see the top 10 is comprised of 6 Western European countries, three countries rich in natural resources (and not a lot of people) and the US in 9th place. The next 10 are 7 Western European countries. 1 resource rich country, another country that is essentially a large trading port and Japan.
You can, of course, distort the meaning of this question by including EU countries like Belarus and all the former Iron Curtain countries who were essentially operating third world economies until very recently
How about we pick three countries that are relatively similar to the US -- the UK, France, and Germany. Do you know what the ratio of their per capita carbon footprint is to their per capita GDP, and how that stacks up against the US? I have no idea what the answer is, but that seems to be at least a relevant comparison.
That is a relevant comparison. Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions
France in about 9th place. The UK 20th. Germany approx. 35th And the US about 80th.
I would attribute this to the fact that other countries don't have one major political party operating as the lobbying arm of the hydro-carbon based energy industry.
-
John,
What, where did evolution come from?
The burden of proof for global warming is on those who are making the case for spending lots of money to reduce CO2 emissions, because it will be very costly and would require restructuring of the world economy on a large scale. Its an either/or, either the believers are right or the deniers are right, there is no way they can both be wrong, anymore than a guy betting on heads and a guy betting on tails for a coin flip can both be wrong.
For evolution this is not the case. The "debate", such as it is, isn't an either/or. Evolution being wrong wouldn't imply those trying to use the Bible as a science textbook are right. It also wouldn't require restructuring of the world economy and vast expense, just a reprinting of biology books.
-
The burden of proof for global warming is on those who are making the case for spending lots of money to reduce CO2 emissions, because it will be very costly and would require restructuring of the world economy on a large scale.
I am open minded on the whole global warming thing, but I am intrigued by this argument, how would reducing CO2 emisions be more costly to society in general (in the long term)?
-
Yes, it is difficult to measure the cost of using oil as the base for the economy because few governments ever admit that some diplomacy is driven by the need for easy access to relatively cheap oil. Who knows what the price of that diplomacy is especially when folks such as myself consider military action a (hopefully) last step act of diplomacy.
Ciao
-
The burden of proof for global warming is on those who are making the case for spending lots of money to reduce CO2 emissions, because it will be very costly and would require restructuring of the world economy on a large scale.
I am open minded on the whole global warming thing, but I am intrigued by this argument, how would reducing CO2 emisions be more costly to society in general (in the long term)?
Because the cost is huge. Absolutely immense. Trillions of dollars.
If the Kyoto Protocol had been followed absolutely precisely, it would have delayed the predicted warning from 2100 until...... Drumroll....... 2106.
Trillions of dollars. For 6 years.
Mankind historically flourishes in warm times and suffers in cold times. Warming benefits the world. Much better to be coming out of a little ice age, as we are, than to be entering the ice age we are due for.
I am still waiting for empirical proof that anything we've seen over the past 30 years can be attributed to anything but natural variation. Models don't count, they are only good at hindcasting. They've failed spectacularly at future predictions.
And I state 30 years because it's the only period of time we have semi reliable data for. The data itself is a separate issue. We really don't have anywhere near enough data to make the sort of huge decisions we are. There aren't enough data sets, the data is "adjusted" and the data is for only a fraction of time. 30 years. The planet is about 4,500,000,000 years old. It's impossible to take a 30 year data set and state that ANYTHING happening during that time is "unprecedented". It's not statistically significant. It will take hundreds of years before we begin to have enough data - and good enough data - to make any sort of conclusions. All data should be open source, and not adjusted. The urban heat island effect should also be properly accounted for.
Peer review. Or pal review, as it should be called in the case of climatology. As Prof Jones so eloquently stated "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !" Anyone trying to defend this statement instantly loses credibility. It's shocking. It has no part of the scientific process.
I have tried to stay out of this but I gave in eventually, to my chagrin.
A word of advice to the believers. Stop using the word deniers. It does you no favours, and is one of the main reasons why public support for the notion of man made global warming is tumbling.
No one denies the climate is changing. It always has and it always will. However, before we commit to spending trillions of pounds it would be best to show, definitively, that the warming is something outside of the natural variation and furthermore to do with Man. All we have thus far is theories and hypotheses, and absolutely no empirical proof.
I hate pollution and I hate the destruction of rain forests. I also hate the fact that CO2 has been demonised when it is a vital trace gas without which there would be no life on Earth.
-
Because the cost is huge. Absolutely immense. Trillions of dollars.
Thanks Tom, But what is it that actually costs money?
And why is a monetary cost important? Isn't that just a redistribution of money, from those that produce CO2 to those that dont?
What is the actual cost of reducing CO2? How would we be worse off? How would people in developing countries be worse off?
-
Because the cost is huge. Absolutely immense. Trillions of dollars.
Thanks Tom, But what is it that actually costs money?
And why is a monetary cost important? Isn't that just a redistribution of money, from those that produce CO2 to those that dont?
What is the actual cost of reducing CO2? How would we be worse off? How would people in developing countries be worse off?
Well the cost is that you can't fly to England or Scotland to play golf. You can't fly anywhere. People in developing countries aren't allowed to raise their standard of living because in doing so, their emissions shoot up. They are denied access to cheap energy.
The cost is that you can't drive a car. Or eat meat. Or use the heating / air conditioning as much as you want to. The internet? That's bad too.
Make no mistake, we simply cannot change to a zero CO2 economy. Without CO2, there is no economy.
So it's basically a choice between everything you enjoy in life or nothing, taking your standard of living back to the Dark Ages - and taxing you hugely with it.
Nuclear power is vital, and needs to be invested in hugely. It's the only hope, because solar and wind just don't work - they are hugely subsidised because otherwise they fail. Wind power in particular is an amazing con.
In the US you're ok. In the UK our previous government legally committed us to spending £18,000,000,000 each and every year until 2050 to try and deal with this alleged problem. The UK is responsible for 2% of Man's CO2 emissions. It's the biggest waste of money in history.
-
Well the cost is that you can't fly to England or Scotland to play golf. You can't fly anywhere.
People in developing countries aren't allowed to raise their standard of living because in doing so, their emissions shoot up. They are denied access to cheap energy. The cost is that you can't drive a car. Or eat meat. Or use the heating / air conditioning as much as you want to. The internet? That's bad too.Make no mistake, we simply cannot change to a zero CO2 economy. Without CO2, there is no economy.
So it's basically a choice between everything you enjoy in life or nothing, taking your standard of living back to the Dark Ages - and taxing you hugely with it. Nuclear power is vital, and needs to be invested in hugely. It's the only hope, because solar and wind just don't work - they are hugely subsidised because otherwise they fail. Wind power in particular is an amazing con.
In the US you're ok. In the UK our previous government legally committed us to spending £18,000,000,000 each and every year until 2050 to try and deal with this alleged problem. The UK is responsible for 2% of Man's CO2 emissions. It's the biggest waste of money in history.
Wow. not sure what to say. doesn't really answer my question but thanks, interesting to read.
-
Is it me or is today getting warmer? Must be Spring about to drive off the Tee, Whatever, May The Force be with You, because no Goverment will, thats for certain.
Have a nice day, the Sun is out, what a day to walk a course.
Melvyn
-
Tom Birkert provides a well written and thought out response to those that wish to convert to renewables through force. While some may argue that transferring wealth is not a cost, I suggest you speak to someone whose wealth will be transferred. I bet they see it as a cost.
-
1/3 of russians say sun revolves around earth..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/14/russia_poll/
Global warming will not cause 'permanant El Nino'
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/14/no_permanent_el_ninos/
-
The world must be flat otherwise balls would all roll towards the South – stands to reason as otherwise Australia would be known as the world capital for used Golf Balls!!
Melvyn
-
Because the cost is huge. Absolutely immense. Trillions of dollars.
Thanks Tom, But what is it that actually costs money?
And why is a monetary cost important? Isn't that just a redistribution of money, from those that produce CO2 to those that dont?
What is the actual cost of reducing CO2? How would we be worse off? How would people in developing countries be worse off?
Well the cost is that you can't fly to England or Scotland to play golf. You can't fly anywhere. People in developing countries aren't allowed to raise their standard of living because in doing so, their emissions shoot up. They are denied access to cheap energy.
The cost is that you can't drive a car. Or eat meat. Or use the heating / air conditioning as much as you want to. The internet? That's bad too.
Make no mistake, we simply cannot change to a zero CO2 economy. Without CO2, there is no economy.
Reading through your various levels of dissembling on this issue has been a chore. The idea that the accumulated opinion of every reputable scientists or scientific institution in the world having to 'prove' something to your pea-sized brain is laughable...
The fact of the matter is the activities you mention will become cost prohibitive and unavailable to all simply because we are using the hydro-carbon resources on earth quicker than nature replaces them. I;m sure the concept of supply and demand has not escaped you.
The point of making them somewhat cost prohibitive now is that we create an incentive and financial means to create non-CO2 producing avenues for continuing these activities before everyone turns into an extra from Mad Max over a tank of gas.
The notion that this will lead to a transfer of wealth is complete and utter bullshit. The people with capital and intelligence will profit from this turn of events just like they always do. And for the record, Al Gore did not get wealthy over stoking fears that climate change will kill us all. He made about $50m out of his Google options alone. As it turns out, 2000 was very good time to not become President of the US, at least for him...
-
"The notion that this will lead to a transfer of wealth is complete and utter bullshit. The people with capital and intelligence will profit from this turn of events just like they always do. And for the record, Al Gore did not get wealthy over stoking fears that climate change will kill us all. He made about $50m out of his Google options alone. As it turns out, 2000 was very good time to not become President of the US, at least for him... "
You are correct in that the rich will still get richer, like always it will be the rest of us left to pay the tab. The less you make the more painful it will be.
50 million seems like chump change for the guy who invented the Internet. No Internet means no Google. :)
-
You know who really invented the Internet? DOE physicists, that's who.
-
You know who really invented the Internet? DOE physicists, that's who.
Yep, them wild and crazy cats at ARPA. Little did they know what would become of their little baby...
-
My dad worked at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, one of the first hubs for the ARPAnet. Little did they know what they were building. They just wanted an easy way to deliver research electronically. Now rank amateurs use it to debate global warming.
-
John,
I actually had dinner with your dad at Bandon shortly after Pacific Dunes opened. he was very interesting gentlemen to talk to. He talked alot about Stanford.
-
Nice. He wasn't around much longer after that. We visited Pacific Dunes for three consecutive August trip around that time.
-
You know who really invented the Internet? DOE physicists, that's who.
Yep, them wild and crazy cats at ARPA. Little did they know what would become of their little baby...
I made a film about Vint Cerf–perhaps the main guy responsible for inventing internet communications protocol (TC/IP) when he was at ARPA. He was at MCI at the time. He's been a Google for almost a decade now and has done rather well I imagine.
Al Gore never said he invented the Internet BTW. He was the chair of the committee that funded its existence, then fostered its developmemt as a commercial medium while serving as VP. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 being one example of this. You'd have to say that Mark Andreesen of Netscape was also instrumental in the move towards commercializing the Internet... he made a few bucks out of it as well.
Considering Tom Hicks paid George Bush about 150% of what the Texas Rangers were worth so he could become Governor of Texas and then rode the team into bankruptcy despite the exponential growth of baseball during that time, I'd have to say that Gore's path to wealth seems a little cleaner in comparison.
-
Dang Anthony, we haven't had a good Bush bash in awhile. Us pea brains need to always be reminded where stand. Thanks for being so smart and sharing it here.
Like you I think we should all stop using anything that produces CO2. Please tell us how you do that so we can follow your lead. (I think those trucks they drive in Mad Max are cool and I aint scared.)
-
Reading through your various levels of dissembling on this issue has been a chore. The idea that the accumulated opinion of every reputable scientists or scientific institution in the world having to 'prove' something to your pea-sized brain is laughable...
The fact of the matter is the activities you mention will become cost prohibitive and unavailable to all simply because we are using the hydro-carbon resources on earth quicker than nature replaces them. I;m sure the concept of supply and demand has not escaped you.
The point of making them somewhat cost prohibitive now is that we create an incentive and financial means to create non-CO2 producing avenues for continuing these activities before everyone turns into an extra from Mad Max over a tank of gas.
The notion that this will lead to a transfer of wealth is complete and utter bullshit. The people with capital and intelligence will profit from this turn of events just like they always do. And for the record, Al Gore did not get wealthy over stoking fears that climate change will kill us all. He made about $50m out of his Google options alone. As it turns out, 2000 was very good time to not become President of the US, at least for him...
Is there any need to resort to personal abuse? Just because I have a different opinion, why does that mean I have a "pea brain"? It's precisely this sort of attitude which alienates the majority of people.
All I'm asking for is empirical proof, not a hypothesis or a theory. I'd say that was the minimum we needed before undertaking such a huge financial spree. It would, of course, help if the role of clouds was fully understood. The same clouds which make up by far the largest part of the greenhouse effect. If we can't understand the role of them, what chance have we got?
As for Mr Gore, he's done very well for himself. Especially with carbon trading companies. I'll take him - and others of his ilk - a lot more seriously when they stop flying around by private jet and buying multi million dollar seaside mansions. He can't be that worried about sea rise can he? One of my favourite Al Gore quotes is this one:
"but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, because the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees"
Yep. Real smart cookie is Al.
-
Because the cost is huge. Absolutely immense. Trillions of dollars.
Thanks Tom, But what is it that actually costs money?
And why is a monetary cost important? Isn't that just a redistribution of money, from those that produce CO2 to those that dont?
What is the actual cost of reducing CO2? How would we be worse off? How would people in developing countries be worse off?
Well the cost is that you can't fly to England or Scotland to play golf. You can't fly anywhere. People in developing countries aren't allowed to raise their standard of living because in doing so, their emissions shoot up. They are denied access to cheap energy.
The cost is that you can't drive a car. Or eat meat. Or use the heating / air conditioning as much as you want to. The internet? That's bad too.
Make no mistake, we simply cannot change to a zero CO2 economy. Without CO2, there is no economy.
Reading through your various levels of dissembling on this issue has been a chore. The idea that the accumulated opinion of every reputable scientists or scientific institution in the world having to 'prove' something to your pea-sized brain is laughable...
The fact of the matter is the activities you mention will become cost prohibitive and unavailable to all simply because we are using the hydro-carbon resources on earth quicker than nature replaces them. I;m sure the concept of supply and demand has not escaped you.
The point of making them somewhat cost prohibitive now is that we create an incentive and financial means to create non-CO2 producing avenues for continuing these activities before everyone turns into an extra from Mad Max over a tank of gas.
The notion that this will lead to a transfer of wealth is complete and utter bullshit. The people with capital and intelligence will profit from this turn of events just like they always do. And for the record, Al Gore did not get wealthy over stoking fears that climate change will kill us all. He made about $50m out of his Google options alone. As it turns out, 2000 was very good time to not become President of the US, at least for him...
Talk about hubris -- it takes alot of it for you to start lecturing about supply and demand. This whole thing is about how to take the market out of it and get people to change their behavior based on what a few people think is the right answer, damn the facts. The real economic principle that is at stake here is 'dead weight loss' -- and there is a huge amount of it as Washington and the self-annointed smart people pick the winners and the losers.
-
Tom,
Clouds?
Seed the clouds and dry-land crops grow better and more snow for ski resorts. I remember when I was a kid and and CA was in a bad drought. Seed the clouds and fill the soil full of polymers, that's what the white coats said to do then. (especially the white coats with logos)
-
Rainmaking 2011..
from http://www.livescience.com/10398-rainmaking-middle-eastern-desert-success-scam.html
(http://www.livescience.com/images/i/8219/i02/desert-rain-110104c-02.jpg?1296090495)
and it'll be some time before we run out of energy resources, so don't kid yourself that Mad Max's world occurs for any reason other than complete anarchy and destruction of the industrial complex..
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/LateCarboniferousGlobal.jpg/250px-LateCarboniferousGlobal.jpg)
Believed approximate position of the proto-continents toward the end of the Carboniferous period; the light blue represents shallow seas where many of today's coal deposits are found, as opposed to deeper waters which gave rise to oil-bearing rocks derived from marine species. The ice caps were known to be very large, lowering sea levels extensively by locking up oceanic waters into solid ice, though how large the ice caps became is a matter of debate
and some more data to chew on (and maybe spit out!)
Title: Oil reserves by country at the end of 2009.
Definition: Oil reserves in billions of barrels.
Source: Collected and Compiled by Europe's Energy Portal
History: 2008
Ranking: Country: Amount:
1 Saudi Arabia 263.8
2 Venezuela 172.3
3 Iran 139.4
4 Iraq 117.8
5 Kuwait 103.5
6 United Arab Emirates 99.5
7 Russian Federation 75.3
8 Libya 43.1
9 Kazakhstan 40.1
10 Nigeria 36.5
11 Canada 33.5
12 United States 27.9
13 Qatar 27.6
14 China 14.9
15 Angola 13.5
16 Brazil 13.0
17 Algeria 12.3
18 Mexico 11.5
19 Norway 7.2
20 Azerbaijan 7.0
21 Ecuador 6.6
22 Sudan 6.6
23 India 5.8
24 Oman 5.7
25 Egypt 4.4
26 Australia 4.2
27 Gabon 3.7
27 United Kingdom 3.0
29 Yemen 2.6
30 Argentina 2.6
31 Syria 2.5
32 Rep. of Congo (Brazzaville) 2.0
33 Equatorial Guinea 1.7
34 Colombia 1.3
35 Peru 1.1
36 Brunei 1.0
37 Chad 0.9
38 Italy 0.9
39 Denmark 0.9
40 Trinidad & Tobago 0.8
41 Turkmenistan 0.6
42 Uzbekistan 0.6
43 Tunisia 0.6
44 Romania 0.5
Title: Natural gas reserves by country by the end of 2009.
Definition: Proven reserves in trillion cubic meters.
Source: Collected and Compiled by Europe's Energy Portal
History: 2008
Ranking: Country: Amount:
1 Russian Federation 44.9
2 Iran 29.0
3 Qatar 25.2
4 Saudi Arabia 8.1
5 Turkmenistan 8.0
6 United States 7.0
7 United Arab Emirates 6.6
8 Venezuela 5.5
9 Nigeria 5.1
10 Algeria 4.5
11 Iraq 3.2
12 Indonesia 3.1
13 Australia 3.0
14 Malaysia 2.4
15 China 2.4
16 Egypt 2.2
17 Norway 2.0
18 Kazakhstan 1.8
19 Canada 1.8
20 Kuwait 1.7
21 Uzbekistan 1.7
22 Libya 1.5
23 Azerbaijan 1.3
24 Netherlands 1.1
25 India 1.1
26 Oman 1.0
27 Ukraine 1.0
27 Pakistan 0.9
29 Vietnam 0.7
30 Bolivia 0.7
31 Romania 0.6
32 Myanmar 0.6
33 Yemen 0.5
34 Mexico 0.5
35 Papua New Guinea 0.5
36 Trinidad & Tobago 0.4
37 Argentina 0.4
38 Brazil 0.4
39 Thailand 0.4
40 Brunei 0.4
41 Bangladesh 0.3
42 Peru 0.3
43 United Kingdom 0.3
44 Syria 0.3
45 Colombia 0.1
46 Poland 0.1
47 Bahrain 0.1
48 Germany 0.1
49 Italy 0.1
50 Denmark 0.1
Title: Coal Proved Reserves by end of 2009
Definition: Proved Reserves in Million tonnes
Total: Anthracite, bituminous, Sub-bituminous and lignite
Source: Collected and Compiled by Europe's Energy Portal
History: 2008
Ranking: Country: Amount:
1 US 243,069
2 Russian Federation 156,994
3 China 113,209
4 Australia 76,367
5 India 57,955
6 Ukraine 32,988
7 Kazakhstan 31,626
8 South Africa 30,713
9 Poland 7,574
10 Brazil 7,001
11 Canada 6,763
12 Colombia 6,672
13 Germany 6,560
14 Czech Republic 4,550
15 Indonesia 4,415
16 Greece 3,942
17 Hungary 3,291
18 Pakistan 2,090
19 Bulgaria 1,963
20 Turkey 1,832
21 Thailand 1,344
22 Mexico 1,227
23 North Korea 609
24 New Zealand 566
25 Spain 541
26 Zimbabwe 502
27 Venezuela 479
27 Romania 398
29 Japan 360
30 United Kingdom 152
31 Vietnam 151
32 South Korea 132
-
From President Obama's tough new budget today:
For the Department of Energy (DOE), the president requested a 12 percent increase over the current level to $29.5 billion. The budget promises to incur savings, however, through “cuts to inefficient fossil energy programs.” The proposal comes just three days after DOE Secretary Steven Chu outlined how the agency would cut wasteful spending.
The Office of Science is slated to receive $5.4 billion increase in funding in the president’s proposal, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy a is slated to get total of $550 million.
The president wants to double the number of Energy Innovation Hubs throughout the country from three to six as a challenge to “America’s scientists and engineers to assemble teams of the best minds in their fields to focus on the hardest problems in clean energy.”
The proposal calls the hubs the “Apollo projects of our time.”
Obama also reiterated the goal he laid out in his State of the Union address last month of one million electric cars on the road by 2015. To do so, the administration proposes transforming an existing $7,500 tax credit into a rebate for consumers who buy electric vehicles, spending $588 million on vehicle technology at the Department of Energy (DOE), and rewarding communities that pursue electric vehicle infrastructure with a $200 million incentive program.
The president also lays out how the government could fund his proposed Clean Energy Standard (CES) – a goal that would double the amount of electricity used from clean energy sources by 2035. The budget includes up to $36 billion in future loans for nuclear power plants and $200 million in credit for $1 to $2 billion dollars in loan guarantees for innovation in energy efficiency.
Moreover, in an effort to fund reducing emissions from commercial buildings, the budget proposes a “Race to Green” program, similar to the Department of Education’s “Race to the Top” that makes states compete for funding. The program aims to reduce energy usage by 20 percent by 2020.
To help pay for it all, the budget proposes rolling back tax breaks and subsidies to the oil industry, totaling $46.2 billion.
Energy innovation hubs? I just threw up a little in my mouth. If all the oil companies combined their resources they don't have enough money to grease the scientist's wheels to keep up with this level of boondoggle -- they still have shareholders after all.
Race to Green? Do any of you think this money will be spent on anything productive?
The office of science gets $5.4 Billion -- I wonder how much of that will be going to actually study if we have an issue? My guess is $0. If I had a kid in college I'd tell him to become a grant writer.
-
Steve,
Do you think a couple of those towers cost more/less than a state of the art irrigation system? Plus, couldn't they be a design element...aim for the ion generator...don't aim for the tower the archie is screwing with you...
-
;<)) Don, Given no unsightly wires to foster alignment.. you might get a real spin charge out of challenging the ion flow-winds
-
Reading through your various levels of dissembling on this issue has been a chore. The idea that the accumulated opinion of every reputable scientists or scientific institution in the world having to 'prove' something to your pea-sized brain is laughable...
The fact of the matter is the activities you mention will become cost prohibitive and unavailable to all simply because we are using the hydro-carbon resources on earth quicker than nature replaces them. I;m sure the concept of supply and demand has not escaped you.
The point of making them somewhat cost prohibitive now is that we create an incentive and financial means to create non-CO2 producing avenues for continuing these activities before everyone turns into an extra from Mad Max over a tank of gas.
The notion that this will lead to a transfer of wealth is complete and utter bullshit. The people with capital and intelligence will profit from this turn of events just like they always do. And for the record, Al Gore did not get wealthy over stoking fears that climate change will kill us all. He made about $50m out of his Google options alone. As it turns out, 2000 was very good time to not become President of the US, at least for him...
Is there any need to resort to personal abuse? Just because I have a different opinion, why does that mean I have a "pea brain"? It's precisely this sort of attitude which alienates the majority of people.
All I'm asking for is empirical proof, not a hypothesis or a theory. I'd say that was the minimum we needed before undertaking such a huge financial spree. It would, of course, help if the role of clouds was fully understood. The same clouds which make up by far the largest part of the greenhouse effect. If we can't understand the role of them, what chance have we got?
As for Mr Gore, he's done very well for himself. Especially with carbon trading companies. I'll take him - and others of his ilk - a lot more seriously when they stop flying around by private jet and buying multi million dollar seaside mansions. He can't be that worried about sea rise can he? One of my favourite Al Gore quotes is this one:
"but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, because the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees"
Yep. Real smart cookie is Al.
I can't tell if you're retarded or you just play one on the internet. The fact that Al Gore has made money from the business of climate change has zero affect on the scientific principles that have created it. For some reason a lot of people posting here seem to think that mentioning Al Gore has become wealthy since 2000 somehow proves global warming must be a figment of his imagination.
The simple fact is the more activity and success you have the bigger your carbon footprint will be simply because the infrastructure to go carbon-neutral and not simply buy carbon credits (by which Gore completely offsets his CO2 emissions) doesn't exist. My carbon footprint will almost double this year just because I have a client in Chicago, and another in LA.
Last time I was out in California, I spent 15 minutes helping a woman driving a Nissan Leaf locate a power point outside a health club in Santa Barbara so she had enough juice to get back to Santa Monica. This after she had charged the car for 6 hours at her hotel the previous night. You won't convince people to change their behaviors and buying patterns when the zero CO2 alternative is a huge hassle. That's the Inconvenient Truth.
Hence the DOE infrastructure funding for 220 volt charging stations etc. that another Einstein on this thread thinks worthy of mocking. The Obama Administration is simply acknowledging electrical vehicle purchases won't grow until there's an infrastructure in place to facilitate the mobility people expect from their cars. That seems like the opposite of naive to me. And despite what everyone says, the most economic opportunity is in the Industries that attract the most government support. i.e. Energy, Healthcare, the Internet. Even the car Industry itself... as I recall about 2 years ago the entire US car industry heading towards bankruptcy. After the Obama administration invested about $50b, GM is worth about twice that and a million people still have a job. On top of that, demand for domestic vehicles is so great, we're importing cars from Detroit.
You have to think of buying an electric car as the equivalent of buying a computer 20 years ago. If we didn't continue to do that despite their obvious shortcomings, we wouldn't have the MacBook Air today. The carbon fuel and automotive industry were simply too heavily funded by our government to change, that's why the initial efforts to break out of this paradigm will probably leave a lot to be desired... we should have been suffering through the development pains of creating legitimate alternate fuel and power alternatives immediately after the first Oil Crisis. That would have at least spared us the enormous cost of bringing 'freedoms' to our friends in the Middle East.
-
Steve,
I didn't take the time to read your post careful enough to know your political leanings, but that's the same data I've seen for proven oil reserves.
At today's approximate usage rate of 80 million barrels per day, the world uses 29.2 billion barrels of oil per year. I think if you added those reserves up, you'd find that there's about 40 years of proven reserves left.
To all,
There's significant discussion about "taking the market" out of the oil business. Since oil is an inexpensive but precious commodity, I don't believe "the market" properly allocates this resource with a long term outlook. Too much short term greed. There are some things in business that don't lend themselves well to market forces. When oil is gone, it's gone.
And Tom Birkert, I believe there has been compelling evidence to support the theory. Thanks.
Peace and love to everyone. Unless you're on the other side, then well...
-
John K- in an earlier post you cited the 97% concensus figure (scientiists supporting AGW) as being overwhelmingly conclusive and statistically incontrovertable. Funny thing about those statistics...that oft quoted poll seems to have been derived from a whopping 77 climate scientists (most of whom received research funding to reach those conclusions)...But don't take my word for it:
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2009/11/no-consensus-about-anthropogenic-global.html
For Matt, Craig S, Richard, David C and David E- Here's another 1000 world scientists that have recently (as of Dec 2010) come out strongly against AGW and especially against the IPCC in light of the Climategate disaster. Many of these "deniers" were formerly recent "believers" and IPCC scientists themselves. Some really good quotes from several of them.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore
-
David E- Here's another 1000 world scientists that have recently....
I have no dog in this fight, Chris, I am open minded on Golbal warming, and very skeptical as to whether the governments are coming up with anything like an economically efficient solution.
-
Thanks Tom, But what is it that actually costs money?
And why is a monetary cost important? Isn't that just a redistribution of money, from those that produce CO2 to those that dont?
What is the actual cost of reducing CO2? How would we be worse off? How would people in developing countries be worse off?
sorry to go backwards, but is this a legitimate question?
-
Thanks Tom, But what is it that actually costs money?
And why is a monetary cost important? Isn't that just a redistribution of money, from those that produce CO2 to those that dont?
What is the actual cost of reducing CO2? How would we be worse off? How would people in developing countries be worse off?
sorry to go backwards, but is this a legitimate question?
yes, looking for a good answer.
-
Reading through your various levels of dissembling on this issue has been a chore. The idea that the accumulated opinion of every reputable scientists or scientific institution in the world having to 'prove' something to your pea-sized brain is laughable...
The fact of the matter is the activities you mention will become cost prohibitive and unavailable to all simply because we are using the hydro-carbon resources on earth quicker than nature replaces them. I;m sure the concept of supply and demand has not escaped you.
The point of making them somewhat cost prohibitive now is that we create an incentive and financial means to create non-CO2 producing avenues for continuing these activities before everyone turns into an extra from Mad Max over a tank of gas.
The notion that this will lead to a transfer of wealth is complete and utter bullshit. The people with capital and intelligence will profit from this turn of events just like they always do. And for the record, Al Gore did not get wealthy over stoking fears that climate change will kill us all. He made about $50m out of his Google options alone. As it turns out, 2000 was very good time to not become President of the US, at least for him...
Is there any need to resort to personal abuse? Just because I have a different opinion, why does that mean I have a "pea brain"? It's precisely this sort of attitude which alienates the majority of people.
All I'm asking for is empirical proof, not a hypothesis or a theory. I'd say that was the minimum we needed before undertaking such a huge financial spree. It would, of course, help if the role of clouds was fully understood. The same clouds which make up by far the largest part of the greenhouse effect. If we can't understand the role of them, what chance have we got?
As for Mr Gore, he's done very well for himself. Especially with carbon trading companies. I'll take him - and others of his ilk - a lot more seriously when they stop flying around by private jet and buying multi million dollar seaside mansions. He can't be that worried about sea rise can he? One of my favourite Al Gore quotes is this one:
"but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, because the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees"
Yep. Real smart cookie is Al.
I can't tell if you're retarded or you just play one on the internet. The fact that Al Gore has made money from the business of climate change has zero affect on the scientific principles that have created it. For some reason a lot of people posting here seem to think that mentioning Al Gore has become quite wealthy since 2000 somehow proves global warming must be a figment of his imagination.
The simple fact is the more activity and success you have the higher your carbon footprint will rise simply because the infrastructure to go carbon-neutral and not simply buy carbon credits (by which Gore completely offsets his CO2 emissions) doesn't exist. My carbon footprint will almost double this year just because I have a client in Chicago, and another in LA.
Last time I was out in California, I spent 15 minutes helping a woman driving a Nissan Leaf locate a power point outside a health club in Santa Barbara so she had enough juice to get back to Santa Monica. This after she had charged the car for 6 hours at her hotel the previous night. You won't convince people to change their behaviors and buying patterns when the low CO2 alternative is a huge hassle. That's the Inconvenient Truth.
Hence the DOE infrastructure funding for 220 volt charging stations etc. that another Einstein on this thread thinks worthy of mocking. The Obama Administration is simply acknowledging electrical vehicle purchases won't grow until there's an infrastructure in place to facilitate the mobility people expect from the cars. That seems like the opposite of naive to me. And despite what everyone says, the most economic opportunity is in the Industries that attract the most government support. i.e. Energy, Healthcare, the Internet.
You have to think of buying an electric car as the equivalent of buying a computer 20 years ago. If we didn't continue to do that despite their obvious shortcomings, we wouldn't have the MacBook Air today. The carbon fuel and automotive industry were simply too heavily funded by our government to change, that's why the initial efforts to break out of this paradigm are going to leave a lot to be desired... we should have been suffering through the development pains of creating legitimate alternate fuel and power alternatives immediately after the first Oil Crisis. That would have at least spared us the enormous cost of bringing 'freedoms' to our friends in the Middle East.
-
John K- in an earlier post you cited the 97% concensus figure (scientiists supporting AGW) as being overwhelmingly conclusive and statistically incontrovertable. Funny thing about those statistics...that oft quoted poll seems to have been derived from a whopping 77 climate scientists (most of whom received research funding to reach those conclusions)...But don't take my word for it:
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2009/11/no-consensus-about-anthropogenic-global.html
OK, Chris, I looked at your blog post, and then I looked at the actual paper that reported the findings. Nowhere in the findings does it suggest that only 77 climate scientists were polled. The actual number is 1,372.
PNAS-2010-Anderegg-1003187107.pdf
I'll choose this scientific paper over the blog as my source of information.
-
To the deniers....what do you suppose happens when CO2 is released into the atmosphere? Does it simply go away with no effect? Surely the science and the knowledge is there to "prove" that CO2 will react with the atmosphere in a particulair way...right?
So if there is a reaction....and I think we are ALL in agreement that there is....but lets set aside man made CO2 releases...what do you deniers make of the increase in NATURALLY OCCURING releases of CO2? In other words, as the climate NATURALLY WARMS, and the tundra thaws and releases CO2...and the oceans release more CO2 than they can absorb, will this have a "snowball" effect on climate change?
We have had ice ages and serious climate warm ups....we know how they occured. CO2 has been involved with every warm up.
-
Who said this...
"But the xxxxxx also criticised environmentalists for concentrating "on what people need to stop doing".
"If we are constantly told that living environmentally friendly lives means giving up all that makes life worthwhile, then it is no surprise that people refuse to change.""
-
To the deniers....what do you suppose happens when CO2 is released into the atmosphere? Does it simply go away with no effect? Surely the science and the knowledge is there to "prove" that CO2 will react with the atmosphere in a particulair way...right?
So if there is a reaction....and I think we are ALL in agreement that there is....but lets set aside man made CO2 releases...what do you deniers make of the increase in NATURALLY OCCURING releases of CO2? In other words, as the climate NATURALLY WARMS, and the tundra thaws and releases CO2...and the oceans release more CO2 than they can absorb, will this have a "snowball" effect on climate change?
We have had ice ages and serious climate warm ups....we know how they occured. CO2 has been involved with every warm up.
Again, enough of the "deniers" rubbish. It had clear, deliberate connotations with the Holocaust and I find it personally very offensive. I'm not denying climate change; change is, after all, the only constant. I find the notion that we think we can control and stabilise the temperature of the planet the very height of Mankind's arrogance.
If we are talking about a totally enclosed system, whereby every other factor was fully understood and stayed the same, then rising CO2 would cause a small amount of warming. Of course, the effect of CO2 is logarithmic, so the more that is added, the less the effect. However, it's not that simple in the real world. The other factors aren't all known. The other factors aren't all understood. It's a chaotic system, with so many variables, that it's utterly impossible to single out one factor and say it's responsible, especially given the poor data and the incredibly short period of time we're talking about. We're guessing. We've taken the one factor that we can monitor, and convinced ourselves that correlation equates to causation. Well it doesn't. Empirical proof is required, and there is absolutely none.
As for CO2 being involved in every warm up, it's generally accepted that an increase in temperature leads to more CO2 being released by the oceans (which hold the vast majority of CO2). The increase in CO2 lags temperature increases by approximately 600-800 years. So it's a delayed signal of a warming episode, but not the causal effect.
At the time when CO2 was rising most dramatically - 1940s to 1970s - the temperature fell. The models have predicted even greater warming as CO2 increased, yet this hasn't happened. It's plateaued. Same with tropical storms. They've actually fallen in number dramatically.
The overwhelming majority of CO2 in the atmosphere is from natural sources. Roughly 4% is Man's responsibility. Water vapour has by far the biggest greenhouse effect, around 95%. CO2 is next, again at around 4%. So Man is responsible for 4% of the 4%, or 0.016%. We could cease to exist and the climate would still change, just as it always has done, and always will do.
What really has changed is that we've started to look more into the matter, and we hate to feel powerless. It's always nice to have some big problem to worry about, especially one that can't actually be proven but can be used for any number of purposes.
Finally, a word of advice for those who do believe in man made global warming. Don't preach. Don't abuse others who don't share your view. Demand scientific honesty and integrity, and admit to the numerous unknowns. Admit just how little we know, and how uncertain a lot of it is. You're losing the battle for "hearts and minds" for all those reasons, and many others too.
-
Al Gore – “An Inconvenient Truth”:
* Page 227: “Almost 30 % of the CO2 released into the atmosphere each year is a result of the burning of brushland for subsistence agriculture and wood fires used for cooking.”
* Page 230-231 shows a “six-month time lapse image of the world at night” from satellite imagery, in which “Africa stands out partly because of the prevalence of wood fires for cooking.” (Other burning areas can be seen in South America and Southeast Asia.)
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported in October 2006 that deforestation accounts for 25 to 30 percent of the release of greenhouse gases [http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000385/index.html]. The report states: “Most people assume that global warming is caused by burning oil and gas. But in fact between 25 and 30 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year – 1.6 billion tonnes – is caused by deforestation. … Delegates of the 46 developing countries present at the Rome workshop signalled their readiness to act on deforestation, 80 percent of which is due to increased farmland to feed growing populations. … But they also stressed that they needed financial help from the developed world to do the job.”
Greenpeace:
* “Global emissions from tropical deforestation alone contribute up to 25% of total annual human-induced CO2 emissions to the atmosphere.” [http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/carving-up-the-congo-exec.pdf]
"People often do not take into account the main driver of deforestation, which is very different in Africa, where it is the need for fuel wood," said Kevin Conrad, director of the Coalition for Rainforest Nations at the Earth Institute of Columbia University. … Deforestation is responsible for 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon emissions every year, amounting to one-fifth of the global total, and to more than the combined total contributed by the world's energy-intensive transport sectors, according to the Indonesia-based Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). "Deforestation contributes almost as much to climate change as does US fossil fuel use," said Conrad. "Yet deforestation was specifically excluded from the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, which failed to address this significant source of carbon emissions." [http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=75868]
-
Thanks Tom, But what is it that actually costs money?
And why is a monetary cost important? Isn't that just a redistribution of money, from those that produce CO2 to those that dont?
What is the actual cost of reducing CO2? How would we be worse off? How would people in developing countries be worse off?
sorry to go backwards, but is this a legitimate question?
yes, looking for a good answer.
For the state of Georgia. Taken from a paper titled "Observed Climate Change and the Negligible Global Effect of Greenhouse-gas Emission Limits in the State of Georgia" Of course costs cannot be counted until they are incurred. So all you will get are estimates.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
And what would be the potential costs to Georgia of federal actions designed to cap greenhouse gas emissions?
A comprehensive analysis was recently completed by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) examining the economic impact of The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill (HR 2454). The Waxman-Markey bill is typical of federal proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The NAM/ACCF commissioned the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to assess the impact of the Waxman-Markey bill on manufacturing, jobs, energy prices and the overall economy. The NAM/ACCF study accounts for all federal energy laws and regulations currently in effect. It accounts for increased access to oil and natural gas supplies, new and extended tax credits for renewable generation technologies, increased World Oil Price profile, as well as permit allocations for industry and international offsets. Additionally, the provisions of the stimulus package passed in February 2009 are included in the study.
The 2009 Waxman-Markey Bill proposed targets that would reduce GHG emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020; 42% below 2005 levels by 2030; and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050.
For a complete description of these findings please visit: http://www.accf.org/ publications/126/accf-nam-study.
In general, for the U.S., the NAM/ACCF found:
Cumulative Loss in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) up to $3.1 trillion (2012-2030)
Employment losses up to 2.4 million jobs in 2030
Residential electricity price increases up to 50 percent by 2030
Gasoline price increases (per gallon) up 26 percent by 2030.
The NAM/ACCF also analyzed the economic costs on a state by state basis. For Georgia, in particular, they found that by the year 2020, average annual household disposable income would decline by $87 to $199 and by the year 2030 the decline would increase to between $516 and $930. The state would stand to lose between 47,722 and 64,993 jobs by 2030. At the same time energy prices would rise substantially. Gasoline prices could increase by 26%, electricity prices by 53% and natural gas by up to 64%. Georgia’s Gross State Product could decline by 2030 by as much as $15.6 billion/yr.
-
Tom Bikert,
You are a much better man than I am, and I like to think that my skin has grown rather thick through my years of relevant experience. Thank you for your well-written, common sense posts, and for not replying in kind.
It is hard for smart people to hold dear cultural, hard-wired life-views which don't match well with how the highly complicated, multivariate world works. As the tone of the "Believers" often betrays, cognitive dissonance can be quite unsettling.
The problem with your closing is that it is impossible. Psychologically, people aren't built to require the same of themselves as they do of others- my "facts", your "beleifs"; industry scientists are charlatans motivated by the greed of their paymasters and their research is to be summarily dismissed while government and "non-profit" scientists are trustworthy, altruistic, and pure as wind driven snow. Somehow the latter are not governed by the same basic needs as the rest of us, something that my "pea sized brain" just can't quite grasp.
In the meantime, as David Elvins and others seem to suggest, it is not about costs or wealth anyways, so we might as well go full out on that 0.016% of the problem. Do you think that Los Angeles, London, Madrid, Paris, etc. are immune from what just happened in Cairo? Do we care to test that theory, peer-review it, and make it into a "scientific" fact?
-
In the meantime, as David Elvins and others seem to suggest....
Please don't paint me as having an agenda here, Lou. I know very little about the subject and have an open mind. I am only asking the questions.
Personally I thought that Tom Birkett's response, whilst interesting, was hysterical. If you found it well reasoned, then fair enough.
Jeff Taylor,
Thanks for the info.
-
Jeff Taylor,
Thanks for the info.
My pleasure David. Upon reading the text myself, I could not help but think of the irony of a 20 to 30 year economic forecast about global warming legislation. They are starting from a fixed standard though (Waxman- Markey).
-
yes, looking for a good answer.
Have you purchased an airline ticket recently, and been asked to pay extra to 'fly carbon neutral' ?
Imagine if you needed to do everything 'carbon neutral' ? How much extra would it cost you each day, especially if this 'neutrality' were imposed on you, rather than optional?
The cost of action is directly linked to the amount of action taken. Take very little action, see very little cost. Take extreme action, pay and extreme cost. eg. Carbon offsetting is little action, little cost. Cancelling the burning of fossil fuels altogether, extreme action - extreme cost.
By the way, when you make the choice whether to fly carbon neutral or not, you are effectively picking your dog in this fight, whether you like it or not.
-
Have you purchased an airline ticket recently, and been asked to pay extra to 'fly carbon neutral' ?
Yeah, the carbon offset thingy is normally $1-2 a ticket. That is why I am not understanding how taking action against global warming is too costly. I can absorb an extra cost of 0.5-1%. I really don't understand Tom's claiims that I will never be able to fly again.
Imagine if you needed to do everything 'carbon neutral' ? How much extra would it cost you each day, especially if this 'neutrality' were imposed on you, rather than optional?
I don't know and I don't like imagining, that is why I am asking. If it is like the plane ticket and in the range of 0.5-1%, I can probably handle it.
The cost of action is directly linked to the amount of action taken. Take very little action, see very little cost. Take extreme action, pay and extreme cost. eg. Carbon offsetting is little action, little cost. Cancelling the burning of fossil fuels altogether, extreme action - extreme cost.
I just find it hard to belive that man is not ingeneous enough to come up with alternative low cost energy. People like Lou Duran are always talking about encouraging innovation, man's ability to adapt, etc etc, yet here we have so many of the same people crying out that the status quo should be maintained at all costs. I am just not sure what I am missing?
By the way, when you make the choice whether to fly carbon neutral or not, you are effectively picking your dog in this fight, whether you like it or not.
that is why I fly carbon neutral on every second flight, only.
-
I just find it hard to belive that man is not ingeneous enough to come up with alternative low cost energy. People like Lou Duran are always talking about encouraging innovation, man's ability to adapt, etc etc, yet here we have so many of the same people crying out that the status quo should be maintained at all costs. I am just not sure what I am missing?
they have, it's called nuclear energy. It upsets a whole other group of people with a different agenda....
There is plenty of encouragement for innovation, don't let the latest Wall St movie lead you to believe otherwise. Who is crying out for the status quo to be maintained at all costs? If it aint broke, don't fix it. If someone can produce irrefutable evidence that it is broken, then something may need fixing....
that is why I fly carbon neutral on every second flight, only.
Excellent answer, made me chortle a little. However, taking the option just once - gives you a dog. He's just a Jack Russel though, and you never walk him or feed him.
-
Duncan,
France seems to have implemented a safe and sound Nuclear Power System quite well.
I don't see why other nations couldn't replicate or improve the model.
-
What is France doing with their spent nuclear material?
-
To the deniers....what do you suppose happens when CO2 is released into the atmosphere? Does it simply go away with no effect? Surely the science and the knowledge is there to "prove" that CO2 will react with the atmosphere in a particulair way...right?
So if there is a reaction....and I think we are ALL in agreement that there is....but lets set aside man made CO2 releases...what do you deniers make of the increase in NATURALLY OCCURING releases of CO2? In other words, as the climate NATURALLY WARMS, and the tundra thaws and releases CO2...and the oceans release more CO2 than they can absorb, will this have a "snowball" effect on climate change?
We have had ice ages and serious climate warm ups....we know how they occured. CO2 has been involved with every warm up.
WHOOOOAAAA ! TIME OUT
CO2 is essentailly an inert molecule in the atmosphere, and gets scrubbed out by dissolving in water drops/aerosols and then it converts into bicarbonate and carbonate species depending on pH. (it can react with ammonia in the atmosphere when its present, but that's a trace thing)
-
Duncan,
France seems to have implemented a safe and sound Nuclear Power System quite well.
I don't see why other nations couldn't replicate or improve the model.
they have, it's called nuclear energy. It upsets a whole other group of people with a different agenda....
What is France doing with their spent nuclear material?
Like I said Pat.....
-
In the meantime, as David Elvins and others seem to suggest....
Please don't paint me as having an agenda here, Lou. I know very little about the subject and have an open mind. I am only asking the questions.
Personally I thought that Tom Birkett's response, whilst interesting, was hysterical. If you found it well reasoned, then fair enough.
Jeff Taylor,
Thanks for the info.
David,
Perhaps something is lost in translation and/or style, but your second paragraph doesn't seem to support your first. Maybe your questions or concepts on money, costs, and wealth are just too abstruse for those of us of simpler understanding.
You write:
"I just find it hard to belive that man is not ingeneous enough to come up with alternative low cost energy. People like Lou Duran are always talking about encouraging innovation, man's ability to adapt, etc etc, yet here we have so many of the same people crying out that the status quo should be maintained at all costs."
I don't recognize this Duran guy. Can you point me to where he advocates "that the status quo should be maintained at all costs"?
And why do you suppose that to date man has not been "ingeneous enough to come up with alternative low cost energy"? In the U.S. alone, "our" Energy Department has spent over $600 Billion since its inception. Just like they have been keeping fuel-saving carburation devices off the market for decades, might the evil oil companies and the psuedo-scientists, slimy lobbyists, and Republican politicians they employ been involved in a colossal conspiracy to thwart the heroic efforts of our noblest and finest scientific minds? Or could it be that the gradual, but positive strides in energy productivity has something to do with the laws of thermodynamics?
-
Or could it be that the gradual, but positive strides in energy productivity has something to do with the laws of thermodynamics?
This may provide some insight about innovation and renewable energy.
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/16/the-california-green-debauch/
-
Nice article Jeff. I am sure it won't be long before someone points out that it is on a conservative website, therefore it must be sponsered by big oil and they won't even bother to read it. ;)
-
I have come late to this subject and wonder whether this has been mentioned before, if so, I apologise.
Professor Ian Plimer, the Australian geologist, whose new book shows that 'anthropogenic global warming' is a dangerous, ruinously expensive fiction, a 'first-world luxury' with no basis in scientific fact. Could not have said it better!
If you've read his book, "Heaven and Earth -- Global Warming: The Missing Science," (2009) you will agree, this is a good summary.
Are you sitting down?
Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it's that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know, it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cents light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs ...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time - EVERY DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.
Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus "human-caused" climate change scenario.
Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention "Global Warming" any more, but just "Climate Change" - you know why? It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure.
But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!
PS: I wonder if Iceland is buying carbon offsets?
-
Opposite point of view on this volcano vs. man thing
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm
-
Brush fires have no net impact on CO2, because the brush grows back (and then burns again) Nor does using wood for fires, or making paper, or whatever, so long as you are using it sustainably - not using any more than what grows back. What matters as far as net human carbon impact is cutting down or burning forests and replacing them with something that locks up much less carbon, like crops, or digging up carbon locked up in plant material for millions of years in the form of oil and coal.
Whether you think that human carbon impact is huge or a drop in the bucket compared to other sources is another matter. This battle has little to do with science, and everything to do with politics. If you doubt that, check polls on how few liberals are global warming "deniers" and how few conservatives believe in it. Its really kind of sad how most people drink their respective party's kool-aid by the gallon, but of course that isn't just in terms of global warming...
-
IProfessor Ian Plimer, the Australian geologist, whose new book shows that 'anthropogenic global warming' is a dangerous, ruinously expensive fiction, a 'first-world luxury' with no basis in scientific fact. Could not have said it better!
If you've read his book, "Heaven and Earth -- Global Warming: The Missing Science," (2009) you will agree, this is a good summary.
Are you sitting down?
Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Bob,
I have followed Ian Plimer's career quite closely. Back in the day when I was studying mining and geology, he was the man when it came to the geology of Broken Hill. Then he became a bit of a media guy on geology and I enjoyed his book, "A short histoy of planet earth" which was an interesting and thought provoking book.
I have only read bits of "Heaven and Earth.." but from what I can gather, it is equally interesting and thouht provoking. It is interesting to note the difference between the reaction to "A short history..." and "Heaven and Earth.." which has, I believe been treated much more as a scientific production and less of an opinion piece. the book has several obvious shortcomings, not least his reluctance to come up with any evidence on his 'volcano hypothesis' despite much questioning/ridiculing of the numbers he uses. The bits you mention about volcanos are at odds with most other research and he looks evasive and decietful when challenged here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7y6xJbcW4A
As Doug says, "This battle has little to do with science, and everything to do with politics. If you doubt that, check polls on how few liberals are global warming "deniers" and how few conservatives believe in it." and it is a pity that Plimer's point will always be qeustioned as whether it is coming from a scientist (well, mining geologist) or a right wing idealogue. For those of us that would like to know the truth, without any agenda, it is a most frustrating debate, and one that I have never been able to fully engage wiith.
I found this article most relevant to the Global Warming Debate
http://www.theage.com.au/world/defector-admits-he-lied-to-help-topple-saddam-20110216-1awjh.html
BTW, if you missed my PM, Bob, Thank you very much for the other book recommendation. Loved it!
-
Green Smoke Screen...
http://www.slate.com/id/2284634/pagenum/2
-
I generally try to avoid contemptuous threads now days, but I feel inclined to toss in my two cents here.
RE: the environment and global warming.
My position is simple. Until you know how what you are doing is going to affect your ecosystem, you are playing a game of chance.
A game of chance is acceptable when playing with house money, or when attempting to reach a par 5 over water in two shots on a Saturday playing a casual round with you kids.
But when it comes to something like the earth, and considering that this earth sustains our form of life, I think playing a game of chance is reckless.
Hence, whenever it is prudent for us to cease playing this game of chance, I think it is a no-brainer that such ought to be the policy enforced.
-
Pilmer may be a sexy name of the moment for global warming deniers, but just because he is a geologist does not mean that the facts he is claiming is correct.
According to US Geological Survey, the humans spew 130 times more CO2 than volcanoes. EPA also disagrees with his numbers (The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated that Plimer's statement "has no factual basis" since "Volcanoes are only responsible for a couple of hundred megatons per year of CO2 —a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than human emissions— and are balanced by deep ocean burial", and because volcanoes produce 200 million tons of CO2 a year compared with 600 million tons from U.S. passenger cars alone.). That is including underwater volcanoes which Pilmer frequently states that USGS does not include in their survey. Unless Pilmer can factually dispute USGS' and slew of affiliated scientists and researchers' methods and data, he gets placed in the same special corner with creationists that he vehemently disagrees with.
If Pilmer is correct about his analysis, there would be other geologists who would back him up with independently measured data. No one else has. That is what is great about science, you can state whatever you want, but unless others can reproduce the same data, your statements are not worth anything.
Sorry, Bob...
-
That is what is great about science, you can state whatever you want, but unless others can reproduce the same data, your statements are not worth anything.
Pretty difficult to reproduce some of the data from the UEA as they broke the freedom of information law so as not to disclose it! What sort of scientific method is that?
As Professor Jones stated so eloquently "Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?".
I'm not a denier by the way.
-
Gentlemen
When you arse is proceeding toward your teeth via your internal organs at some unbelievable velocity after the Super Volcanoes go bang, please remember before you are vaporised and add to the detritus that will one year be falling back to Earth adding yet more pollution THAT I TOLD YOU SO. Oh yes its Yellowstone that they say is due to go first, so we will solve the big problem with the carts and distance aids with one bang – what that saying ' Every cloud has a silver lining’ and what a big F*@King Cloud.
I think we will have Global warming when that happens, in the mean time I wish you a Goodnight .
Melvyn
-
Gentlemen
When you arse is proceeding toward your teeth via your internal organs at some unbelievable velocity after the Super Volcanoes go bang, please remember before you are vaporised and add to the detritus that will one year be falling back to Earth adding yet more pollution THAT I TOLD YOU SO. Oh yes its Yellowstone that they say is due to go first, so we will solve the big problem with the carts and distance aids with one bang – what that saying ' Every cloud has a silver lining’ and what a big F*@King Cloud.
I think we will have Global warming when that happens, in the mean time I wish you a Goodnight .
Melvyn
I would be willing to bet we would have global cooling, not global warming, Melvyn.
-
I hope there are no Lord Monckton fans around here ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q
-
New scientific studies reported in the New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/science/earth/17extreme.html?_r=1&hp. They ran computer theories to explain a 7% increase in extreme rains (data 1951-1999 in the northern hemisphere) and were unable to replicate the increase until they factored in greenhouse gases. It was noted that the 7% increase was "well outside the boundary of normal variability." The papers are (will be?) published in Nature.
-
Bet you thought we were through with this dead horse.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/25/gop-inquiry-produces-no-evidence-that-climate-scientists-misused-data/
-
I'll go for climate change, not global warming...
too cold to start the round in Scottsdale Arizona... current temp : 38F... hig for today 52 F
Standing on the golf course, I go for the world is flat.
:P
-
Don’t you just love proof
(http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p421/Melvyn_Hunter/SnowinGB.jpg)
Melvyn
-
Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for Years ....
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110223-nuclear-war-winter-global-warming-environment-science-climate-change/
-
Science marches on...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/27/can-these-scientists-end-climate-change-war
Muller calls his latest obsession the Berkeley Earth project. The aim is so simple that the complexity and magnitude of the undertaking is easy to miss. Starting from scratch, with new computer tools and more data than has ever been used, they will arrive at an independent assessment of global warming. The team will also make every piece of data it uses – 1.6bn data points – freely available on a website. It will post its workings alongside, including full information on how more than 100 years of data from thousands of instruments around the world are stitched together to give a historic record of the planet's temperature.
Obviously, Prof Muller is dillusional if he believes his (great) work will settle the debate. The deniers willfully ignore any data that does not suit their world view, that isn't going to change just because someone comes up with more accurate data (unless that data agrees with the preconceived view).
But, scientifically speaking, Prof Muller's work will be illuminating.
-
Richard,
I didn't read the article.
Can you tell me who is funding the research?
Thanks
-
Richard,
Does the "100 years of data" mean temperature readings for the lasst 100 years? Or does it mean scientific findings relating to temperature over the last 100 years?
What's smaller...the 100 years divided by the age of the earth? Or the number of people interested in the Merion/NGLA debates divided by the total on the planet?
-
Richard,
I didn't read the article.
Can you tell me who is funding the research?
Thanks
Don,
Here is one paragraph about the funding, which ranges from the Koch Brothers to the Gates Foundation
" For the time being, Muller's project is organised under the auspices of Novim, a Santa Barbara-based non-profit organisation that uses science to find answers to the most pressing issues facing society and to publish them "without advocacy or agenda". Funding has come from a variety of places, including the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (funded by Bill Gates), and the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley Lab. One donor has had some climate bloggers up in arms: the man behind the Charles G Koch Charitable Foundation owns, with his brother David, Koch Industries, a company Greenpeace called a "kingpin of climate science denial". On this point, Muller says the project has taken money from right and left alike."
-
What do you think of geoengineering ? Should we try to hack the planet?
http://www.justmeans.com/blogs/What-Are-the-Costs-of-Geoengineering--and-Will-It-Work-/546.html
(https://skitch.com/macadoo/rupya/what-are-the-costs-of-geoengineering-and-will-it-work)