Climate Change Discussion

[turbo36]

First, no, I did not say that or imply that. I said I am selective about what I read, that does not mean that I select only material that supports my beliefs.

Second, I never claimed to be open minded. My mind is thoroughly closed to specious garbage of any kind or persuasion. Is yours?

Third, you must not have seen my last two long (boring) posts in which I stated that I was reading the report and in which I was giving my impression.

I may be preaching to the choir, after all they are just sinners who can sing. But who are you preaching too?

Preaching? No, all I'm doing is asking questions, you can (and will) read into them what you want based on the nature of your character.

My mind is open but that doesn't mean that I don't have strong beliefs. My beliefs are strong because I keep an open mind and eagerly seek out those that would test my faith. I'm never afraid of a contrary idea nor do I take offense when hear one.

 

[BobRip]

A friend found a link (Growing_Glaciers) that states that there are many glaciers that are growing including Antarticia and Greeland. Seems to contradict the global warming issue. I am really in doubt about anything one way or the other now.

 

[Tig]

Wow, I need a proof reader. In my last post I meant to say "that was not the report".
Hmmm, N80 you seem anxious to not read the full report, but I bet you will. I expect that they will post the climate change report in a format similar to the CO2 report available on the IPCC home page. IPCC Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage

BobRip, a glacier flows like a river, but very slowly. A growing glacier could mean either more snow is falling at the top or less ice is melting at the bottom.

 

[riptides]

Wow, I need a proof reader. In my last post I meant to say "that was not the report".
Hmmm, N80 you seem anxious to not read the full report, but I bet you will. I expect that they will post the climate change report in a format similar to the CO2 report available on the IPCC home page. IPCC Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage

BobRip, a glacier flows like a river, but very slowly. A growing glacier could mean either more snow is falling at the top or less ice is melting at the bottom.

According to a lot of people in this discussion, the originator of these type reports are not to be trusted. They are political bodies with UN mandates and are interested in redistribution of the worlds wealth. Besides mankind cannot influence the balance of the planet by anything he or she does. That would be god like of us. Best for us to gobble it up, burn it up, spew it forth, lest someone else do it first. Because no one but us, can be trusted to do it right.

I have enjoyed this discussion, some interesting opinions and sources have come from it. Thank you.

-Mike Z.

 

[turbo36]

According to a lot of people in this discussion, the originator of these type reports are not to be trusted. They are political bodies with UN mandates and are interested in redistribution of the worlds wealth. Besides mankind cannot influence the balance of the planet by anything he or she does. That would be god like of us. Best for us to gobble it up, burn it up, spew it forth, lest someone else do it first. Because no one but us, can be trusted to do it right.

I have enjoyed this discussion, some interesting opinions and sources have come from it. Thank you.

-Mike Z.

I think you "hit the nail on the head" with that statement. Well said.

 

[IH3444]

What is heating the earth????? Look to your left. It's the sun.......
The real deal?

 

[N80]

According to a lot of people in this discussion, the originator of these type reports are not to be trusted.

I would agree with that statement. Until they give us a reason to trust them, why should we? Do you trust them? If so, why? I can tell you why I don't, can you tell me why you do?

They are political bodies

They are attached to the UN. The UN is undeniably a political body with political agendas. The UN wouldn't deny it. Having a scientific body attached to a political body might not raise flags for you, but it should.

with UN mandates and are interested in redistribution of the worlds wealth.

The UN and its World Bank are, in fact, in the business of redistribution of the worlds' wealth. That is what they do in a nutshell. Again, the UN wouldn't even deny that. Is it unfair to suspect that a study sanctioned by the UN might be enfluenced by UN politics? Would it be logical not to take that into consideration?

Besides mankind cannot influence the balance of the planet by anything he or she does.

I don't think that actually represents anyone's opinion. There is a big difference between having an enfluence on and causing the problem at hand.

Best for us to gobble it up, burn it up, spew it forth, lest someone else do it first. Because no one but us, can be trusted to do it right.

No, that's just your unfair and insulting stereotype of anyone who doesn't blindly accept everything that the global warming movement says. As I mentioned before, such movements are totally intolerant to dissent.

I have enjoyed this discussion, some interesting opinions and sources have come from it. Thank you.

-Mike Z.

Me too.

 

[N80]

BobRip, a glacier flows like a river, but very slowly. A growing glacier could mean either more snow is falling at the top or less ice is melting at the bottom.

One of the pieces in the global warming puzzle is the glaciers and ice melts accounting for sea level rise. This report sees this as a trend. No one is currently denying that ice in Greenland and the arctic is melting, but there is a significant debate as to whether this is a trend or not. Apparently there is a very real possibility that this is a very short term event as similar events have occurred in the past. There is no mention of this debate in the current report.

 

[EddieWalker]

I'm not as smart as most of you, nor do I have much of an education, so I filter out things in a more basic manner.

I pretty much trust and believe most of what I'm told until I know it's a lie. Then I lose all faith in anything else I'm told by that source. When talking about something I don't know anything about, I find a topic that I have a little knowledge on and see if I'm being lied to about that. If so, then everything else I've been told is suspect.

Global Warming has failed my simple test. Reading the full report is a waste of time since those who are writing it are proven liers with political agendas.

Here is a good site that spends there time examining and debunking these people.

JunkScience.com -- Steven Milloy, Publisher

I also read this story and was really impress at how much sense it makes.

Statistics needed

I don't know Canadian papers, or the National Post, so maybe Tig or some of the others that live there can let me know of the papers reputation? I know that anything written in the New York Times is gonna be politically motivated without any foundation, so I'd be interested if the Post is the same way.

Eddie

 

[thingy]

People in the upper midwest could do for some warming about now I bet,,I live in southern w.va. and I'm ready for some to,,[and winters just a little over half over here],,,,you know,if the globe is really warming,I'm thinking that might be a good thing,for most anyways,,,,thingy

 

[turbo36]

I don't know Canadian papers, or the National Post, so maybe Tig or some of the others that live there can let me know of the papers reputation? I know that anything written in the New York Times is gonna be politically motivated without any foundation, so I'd be interested if the Post is the same way.

Eddie

Which news organizations do you think don't have a political slant or agenda?

 

[N80]

I think Eddie brings up a good point, which is the credibility gap. I'm sure that there are plenty of serious, bonafide scientists with reasonable data that suggests evidence for man made global warming. The problem is that they have hitched their wagons to much less credible proponents of their science including other less 'serious' scientists, political groups and environmental activists. It may not be the fault of the 'reasonable scientists' but then again, I don't see any group of global warming proponents trying to distance themselves from the fringe. So even they aren't without blame.

And if and when these guys are proven right and New York city is under six feet of water, they won't be able to thump their chests and say I told you so, because if the nature of the situation is as dire as they say it is, then they have done an awful job of their most important task which is delivering credible, unbiased science to the masses.

But even then, as my inland home is swept away by a C02 fueled level 10 super hurricane, my thought will still be that one day, if he sticks to his story long enough, chicken little will be right.

 

[Tig]

Eddie, you have come up with some interesting material, again. Thank you. I like that the Post article gives more than just the usual conspiracy theory of good vs evil. At first glance Dr. Edward Wegman's work is worth checking out. He is critical of Michael Mann's work on historical temperatures. Statistics expert Stephen McIntyre climateaudit.org and economics professor Ross McKitrick M&M Project Page also take issue with details of the statistical analysis that Mann presented.

Mann has provided a rebuttal. http://www.wwf.org.nz/news/2006/ClimateScienceFootnotedArticles.pdf

 

[riptides]

Thanks Tig that is an easy read. Provides interesting names and links too.

-Mike Z.

 

[IH3444]

Be repeated time and again where one person stood before a entire "scientific community" and been right after decades of rebuttals.
NOVA | Mystery of the Megaflood | PBS

 

[hazmat]

Just because someone called a scientist (or scientists) guess at the cause of global warming doesn't mean it's science.

1. Observe
2. Develop an hypothesis why
3. Create an experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis.

They've observed and they have an hypothesis. Because they've failed with Step 3, they're reverted to scare tactics.

100s of years ago 'a consensus of scientists' thought the earth was flat and they sought to silence anyone who disagreed with them. The same thing is happening today, e.g., Dr. (scientist) Heidi Cullen of the WeatherChannel suggesting that any weather person who disagrees should have their AMS certification revoked. When you can not prove (Step 3), silence those who disagree.

Mike brings up an excellent point. How do we create an experiment? In my line of work (engineering) we "simulate" our projects in a variety of ways - from the geometry (3D CAD), to the electrical, mechanical, and thermal properties via finite element analysis. Critical components or assemblies are always "experimented" on. We build a prototype and test as needed.

I'm at a loss as to how to create an experiment to prove or disprove man's contribution to climate change. The simulations that the scientists come up with do show correlation, how do you prove causation?

I keep coming back to the precautionary principle. Given that a scientist (1) observes rising temperatures, (2) Hypothesizes that man is contributing greenhouse gases and (3) Lacking a good experiment, develops a simulation that shows a correlation between our emissions and climate change; why shouldn't that scientist sound an alarm?

I suppose that nobody reading or participating in this discussion has changed their view of man's contribution or lack there of to climate change. I do, however, have a better understanding of why some don't believe (or perhaps more acurately haven't been convinced) man is contributing.

The consequences

We've touched on it a bit, but I'd like to more directly discuss it (remembering to be on our best behavior ). We should all be concerned about what political/policy etc. changes may come about in the aftermath of the IPCC report. Personally I hope to see more of an incentive based push for more "sustainable" living vs. a penalty based policy. For example:

Greater tax credits for renewable energy projects (small & large), conservation projects (better insulation etc.)

Stricter effeciency standards for homes and cars (yes this will increase the cost of ownership)

The question is, how does a government raise revanue to pay for renewable projects? The "environmentalist" solution is to tax carbon emissions - gas tax at the pump, tax carbon emissions from powerplants etc. By any measure my family is relatively "wealthy". If I had to pay $5 a gallon for gas, It wouldn't be pleasant, but it wouldn't have an immediate detrimental effect on my standard of living (though if sends the US into a depression it might). Those less financially fortunate are hurt most by increases in their basic cost of energy consumed.

There was some discussion that the UN was a redistributor of weath (no arguement here). I am lost as to the relation ship between redistribution of wealth and climate change. Most proposals for combatting CO2 emissions seem to be anti- redistribution of wealth. Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

So - what changes do y'all see coming that are good or bad?

 

[Tig]

Changes? How about higher mileage standards for vehicles. That would be a pragmatic approach to several issues. Rather than increasing taxes on gas guzzlers we should raise the MPG standards. Even if they do not raise emission standards there will be benefits to the environment. In most (not all) cases this will not impact anyone's wallet since current vehicles can be scalled back to the required size. They will still get that one occupant to work on time.

 

[N80]

Excellent thoughts Hazmat.

As the eternal skeptic, I personally don't see any changes coming at all. Even if I was totally convinced about global warming, I do not believe that the current socio-economic structure in the US will permit drastic changes. Again, reference my thoughts regarding the relationship between big government and big corporations, and you have a recipe for business as usuall. That system will tolerate nothing that could even be perceived as threat to its continued success. And no matter what the economic doomsayers are saying, things are good right now.

As for taxes. Well, you can guess my thoughts on taxes so I won't belabor that. But, I'm sure that you are aware that increasing the price of gas does not just hurt at the pump. Shipping and manufacturing costs go up, consumer goods and staples go up, etc etc. However, I have two other less obvious thoughts about that. 1) Gas prices nearly doubled over the last three years and it does not seem to have created significant inflation (of course there are 'artificial' forces modulating that...as in the Federal Reserve). So maybe the effect of higher gas prices isn't as significant as I thought. Which brings me to 2) The doubling of gas prices had no impact on the amount of gas consumed over the last few years. It didn't slow us down a bit. So the environmental impact would be minimal until you reached a price that became financially prohibitive. What is that price? I don't think anybody knows. I've heard $3. I don't believe it. I'd guess around $5 or $6.

But you also have to consider the impact on decreased fuel consumption. Where are we going when we use gasoline? Answer, to work, to school and on the way to purchase things. Making it harder for people to get to work and to buy things could have a catastrophic affect on the economy.

That is why those of us who are skeptical can look at global warming data and concede that much of it makes sense but fails to rise to the level of certainy that we would be willing to endanger our local and national economies to fight it. The stakes are high. High stakes require high proof.

And there are big differences between the things we do to assuage our guilt (like carpooling, driving smaller cars, etc) and the things which could possibly have a meanigful impact on global warming. Nothing wrong for those things and they might help local climates and help us save money, but the impact on the problem of global warming is likely to be zero.

As far as the UN redistributing wealth. I'm not sure I can provide you with a concrete plan of action, but if you might notice that it is the established western economies that are targeted for change and charged with being responsible. The new big offenders, China, India, Russia, Pacific Rim, all get free passes or either they are applauded for giving assurances that they will behave when everyone knows they have absolutely no intention of doing so.

And don't forget that it was the World Bank that funded enormous highway projects deep into the Amazon rain forests to fund slash and burn farming practices. Where did that money come from? Who did it go to? What were/are the results?

I realize that so far I've only offered criticisms. So what do I suggest? Well, no one will be surprised when I say nothing, more or less. Again, I'm all for every form of conservation of resources, but I have the realistic expectation that such conservation will only come when it is economically feasible to both the consumers and the producers. But I really think that if the earth is really warming and changes are really coming and it will be a centuries long process, we will simply adapt. Just as we have always done in the face of acute climate changes, natural disasters, economic upheavels, wars etc. The difference is that we will have more time. We will discard the things that aren't working and we will take advantage of the benefits that a warmer globe will surely bring.

 

[Tig]

The new big offenders, China, India, Russia, Pacific Rim, ......

Can you share any evidence that the countries you named are big offenders? From what I have found none of them are the biggest source of CO2 and on a per capita basis they look pretty good. See page 37 of this report if you want the breakdown. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/SierraStorm.09Jan2007.pdf

 

[riptides]

If we really, really wanted to we (the US) could turn our attentions to alternate more clean burning fuels. We did after all invent and make great progress on LNG fuels, hydrogen cells, and battery technologies.

Instead of spending a trillion dollars on war, we could have invested within our own country and continue to make oil, irrelevant to our future.

Smarter fuel standards, rebuilding public mass transit systems, gas and oil taxes, with those funds going to public transportation would help.

Good luck to us all.

-Mike Z.