Global Warming

[BigsGT]

No I'm not an AE for Boone Pickens! :lol

Anyway that angle has been overdone already by many big players, including Government Electric. I'm more of a niche player, fly under the radar.

 

[S592R]

Oh GOD! Not Carbon Sequestration!!!! insert pipe in ground ... pump in air.
:willy:willy:willy:willy:willy:willy:willy


Maybe I can find a huge piece of land somewhere ... grow huge fields full of medical marijuana and kill two birds with one stone. (no pun intended).

 

[PHXGT]

I am bothered only by the arrogance of man to believe that not only did he cause it, but that he has the power to change/control it. The earth has been gradually warming up in cycles since the last (and IMO only) ice age about 8.000 to 10,000 year ago.

This latest panic is just about $. Follow the money and it will lead you to Gore and all his buddies at K&P.

 

[Kingman]

I am bothered only by the arrogance of man to believe that not only did he cause it, but that he has the power to change/control it. The earth has been gradually warming up in cycles since the last (and IMO only) ice age about 8.000 to 10,000 year ago.

This latest panic is just about $. Follow the money and it will lead you to Gore and all his buddies at K&P.

Don't get sidetracked by logic. It ain't about reality.

 

[BlackICE]

Don't get sidetracked by logic. It ain't about reality.

It is reality when the policies take money out of my pocket and makes our nation less competitive! :thumbsdow

 

[ford gt 1625]

As a geophysicist, after studying the subject off and on my whole life there is no doubt in my mind that man is changing the climate. I frankly wish it were a conspiracy, but it isn't. The average person won't see its effects until we are all long dead and gone.

After reading all the post you seem to be the only one who has the background to speak on this subject. Thanks for your imput. We need more people like you speaking up. Look what the Danish people have done about energy.

 

[Gulf GT]

After reading all the post you seem to be the only one who has the background to speak on this subject. Thanks for your imput. We need more people like you speaking up. Look what the Danish people have done about energy.

Over 90% of the world's scientists agree on the subject, and over 90% of the world's scientists aren't uneducated or a have an agenda. In fact, as a rule they have the least agenda of any other type of profession in the world because it is drilled into them during the education process not to. It's OK for the public to say they don't believe in the science of global warming as they are dependent on others to tell them what is true, but frankly as a scientist if you walk into a room full of your peers and make the same claim, you look foolish because you are now in a room full of people that can discuss the subject in the finest detail and arguments against it simply don't hold up under true scientific scrutiny. We are definitely altering the planet; the only question is how fast.

 

[BlackICE]

We are definitely altering the planet; the only question is how fast.

I wouldn't disagree with this statement. But as I said so to trees, plankton, algae, etc, the list goes on and on.

More importantly, even if a scientific man made solution existed, IMHO a political one doesn't. All of the nations on earth will never agree to it. I don't see China, India and most of Latin America or Africa playing along, nor will the most citizens accept a "different" standard of living. Are you open to a military option to enforce a solution? I think that would have even worst consequences for the environment and homo sapiens as well.

 

[Mark06GT]

As a geophysicist, after studying the subject off and on my whole life there is no doubt in my mind that man is changing the climate. I frankly wish it were a conspiracy, but it isn't. The average person won't see its effects until we are all long dead and gone.

Gulf GT,

You seem to be our resident expert, so I’m hoping you could help me understand some things that have me confused. (If you feel this is not an appropriate forum, I’m okay with that, I just thought I might take advantage of your expertise as long as we’re on the topic.)

The earth has been much hotter and colder than it is now and has held different levels and combinations of gases in the atmosphere. Why is the current change of climate/atmosphere different than other changes that occurred in the past?

I’ve been to a number of places around the world where it is clearly evident that sea levels, temperatures and distribution of water were very different in the not too distant past. There are archeological sites in Britain of Roman harbors that are nowhere near the ocean. I’ve been to ancient Greek cities that used to be costal fortresses, but are now many kilometers away from any water. There are many areas of Africa that were green and lush thousands of years ago, but have dried up several hundreds of years ago (well before industrialization). Why are the changes in climate that caused these things to happen different than the ones we see in the media today?

I remember when I was in school being thought that the world was getting colder and that scientists were thinking of ways to change the albedo of the planet in order to trap more heat. What has changed in the last 25 years to make the scientific community do such a complete reversal?

Thanks for your help.

 

[Empty Pockets]

We have "these scientists over here" who say MAN is the pblm and he can correct it all...or slow it way down...whatever...

And we have "these scientists over HERE" who say, in essence, "Balderdash".



Now, if that's not proof that science really doesn't have a clue about what man's contribution may be one way or the other, I'd like to know what is. And, for my part, I'm NOT willing to bankrupt the civilized nations of the world and go live in a cave someplace in order to throw in with people who have as their biggest spoksman a guy who claims the temp at the center of the earth is several MILLIONS OF DEGREES. :willy:willy:willy

(I mean, 'zactly WHEN did Earth become a STAR, anyway, Al????? How did we all miss THAT transition?)

 

[S592R]

:bang:skep:bs

what I have to say will surely get me banned from the forum but likely applauded by Chip before he had to do it.

so .... I am turning my computer off until the urge passes.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

 

[nthfinity]

http://www.wjr.com/Article.asp?id=458274&spid=6552

Here is a nice compilation of articles discussing the science and shams of Global Climate Change. I have a lot more; but really that is more than enough for most

 

[Gulf GT]

More importantly, even if a scientific man made solution existed, IMHO a political one doesn't. All of the nations on earth will never agree to it. I don't see China, India and most of Latin America or Africa playing along, nor will the most citizens accept a "different" standard of living.

You are right, this is a problem. However, if we recognize that we have a problem then we can find a solution, and that solution will be self fulfilling by providing cheaper forms of energy than coal, oil, & gas. The question is, do we start now, or 150 years from now. Even if you don’t believe the climate change theories, the very best estimates say we have 150 years of oil left, yet conservative estimates say we have more than a trillion years left of sun energy and therefore water vapor. Science will advance to a point where it will be cheaper to operate a car on water vapor than gas, and then there will be no need to force anyone. This will eventually happen; it is only a matter time as we have no choice.

And, please understand I am not calling anyone here a fool or stupid. I have an IQ of 150 plus or minus, however I cannot have an in depth conversation on the many of the topics discussed on this forum because this is not my field of study, yet sometimes I voice my opinions as formed by listening to others. Does this make me stupid or a fool, no. I am simply voicing what I have heard somewhere else, nothing more. I am not qualified to technically answer the question, so I am relying on what I have heard somewhere else, and because I am not technically qualified to answer the question I am also not technically qualified to determine if my source is correct or not.

Also, I eat a steak every night and every car I drive is technically a gas guzzler. Just because I understand the situation doesn’t mean I believe we should all be driving a Prius. I just happen to believe that the real solution will come from science, not inconveniencing everyone on the planet.

 

[Gulf GT]

Gulf GT,

You seem to be our resident expert, so I’m hoping you could help me understand some things that have me confused. (If you feel this is not an appropriate forum, I’m okay with that, I just thought I might take advantage of your expertise as long as we’re on the topic.)

The earth has been much hotter and colder than it is now and has held different levels and combinations of gases in the atmosphere. Why is the current change of climate/atmosphere different than other changes that occurred in the past?

I’ve been to a number of places around the world where it is clearly evident that sea levels, temperatures and distribution of water were very different in the not too distant past. There are archeological sites in Britain of Roman harbors that are nowhere near the ocean. I’ve been to ancient Greek cities that used to be costal fortresses, but are now many kilometers away from any water. There are many areas of Africa that were green and lush thousands of years ago, but have dried up several hundreds of years ago (well before industrialization). Why are the changes in climate that caused these things to happen different than the ones we see in the media today?

I remember when I was in school being thought that the world was getting colder and that scientists were thinking of ways to change the albedo of the planet in order to trap more heat. What has changed in the last 25 years to make the scientific community do such a complete reversal?

Thanks for your help.

You are 100% correct in the idea that evidence of the earth cooling or heating at this time is not a scientific indication that man is causing the cooling or heating. It is the understanding of the chemical processes that are occurring in the atmosphere and the oceans that provide the proof. The natural process that made this planet, and the ones that sustain its life were based on CO2 emissions from plants and other naturally occurring processes. The earth’s ability to recycle itself was not designed to sustain the burning of fossil fuels in the way we do it. This never happened in the earth’s multi-billion year history until man did it. In essence, the earth’s ability to recycle itself was not designed for what we are doing to it. We just need to do something about it before we can’t change it back. I think we have plenty of time and the science will come along to make other forms of energy cheaper thus solving the problem. These solutions need to be based on sustainable items like the sun and water, and not ideas like injecting the waste back into the earth.

 

[ChipBeck]

Man caused Global Cooling to Global Warming in 25 years.

Over 90% of the world's scientists agree on the subject, and over 90% of the world's scientists aren't uneducated or a have an agenda.......We are definitely altering the planet; the only question is how fast.

Gulf,

I am not a scientist. In graduate school I studied economics. From an economic/business viewpoint this information needs to pass through 2 filters before it becomes actionable. 1. Is it true? And 2. Is it relavant?

The cooling trend of the last 10 years indicates that #1 is on shakey ground. But for arguments sake let's stipulate that it is true. #2 still makes it irrelavant as short of preemptively destroying every advanced economy in the world, there is no way to reduce carbon emissions enough to make even a 1 degree difference. It will be far more cost efficent to spend money in the future mitigating actual effects than to utterly demolish our economy and lives today trying to preempt POSSIBLE future effects.

When I was in highschool the cover of Newsweek magazine in 1975 proclaimed "Global Cooling - The Coming Ice Age". Time magazine in 1974 and 1979 screamed "Another Ice Age" man caused global cooling! We have to act now to counter this cooling trend because soon well pass the tipping point. Below is a 1970s cover of Time magazine.

The scientific consensus wasn't all that impressive then. Perhaps it's better now. But any cost/benefit analysis still renders that consensus irrelevant. That's my take on it.

Chip

 

[Cyclenirvana]

A number of us on this forum are physicians or scientists. I spent 10 years in academic medicine and have published my share of articles in the scientific literature. While my area of expertise did not concern global warming, I am concerned about what I see as a loss of "objectivity" among the scientific community. Of course, the scientific community has never been as objective as the lay public would like to believe. One must remember that entire careers are riding on the concept of "global warming"...and scientists can become very protective of their turf. Furthermore, scientists are well aware of who funds their research and the specific biases of journal editors. It bothers me that some journals have actually taken a position on global warming...shouldn't they instead take a position on objective and quality research? Whether the government or private industry funds a research program, there is always an "expected" outcome. If you think otherwise, I have some beach front property in Tucson! No, I don't claim to be an expert, but we should be able to have an educated discussion on global warming without labeling people as ignorant or stupid. After all, I also welcomed (and still do) challenges to my scientific opinions and proposals.

There is a lot of data available to those who want to review it. Unfortunately, a lot is based on computer models and projections, sometimes not that apparent until you have read the entire article. And I tend to have less confidence in such results. I have seen Al Gore's film. I have also read Michael Crichton's book, State of Fear, which as a scientist I found far more informative and supported than Al Gore's film. For sure, Crichton has an opinion, but his book is well referenced, researched, and sourced. I found it very easy to find the articles he references and the graphs he illustrates. Some of this data is available on the NASA website.

From my take, it appears that we are experiencing an increase in global temperature, but no one really knows how much is natural or man-made. And we need more information...objective, critical research, subject to scrutiny by scientists in their fields of expertise. I fear that this will not happen, as it has become a political (don't question it!) hot potato.
Oh well, on to cars!
Scott

 

[ChipBeck]

....Of course, the scientific community has never been as objective as the lay public would like to believe. One must remember that entire careers are riding on the concept of "global warming"...and scientists can become very protective of their turf. Furthermore, scientists are well aware of who funds their research.......

From my take, it appears that we are experiencing an increase in global temperature, but no one really knows how much is natural or man-made. And we need more information...objective, critical research, subject to scrutiny by scientists in their fields of expertise. I fear that this will not happen, as it has become a political (don't question it!) hot potato.

Oh well, on to cars!

Scott

Scott,

I like your post! So I'm going to end this thread on your high note so I don't have to ban myself (and Steve too!)

"on to cars" and off this inescapably political subject.

Chip