The Great Global Warming Swindle

[zipper]

Originally Posted by PadronMe

I believe Americans to be some of the most wasteful people on God's great Earth

Originally Posted by Cheeto

Even if Global Warming does turn out to be a bunk theory, I still don't see how curbing our carbon emissions and being more energy efficient is a bad thing.

(emphasis and changes added by me)

I'm undecided on whether humans cause global warming, or it's a natural cycling phenomenon. But I do think that there are ways to be more efficient. Efficiency to me means lower cost/more or different energy options. Does this fall into scientists hands, allowing them grant money or whatever? Absolutely. I personally believe the progress gained in technology and efficient use of materials is worth the cost. Energy is just the tip of the iceberg (pun intended).

Materials science, renewable resources and land-use planning are three separate topics that come to my head immediately. They affect everyone, and can both for good and bad if applied improperly. Some actions will cause a net positive but affect some negatively. But in my *very* limited experience, this is the way of all things.

Whatever happens, I still love friendly discourse

[Corona Gigante]

When I'm not an expert in a given field, I tend to defer to those who are. In the subject under discussion, the majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion. (Wikipedia)

The argument used to be a whole lot simpler when it was just the tree hugging hippies vs the evil corporations. The sudden recent appearance of the nuclear power industry in the green corner has muddied the waters a bit. Nevertheless, to those who would reduce the argument to the basis of "who has got the most to gain?" in order to complain that "big sunscreen" is behind all the "global warming hysteria," I must respectfully demur.

[carbonbased_al]

Originally Posted by The Professor

yeah ... and this isn't a sh*t storm that's mired the forum in numerous threads before, I suppose. my dismissal is of the usefulness and desirability of this kind of thread emerging *again* (e.g., http://www.clubstogie.com/vb/showthread.php?t=78437).

once again: oy.

oy!

[j6ppc]

Lets set aside the term "global warming" for a moment and replace it with climate change. Those changes are happening for whatever reason.
Regardless of cause there is likely to be a significant negative impact on this planet's population of flora and fauna which IIRC also includes us.

In the meantime it behooves us to do whatever we can to sharply curtail emissions of greenhouse gases where we can on the off chance that there is a cause-effect relationship betweeen climate change and greenhous gas increases.

If you want a real treat have a look at Methane Hydrate which is alreay starting to melt as a result of fairly modest sea temperature increases. Methane gas has a greenhouse effect 10 times more effective than CO2 (this is fact not conjecture). USGS Fact Sheet

[Cigarmark]

I believe the world climate cycles. Here is a newsweek article from 1975 when the "experts" saw the coming ice age.
The Cooling World

[SIZE=2]Newsweek[/SIZE][SIZE=2], April 28, 1975 [/SIZE]



[SIZE=1]www.denisdutton.com[/SIZE]

Here is the text of Newsweek’s 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling. It may look foolish today, but in fact world temperatures had been falling since about 1940. It was around 1979 that they reversed direction and resumed the general rise that had begun in the 1880s, bringing us today back to around 1940 levels. A PDF of the original is available here. A fine short history of warming and cooling scares has recently been produced. It is available here.
We invite interested readers to vist our new website: Climate Debate Daily. — D.D.

[SIZE=+2]T[/SIZE]here are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
[SIZE=+2]A[/SIZE] survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
[SIZE=+2]M[/SIZE]eteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.
“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

—PETER GWYNNE with bureau reports

[end]

[duhman]

What happened the last time the methane hydrate melted and how did the planet recover? Inquiring minds want to know. This has never been mentioned, I think.
Warmer global temperatures will support greater bioactivity as the biosystems assimilate the higher energy levels. Energy is not wasted in a generally closed system. The planet was much warmer when the dinosaurs were around. What's wrong with returning to that climate?
CO2 exists in extremely small amounts in the atmosphere for a reason. It is used up by plants almost as fast as it is produced. This is the reason there is so much O2 in the atmosphere. Plants expire it during the day. Without plants the gases would be reversed in their concentrations.
Humans are the most adaptable lifeforms on the planet. I am not at all worried for us. Other lifeforms adapt as species rather than individuals. It takes longer but they seem to do fine.
I agree we shouldn't poison our own pot, I just don't think we are, or will be, doing that. Now go to China and look around to see how bad it can get. But even there they are starting to turn things around.
We should all do things, in our everyday lives, to make things a little better around us. The cumulative effect would be astounding. When you try to force control onto people you will just get a fight.

[j6ppc]

Originally Posted by duhman

What happened the last time the methane hydrate melted and how did the planet recover? Inquiring minds want to know. This has never been mentioned, I think..

Most of the current theorys suggest that it got extremely warm, mass extinctions occured and over time (many thousands of years) the methane was again sequestured beneath the oceans and in permafrost.

[carbonbased_al]

Originally Posted by duhman

What happened the last time the methane hydrate melted and how did the planet recover? Inquiring minds want to know. This has never been mentioned, I think.
Warmer global temperatures will support greater bioactivity as the biosystems assimilate the higher energy levels. Energy is not wasted in a generally closed system. The planet was much warmer when the dinosaurs were around. What's wrong with returning to that climate?
CO2 exists in extremely small amounts in the atmosphere for a reason. It is used up by plants almost as fast as it is produced. This is the reason there is so much O2 in the atmosphere. Plants expire it during the day. Without plants the gases would be reversed in their concentrations.
Humans are the most adaptable lifeforms on the planet. I am not at all worried for us. Other lifeforms adapt as species rather than individuals. It takes longer but they seem to do fine.
I agree we shouldn't poison our own pot, I just don't think we are, or will be, doing that. Now go to China and look around to see how bad it can get. But even there they are starting to turn things around.
We should all do things, in our everyday lives, to make things a little better around us. The cumulative effect would be astounding. When you try to force control onto people you will just get a fight.

I love these threads, brings out the closet arm chair scientists

[str8edg]

Originally Posted by yamaha6000

the sea levels will rise when the Icebergs melt? take a cup and fill it with ice cubes and water so that the ice cubes are over the top rim of the glass and let it melt, it doesn't overflow!

I see your point BUT the ice that is melting around here and other places in Nunavut (the arctic) is not in the ocean yet... the glaciers are melting and breaking off and falling in the ocean... so how about if you take a glass full of water and then add ice to it... I an pretty sure it will overflow.
Then you have to think about the MASSIVE amounts of fresh water being added to our salt oceans, that has to make a difference.

Bottom line to me is this.. call it what you want, blame who you want, I don`t care... the fact is that it is happening. So IMHO you have to ask yourself do I care about the planet... if you do shouldn`t you try to do everything and anything you can to help?

I am NO fan of the government, they screw up more than they get right... check into how the Canadian government messed up the fishery in Newfoundland... so I don`t believe much if any of what they say. Big business is just that business... they care about $$. And yes science cares about science and that costs money.

Fossil fuels are no good, they will run out then where will we be? Ethenal costs more to produce than it`s worth... so if I got to fund someone it will be science so they can figure a fuel that will not run out...

OK I`m done...

[Darb85]

second point.

WHy is this americas fault only??? China, dont get me started. mexico? My dad works in the printing industry, They pour all the solvents right into the middle of the street. These are highly toxic chemicals that cause defects, burns among other things.

We cant use Europe as an example, its tiny as all get out! WE are huge! we are going to have more usage or a larger carbon footprint. We are probably cleaner per capita than most think.

Ever wonder why its cheaper to set up a factory in China? A few less polution restrictions.

China is shutting down factories and limiting cars on the road to meet international standards for the olympics for gods sake.

[yamaha6000]

Originally Posted by Cheeto

Even if Global Warming does turn out to be a bunk theory, I still don't see how curbing our carbon emissions and being more energy efficient is a bad thing.

Because it will ruin our economy. And there is NO consensus of scientists that global warming is man-made.

[str8edg]

But we could start small... I mean really does anyone other than the military NEED a hummer... what does that get in milage?? I mean really? Soccer moms do not need a hummer, in CA!! I mean there is not even any snow!!

Sorry I just don't like Hummers!

[j6ppc]

Originally Posted by yamaha6000

Because it will ruin our economy. And there is NO consensus of scientists that global warming is man-made.

Really?

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

Clicky

Oy.

[yamaha6000]

Originally Posted by str8edg

But we could start small... I mean really does anyone other than the military NEED a hummer... what does that get in milage?? I mean really? Soccer moms do not need a hummer, in CA!! I mean there is not even any snow!!

Sorry I just don't like Hummers!

No, no one NEEDS a Hummer, but this is the land of the FREE! If someone wants to buy a Hummer, has the money and someone builds said Hummer, more power to him! Also, SUV's are much safer than a small car, If I was to be in an accident, I would rather take my chances in a SUV rather than a Prius. I'm not advocating pollution, but we don't need government regulation for a "problem" that has not been proven. Heck, I'm a corn farmer and I am against SUBSIDISING ethanol. It's not efficient. I am, however for nuclear, but once the talks turn to that, the same "environmentalists" who are saying the world is coming to an end will not allow nuclear power to come to fruition.

[muziq]

Originally Posted by yamaha6000

Because it will ruin our economy.

I would love to see the data on that assessment. No, I'm not trolling or baiting, I'd just like to see the data regarding the change in our culture's mass consumption towards energy efficiency as a threat to our economy and have a chance to consider its scope and quality.

I go back and forth on how I feel about the "issue" of climate change, but what I do know is that when I started to make little changes in my life like lightbulbs, changing the thermostat, walking more/driving less, that I've seen an improvement in my bottom line. YMMV, figuratively and literally.

It also gives me warm-fuzzies, but that's a personal issue