Global Climate Change (Natural or Man Made)

Moen - My views on bias apply to everyone. There is a lot of junk science out there on food, health, environmental, and corporate issues issues. For all of human history, certain people and groups have sold the masses on the idea that if everyone just puts them in control, the village, province, nation or planet can be saved from all sorts of perceived dangers. Being 90% sure means they were unable to scientifically test the hypothesis drawn from statistical relationships in the data. It means they were unable to utilize the scientific method, which would have established a cause and effect relationship that could be tested and verified consistently. I would just suggest that this should make people more skeptical than they have been that other natural forces are at work, but everyone can judge for themselves. You're correct that this thread is about played out.

Bone - Looks interesting. Thanks.

 

I consider myself a born skeptic. It takes quite a bit to convince me of just about anything. Hence my signature and the whole question of God. Skeptism is fine, but entrenched beliefs that persist beyond rational evidence just indicates a closed mind. You know, like Midas.

Holding on to the shread of doubt, which will always exist, is backwards thinking at it's most obsurd level. At some point you just have to go with the mountain rather than the mole hill. That's all I'm saying.

 

I swear he is getting kickbacks for pushing this book.

 

I do Now was THAT your final say on the subject, LOL

Ben

 

thats where you made the mistake...you are fooling yourself into thinking there is a consensus...or just telling yourself that those that disagree for VERY real reasons...and they are many...have an agenda...

There is no consensus in the scientific community at all...there seems to be an agreement that there is change (and to date not a drastic one) but not at all regarding cause...just to clear that up

I blame islam.

 

Consensus and Agendas

I guess it depends on where you seek your information as to whether you see the consensus or not. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio, Sean Hannity, and FOX news, and you read reports funded by oil companies and defense contractors, then you will conclude that there is no consensus, because that is what they want you to believe. The agenda supporting that view is the immense wealth that can be extracted from the public in the next couple of dozen years by:
1. keeping them DUMB and happy
2. keeping them in DEBT
3. keeping them BUYING STUFF

If you seek your information from places like Scientific American, National Geographic, the IPCC report, BBC News, you will find that in fact there IS a broadly based consensus of both scientists and politicians who are deeply concerned about the potential effects on the health and wealth of the world's people. The agenda of this group is the solving of problems and can be summarized by three prime goals:
1. Solving problems of disease
2. Solving problems of poverty and starvation
3. Solving problems of war and conflict

The issue for the first group is that if they admit that Global Warming is an issue at all, then any of the conservation efforts that the public would demand would impinge upon their MONEY.

The issue for the second group is that following the leading of the first group makes all the problems they want to salve even more intractable. All those problems exist already and are sufficiently difficult without any help. But Global Warming is kicking them into high gear. As the world warms, soil moisture falls, sea levels rise, and grain crops fail, the increasing population of the world will face increasing conflicts over the land and resources that remain. Wars over the basic necessities of life will become yet more commonplace, starvation more acute, and disease more rampant.

If there are agendas being served... which will you trust?
a. the bloke who is grabbing as much for himself as he possibly can while the getting is good, or...
b. the bloke who is trying to help his fellow humans survive in a turbulent world

 

Tom,
The way I read your post it sounds like you're saying the scientists are greedy and want as much money as they can get, and the politicians are trying to help their fellow men out of the goodness of their hearts. Seems a little backwards to me.

 

I don’t know what Fox news, Rush, and the others have to do with this. They are not scientists…I do not watch them or gather information regarding this topic from them, last I noticed they do not publish scientific reports on global warming. Sounds to me like you just dislike them and wanted somehow to work them into it..along with the other villains…free market systems, industry, business, etc…

I think BOTH sides have agendas…thus its best to look closely as to whom is putting out the study, whom is funding it, and why. I cannot believe that you would think Gore (a politician plain and simple from a family of politicians) and his hand picked crew are simply ‘helping out their follow man’…that they are agenda free.

If this topic was so cut and dry then people like him and you would not feel the need to use fantasy scare tactic future scenarios …predictions that may or may not come about…worst case without doubt…to try to push your point home…Gore wouldn’t need to ‘skew’ his report (your words)…it would simply stand on its own merit and scientists by the drove would not so easily fault the findings as they do…and I DO mean scientist that are NOT funded by the EVIL corporations, oil companies and manufacturing concerns…you know…the hand that feeds you that you resent, vilify and bite.

While you paint a ‘sky is falling, this is right, no doubt, end f the world, millions dead, evil business killed the Jews’ scare tactics…some people are a bit more skeptical of BOTH sides that seem so desperate to make this a black and white issue when, most likely,,,like everything, its shades of grey. The slight changes in environment, weather and atmosphere could easily be natural…man made…or a bit of both. You seem guilty of drawing a conclusion and locking out any possible alternative and more than ready to place blame on a group you have already labeled the enemy. If this is not bias…I don’t know what is. I certainly do NOT like some of the solutions you propose...socialist in nature...more governmental power (waste) and control, more taxes, make the common man suffer with high taxes to 'teach' them to change, abolish the free market system, etc...

Like I said in the other thread..I have not written off any possibility and I think the jury is still out…and the truth lies somewhere in between…

I still think the blame could be placed on islam somehow…

 

Sorry if it was unclear. I was trying to say that

Plan A: "Business as Usual" ... Characterized by the pursuit of wealth by any and all means and a disregard of consequences, either for the disenfranchised now or for anybody in the future. People who subscribe to this plan may actually realize that Global Warming is real AND that their activities are responsible for it to a large degree... but in order to protect the gravy train of wealth that they have tapped, they spend a lot of time and resources on a disinformation campaign designed to sow doubt and uncertainty in the public. Much of "big business" and the politicians that are in their pockets is involved in plan A.

Plan B: "Reality Check" ... Characterized by a sober realization that the world is what it is rather than what we want it to be.... that there are limits imposed by physics and the world upon what we can do. Scientists are interested in how the world actually works collect data and work to find out about the processes that take place. There are businesses who endorse a long-term view (like insurance companies) and are willing to invest in the present in order to remain viable and strong in the future. There are politicians who actually care about the people who vote for them (yes they do exist, quite a few in fact) and are intensely interested in turning the conclusions of science into policies that take reality into account and seek to solve the major problems facing their constituancies.

The real issue is that the 'reality check' means questioning some of the things we do and the way we do them. People don't always like to do that! But history has shown us numerous examples of cultures that have overused their resources and doomed themselves to oblivion (Easter Island, Sumeria, Maya etc). In the past we could always just "go West", and find another place after we ruined the first one. That is no longer an option. The whole world is now occupied and (barring some sort of Star Trek techno-miracle) there is no place else for us to go. This planet is what we have, and ALL we have. If you do an honest "reality check" and really look at the way we, as humans, are using the resources of the planet, you will find some very disturbing facts and trends. If you compare those facts and trends to historical situations in which cultures failed you will find disturbing parallels. If history shows nothing else, it is that there are no miracles, no Deus Ex Machina that will save us if we mess up. People have messed up bad and paid for it with their lives and their children's lives, but there were always other places and other people and it was merely a local or regional disaster. But we are now in the first era in which we can mess up on a global scale. If we screw this up, the consequences could be quite serious.

We all want our culture to survive. We want our grandchildren and their grandchildren to do well. Most of us are willing to put some measure of our present effort and resources into making the future bright. None of us (I assume) want to see a future of worldwide war and famine. But the trends are there for all to see who have the courage to face reality... and it is up to us to do something about it.

The good news is that it's possible! We CAN smoothly shift our energy focus from fossil fuels to solar and wind, we CAN ensure every person the opportunity to eat, we CAN stop adding to the causes of global warming so that we can face the NEXT challenge, whatever it may be. But it will take a lot of people working in concert, each working towards the goal of their enlightened self-interest. A REAL free market could do it... people using their own resources for their own long term and enlightened self-benefit... businesses seeking long term stability... governments working towards sustainability and peace. It CAN be done.

 

I guess the last post from Drusus was posted while I was working on mine. He said (among other things):

Yes I mentioned that word "skew", but you seem to think it means something different from what I meant, so I will explain. Gore was trying to simplify the explanation of climate processes into a short amount of time in order to make his conclusion more obvious. I think it was a mistake for him to NOT include mention of the other influences on climate, including the orbital parameters, the solar irradiance, the aerosol content of the atmosphere, and cloud cover. When I do a presentation of that kind I always mention all of those, and proceed to show how each of them explains some part of the climate record on some scale. And then we find that there is a part of the record, the most recent warming trend... that is NOT explained by any of those. Gore focused on that to the exclusion of the others. Gore's explanation was 'skewed' in the sense that it was incomplete, but his conclusion is still correct. The weakness of his approach is that it gives people something to poke at. I feel that all everything should be on the table here... lay out every possible argument against the proposition and treat each one seriously. The problem with that is that it takes more time and a one hour powerpoint just isn't enough time to really go into it all. And yes, I do think Al Gore is a great guy and that he is genuinely concerned about the welfare of the planet. And I think he would have been a great president too.

I don't know where you are getting this stuff Drusus. I proposed that we should put some solar panels on our roofs... and suddenly I'm for abolishing the free market system? Come-on man, we can have a more reasonable discussion than that! If you have solutions to propose let's hear them! But I have not heard one single proposal for a solution... so far it doesn't sound like we can even agree on the existence of a problem.

 

The other night on the History Channel they were showing some of these scientific type individuals drilling the polar ice cap and pulling out core samples whitch they then ran tests and analized their structure. Seems that we have had at least seven (7) different so called global warmings over the time the ice cap had formed.

Now this seem to say t hat there was someone way back in history who was sure putting out the smog and burrning all the wrong stuff to toast their hot dogs on at the family picknicks. It had to be all that gas the dinasours were passing as they ate the grass. Now that is bad gas as anyone can tell you who has come into contact with it.

To sum it up, the warming we are experiencing now will be number 8 and the beat will go on, and on and on.
Care to prove me wrong?:goof:

 

I thought you meant it as the dictionary defines it

"to make conform to a specific concept, attitude, or planned result"

which I agreed with...

I got it from you:

"The suggestion has been made here that the "free market" using the power of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" will solve all problems of price and supply. Well... Adam Smith gave us ...the Nazi Holocaust among other things."

In a thread about this topic.

But you are right, we do not agree on the causes...the severity...the urgency...or even how to HONESTLY present the problem let alone a solution. If there is indeed a real problem in which we must act on besides the general problem of keeping people and companies from polluting.

I would agree with you, I assume, that one should look to drive efficient cars...There should be pollution regulations, I know (first hand) that the private sector is making huge strides in alternative energy and they will become more and more practical and cost effective. They have to if people are going to be expected to willingly us them and I think the private sector is the best to do that...they are driven by the need to survive, be on top, and be the first to offer that alternative. I shudder to think about getting our inept government involved. I think people should recycle...I think that maybe even tax breaks for people who take responsible steps like solar panels or buying new energy saving vehicles or anything that helps reduce energy consumption and lessen pollution...I certainly think pollution is not good...I just dont agree with your opinions on global warming (or I do not think they are universally accepted as truth) nor do I agree with the 'sky is falling' and 'fall of man' scenarios you put forth...

But I am sure we both agree it is best for everyone, as individuals (and companies) to take steps to be as ecologically conscious as possible and maybe the government should offer incentives (but not more taxes).

I see people who seem to fall back on the government (not just you, people on all sides) and seem to love it when it does what THEY think is right but hate it when it does what they dont like...I am pretty much across the board against any government growth and heavy handed control. A pro-war person will praise the government for taking action but bash it for daring to tax him (I have seen that here often)...an anti-war person will bash it for going to war calling our leaders liars but call for it to take MORE money from us to act as big brother and force us to do things (like your call for higher taxes on oil to force people to stop using thus hurting the people who have few cost effective alternatives)...this same government who are liars they would see take more of our money...certainly I would never want this government to take on more responsibilities and take more money unless there are serious reforms in how it operates and who operates it.

I saw Mrs Clinton calling to take money from energy companies who use loopholes in tax laws (spanking them for profits)...for one...there should be NO loopholes to exploit in the first place and if there ARE then whose fault is that? and if she wants to punish those who make a lot of money...well then she can send me a million of HER slush fund...wonder how many loopholes SHE has exploited in her wealthy life. Hypocrites all.

You seem passionate about what you think is right, and maybe you DO feel a higher calling to save humanity from itself and I think thats admirable but I DO think you are what you blame others of being...closed to all but one side, drawing conclusions prematurely, and buying into biased rhetoric, and passing on half truths and possiblilities as fact...

Dont ever make the error in thinking that you are seeing things crystal clear while others are being fooled...you might wake up one day and find that it is you who has been fooled...or that you arent quite as correct as you thought you were. I have a high opinion of people and think they do not have to be led like sheep, they are capable of thinking on their own and drawing their own conclusions...Sometime you seem to be putting off a 'I see things just as they are, you are being fooled, I have to teach you what is right' attitude...Have faith that the cream rises and if it is true and right, in the end, people will see it. I know I am keeping my mind open to all possibilities. All you can do is present what you THINK is right and let people make up their own minds...if you try to force them to do and think as you do, you will turn away more than you win...in my opinion.

Sorry for rambling

 

Hmmm... the sun scorches the earth. War, disease, famine... death. Sounds eerily like a book I read.

 

Since this thread hasn't exhausted itself yet, I would like to address an issue raised occasionally, that of cyclic climate change. Warming/cooling cycles, like magnetic reversals, are stored in materials such as mafic volcanic rocks and, in the case of interest, ice cores. Below is a graph of cyclic temperature change registered in Antarctic ice cores, along with CO2 concentrations. As expected, the two are normally synchronized, resulting in the choppy but regular rise and fall. In fact, our present positive deviation of temperature is not as high (yet) as several of the last cycles.

What are acutely different are CO2 concentrations, in red. The pattern we normally see is apparent from the graph, but the spike we see occurring now is unique (the 'sudden' rise actually occurs over 150 years, and basically corresponds to the era of burning fossil fuels). I find it difficult to look at this graph and not pause to think why we are not simply repeating the cycle we've experienced over the last 400,000 years.

Perhaps someone can prove me wrong in thinking that I see something unusual in this data. Or, that CO2 levels are not something we can affect or be concerned about in the event we are affecting them.

 

So what's the solution? I hear lots of people all over the place screaming about the problem as it were, but I've not met a single one so far who has made the move to Amish or even contributed substantial sums of their own money into research and development of alternatives.... just simple cursing of Big Oil and a demand for governments to do something about it. My observation is that government tends to be the last place any new action is implemented efficiently.

So why don't you try to look at it all from the point of view of the oil companies. The best way to combat your "enemy" is to think like them.

First let's note ExxonMobil. I'll stick with them for this because they're the ones that always get nailed. You never hear anyone talk of ConocoPhillips or BP or Shell... just EM.

A quote from the ExxonMobil website...
The Fourth Assessment Report of Climate Science provides an extensive update of scientific understanding regarding Earth's climate. It describes the scientific basis for concern regarding the risk of climate change and attempts for the first time to characterize the probabilities for change.

We look forward to the publication later in the year of reports on Impacts and Adaptation and on Mitigation by IPCC’s other two working groups. As in past IPCC assessments, scientists from ExxonMobil have participated directly as lead authors, as well as in the review process and workshops contributing to the development of AR4.

Hmmm... evil *******s! The EM scientists were most likely only there to tamper with all of the findings. Right?

Again, let's think like the "enemy" for a moment. Who has the most to lose from a switch to alternative fuels? Well, obviously, that would be the oil companies. So, who then would have the most to gain (or retain for that matter) by being a pioneer in developing and implementing alternatives? Again, that would be the oil companies. Who do you think is pumping the greatest amount of money into developing more efficient, cleaner fossil based systems and also into R&D on alternatives? I'm betting it's the oil companies.

Cleaner systems make everyone happy. More efficient systems providing greater power with less fuel make everyone happy... including the oil companies. Have you noticed what's happened this past month? Demand for oil dropped because of a relatively warm winter here in the NE. Global warming? I don't know. Most of the record temps that we neared were records set in the winter of 1890. Anyway, the price of oil dropped for a little while... so what happened? Production was cut to reduce the supply surplus leveling out the supply:demand ratio and prices are now back up to where they were before. Winter will give way to Spring and Summer. People will start their vacationing and traveling, increasing the demand for fuel. Production will still be lower when this starts, so there will be a bit of a supply shortage running prices up for a time to balance it all out until OPEC decides to increase production a bit to bring things back down. The oil companies don't get hurt.

However, back to the "enemy" thought process. Oil companies are investing a great deal of money into both alternative systems and more efficient fossil systems. It all works in their favor. If ExxonMobil can fund, develop, and implement the first truly viable hydrogen system in which the hydrogen is stripped not from fossil fuels but from plant sources... a project currently in development, then they will become the leaders of the hydrogen economy. They know this, and they want it. Of course when that time comes you'll have people screaming about Big H.

Keep in mind that while they work on all of this research and development that they must also maintain that energy needs of the population. A BIG job in itself seeing as how nobody is going Amish... well, except for the Amish, but they're used to it, and if you'd ever had the chance to live near them, you might think they've actually got a pretty cool thing going.

Other alternatives... Ethanol, the prospect seems good... I guess. Of course from what I'm reading it takes three units of energy to pull one unit of energy in the form of ethanol and up to six units of energy when you factor in what is need to plant, farm and transport the corn. Add to that the water consumption necessary for all the corn that must be produced to sustain an ethanol economy. Consider the current estimate that if all planned ethanol plants are online by 2009 as they are targeted, then they will require 90% of the corn production to maintain operation. Corn is a pretty vital product in our economy. It is itself food... mmmm... corn on the cob slathered in real, creamy butter. It's used in many food products, cereals, corn syrup, corn starch, tacos:eat:, it's a feed for livestock, used in pet foods, used to make those eco-friendly biodegradable packing peanuts and plastics, it's burned as an alternative or additive to wood pellets in pellet stoves.... the list goes on. Imagine if suddenly 90% of the corn production in this country were to divert to ethanol production. What would happen to the prices of food in this country? Mexico is already seeing this problem. A 14% increase in the price of corn tortillas (a staple, most especially for the poor) because corn from Mexico is being sold to ethanol plants in the US, driving the price of corn to record highs.

Wind and Solar... cool ideas, but not really reliable. Something has to be available to cover the losses on breezeless and cloudy days and at night.

Wind can generate a good bit of power, but have you ever visited a wind farm? I've seen them. Very impressive, but typically very far from the areas that most need power. Transmission of electricity results in a substantial loss of energy over great distances. Too much energy is lost in the transfer to make wind a cost effective and viable solution currently... even when it's windy, let alone if the winds die down for a time.

Solar is expensive. Current photo-voltaic technologies are not very efficient and the cost to implement them in broad form for the nation's power grid would increase the cost to the consumer considerably... 5 to 10 times. This would not be a one time deal either. It's not a matter of install and enjoy forever. Photo-voltaic cells have a lifespan. They wear out. They need to be replaced.

Tom, do you have solar panels on your roof? It's not a simple matter of throwing a few panels on the roof and away you go. A simple but decent system will cost an individual thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars. You need the panels themselves... manufactured with silver which has been seeing a good price jump the past couple of years. Then you need to transfer the power that is generated by the solar panels to a good battery system if you want to be able to store power for night use. The DC power produced by the solar panels must be changed to AC power, requiring an inverter system capable of handling the wattage necessary to power your home. Then you need to tie the system into your home's electric. This part isn't so hard, however, once you've done that, you are now a part of the grid. If you produce more than you consume, your electric meter will spin backwards as you begin supplying power to the region. This ideally could result in paychecks from the power company rather than bills. Because of this there is yet another system that needs to be set in place. You need to have an automatic disconnect from the grid in the event of a grid failure. Should there be a blackout and your home is still pumping electricity into the grid, you risk killing technicians who are working to restore power if they are unaware that there is another source providing power to a particular line. Very costly system. I've done plenty of research on it. I do actually intend to install such a system when I build my own home... not because of any concern over this or that but because I like my independence. Of course, there are cheaper and less intensive systems based on solar, but as they say, "you get what you pay for" or so I've heard.

Whatever the case is, oil is what we have. Nobody is willing enough to give up the conveniences it provides. You can scream that Big Oil is the problem, or you can find the problem simply by walking into your bathroom and looking in the mirror. If it's nighttime, just flip the light switch on. Keep in mind though that the magic glow coming from that round orb is probably being supplied by the burning of a fossil fuel somewhere nearby.

If money is the driving factor then my money is on the oil companies to find and implement the best solution in the end... not the government. Yup, I really am that crazy.

 

Ok, I see certainly the spike in CO2 levels. I also see the temperature graph following it's normal pattern. So, my question is how does the CO2 concentration absolutely prove that the current warming cycle is the result of the CO2 levels? Given the evidence in that graph, I would be more likely to conclude that CO2 concentrations have little to do with the temperature variations. Now that could be wrong, because there simply is not enough data. We can't know anything for certain until this cycle actually breaks.

 

I'll admit that there are more humans/cows/pigs now than there was say, 150,000 years ago and yes there is more CO2 in the atmosphere based on more O consumption. But, the correlation between CO2 and global temperature has always been sketchy at best. I read this report and found it very interesting.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Ben

 

That report is almost 10 years old. That's an eternity in academic circles. The report released in 2002 on global warming is already out of date since new data has been incorporated. Old literature is as useless as yesterday's newspaper.

 

Interesting stuff on C-Span last night... the IPCC gave a press conference and released some of the information from the upcoming full report, still in editing. Let me note that the conclusions of the IPCC are considered extremely 'conservative'... that is... the conclusions must be agreed upon by the members. One of the major members of that panel is the US dept of Energy.

Okay, so the IPCC stated that the recent increase in global temperature is "very likely" caused by human increases in CO2. "Very Likely" is said to mean 90% certainty. Most of the members wanted to conclude "virtually certain" at a 99% level, but China was opposed to that due to their very high and increasing use of coal.

After the IPCC report there was a response from the United States. U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said that the US "embraces" the report, agrees with its conclusions, and stated quite plainly that the science indicating that humans are significantly responsible for climate warming is "...no longer subject to debate".

I think this is rather remarkable, considering that the Bush administration has been anti-environmental in almost every issue that has come before it. For this administration to "embrace" the results of this study indicates (to me at least) that they realize that there's no further point in debating the fact that there is a problem.

As to solutions to the problem... now we're getting to the meat of it. The administration proposes a few things, others want more. That debate will continue... and properly so. At least we've established that the problem exists.

I don't agree with Check-M-All's assessment of wind and solar. Both are very viable alternatives and the problems of power transmission are well understood. I do have an array of photovoltaic panels at my home, which operates to offset a significant proportion of our electrical needs. By the way... solar panels DON'T wear out (that is antiquated information based on the ARCO panels that were made in the 1970s). The newest ones come with a 25 year output guarantee against the output falling more than 10% over that time span. 25 years! What other industry gives that kind of guarantee? Tax credits for 2006 by the way, enabled a homeowner to offset 30% of the installation cost of photovoltaics during that year. I was able to add four panels to my array this year, increasing it to sixteen. (Yes, tax credits are a great way of using the free market to influence purchase decisions) I'm running a battery bank to cover nighttime use, have a 2500 watt inverter for household current, and we have learned to use that power in the most efficient way possible... for instance, we try to do things like wash clothes while the sun shines because the power is used more efficiently when used directly rather than drawn from the battery.

I subscribe to Homepower Magazine, ( http://www.homepower.com ) which is the best monthly available on the subject of small-scale solar wind and hydro. If you're interested in getting involved, I'd suggest that as a first step. After about six months of reading those you'll get so excited about it you'll probably just go ahead and do it. I'd put up a 2500 watt wind turbine if I had a good spot for it, but unfortunately I don't have that option here (tower height restrictions because of a nearby airport). Wind/solar hybrid systems are an ideal combination since cloudy weather is often windy.

No single one of these technologies will carry us beyond fossil fuels.... but a market basket of renewable alternatives, used in concert, can do it. There will always be a need for the grid, but we can reduce the fuel used there and the dependance on it through distributed renewable inputs. Getting involved in renewable energy is the best way to increase your awareness of your own power use and needs. When you make the power yourself you value it more, and are more conscious of waste.

So yeah... this debate should switch to the question of solutions. There's a lot to talk about here.

 

Useless to you maybe, but then that would explain alot, LOL...

Ben