Uh oh another one jumps ship

[DandyDon]

That is the false dichotomy that is usually portrayed by the anti-global warming folks. In no way would the US have to "mortgage our lifestyles" to reduce carbon emissions. In fact, most of the proposed changes would enhance our lifestyles - more fuel efficient cars, alternative energy sources, etc. The hysteria that our economy will collapse if we try to reduce pollution is propagated by the corporations who have something to lose - primarily the oil industry.

Yes, conversation is not really a bad idea, even for those who really just want to exploit. One can exploit more in time with conversation.

I don't know about the specifics of how many feet of ice at Lake Erie 5800 years ago, but the last major ice age was from 70,000 to about 10,000 years ago, with the peak amount of ice about 18-20,000 years ago. In North America that ice age is usually called the "Wisconson Glaciation".

That's more in line with my memory of what I have read before, thanks. I guess the 5,800 was a typo?

More relevant to the current climate and projected climate change is the Medieval Warm Period back around 800-1300AD; and the "Little Ice Age" that followed. There were signficant differences in weather patterns (such as rainfall amounts) that may offer some insight to future climate changes.

Yeah the Warm Period sure fooled the Greenland Viking settlers and changed up the Anazasi populations, and the waves of the Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia have been recent enough to cloud the understandings many think they have of climate change trends.

What will probably matter the most is not any sort of overall warming, or any changes in ocean levels (IPCC prediciion is 7-24" rise in the next 100 years), but the changes in regional climates, and most particularly changes in rainfall patterns.

Unless one lives on an island with much of it's current land only 12" above high tide. :11: Worldwide, sure - the precipitation changes - rain and snow - should be the biggest effects.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

That is the false dichotomy that is usually portrayed by the anti-global warming folks. In no way would the US have to "mortgage our lifestyles" to reduce carbon emissions. In fact, most of the proposed changes would enhance our lifestyles - more fuel efficient cars, alternative energy sources, etc. The hysteria that our economy will collapse if we try to reduce pollution is propagated by the corporations who have something to lose - primarily the oil industry.

This presumes, once again, that human carbon emissions are even a problem.

The drive to fuel efficient cars is good, but it has nothing to do with global warming. It has to do with the price of fuel. People will buy cars according to how cheaply they can be bought and run, not according to how carbon neutral they are.

Exactly how do "alternative energy sources" enhance my lifestyle? Right now, burning gasoline and using coal-derived electricity is pretty easy for us...exactly how will windmills and solar panels make our lifestyles any better? I am not saying that going to nuclear or fusion power would not be a good thing, but I don't see the connection to lifestyle, unless the energy is cheaper.

Our lifestyles require energy that is 1) plentiful 2) cheap 3) non-polluting. If one subtracts carbon dioxide from the equation, oil fits the bill perfectly. Thanks to modern automotive technology, a 2007 car gives off less pollution at full throttle than a 1965 car did JUST SITTING IN THE GARAGE giving off fumes from its gascap. If the US were to tap its northern reserves, we would have enough oil to last for centuries. Like diamonds, oil is only expensive because geopolitical forces make it so.

I believe that GW is a concoction of people who HATE big oil for some irrational reason. And people who have a vested interest in alternative energy. Given the recent lack of major oil spills, the removal of lead and carcinogens from gasoline, and the near vanishing of any significant air pollution, the anti-oil crowd had to turn on the ONLY thing that oil use produces right now and that's CO2.

Think about it. If human produced CO2 proves NOT to be a problem, what environmental hammer is left to drub EXXON with? Given that the world is AWASH in oil (if we choose actually to drill for it, rather than let it sit under useless tundra), and given that the modern combustion engine has been made SO clean that it produces only carbon dioxide and water vapor, the alternative energy industry would vanish if were shown that CO2 is harmless.

As further proof that GW is about hating big oil, why the drive for electric cars? Charging them still produces C02, since most US electricity is generated by burning coal, which is, in some ways, dirtier than burning gasoline (and mining is more harmful than drilling). But no one has a beef with "big coal", only "big oil". Why?

What makes me most mad about the GW thing is how politicized science has become. Once science is full politicized, there will be no havens of rationality left in the world.

I think it would be great if we were to harness fusion or hydrogen fuel cell technology. Oil is good, but not ideal. But jumping over immediately to poorly developed, expensive and inefficient technologies that clearly lack the capacity to sustain our present energy use (like solar, wind, ect) based upon alarmist predictions is not warranted right now.

 

[DandyDon]

This presumes, once again, that human carbon emissions are even a problem.

I think is certainly true to an extent at least. Recent studies have indicated that known carbon sinks that help moderate the human problem are not as limitless as hoped. Example: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Polar ocean 'soaking up less CO2'

Global warming has generally been happening since the last ice age that produced the Yucatan cenotes and Belize Blue Hole stalagtities, and human has certainly added to this since the Industrial Revolution, but we could certainly strive to conserve rather simply increase exploitation. Unexpected Growth In Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

 

[DiverBeth]

I'm no scientist but pumping as much pollution into the air and water can't be a good thing for Mother Earth. From what I've read I think the evidence points to that we are having an effect on the climate. Exactly what that is I don't think anyone really knows yet. But I think we have to keep studying and if we are to err, let's err on the side of caution. We don't want to wake up one day and find the doom sayers have been right all along and it's too late.

 

[trigfunctions]

Our lifestyles require energy that is 1) plentiful 2) cheap 3) non-polluting. If one subtracts carbon dioxide from the equation, oil fits the bill perfectly.

...given that the modern combustion engine has been made SO clean that it produces only carbon dioxide and water vapor, the alternative energy industry would vanish if were shown that CO2 is harmless.

There are so many things wrong with that post, I can only concentrate on the main items right now. Petroleum combustion is horribly polluting, even if CO2 is "harmless". Much more than CO2 and water vapor comes out of your tail pipe. In addition, the extraction, processing, delivery, and storage of petroleum products contribute a tremendous amount of pollution - not including CO2. Reducing that pollution will enhance your lifestyle.

The bit about GW believers "hating big oil" is nonsense. Maybe some people do, but that has nothing to do with the overwhelming scientific evidence. That's the same red herring thrown out about people "hating" Bush - it's way to avoid discussing the real issues by saying any opposing viewpoint is invalid because of the "hate." It's hogwash.

The plain and simple facts are that scientific evidence demonstrates very clearly that human activities are altering the climate, and that it may be possible to halt those changes if we take reasonable precautions that are in our best interest anyway.

 

[trigfunctions]

if we are to err, let's err on the side of caution.

I agree. That used to be the definition of "conservative."

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

I'm no scientist but pumping as much pollution into the air and water can't be a good thing for Mother Earth. From what I've read I think the evidence points to that we are having an effect on the climate. Exactly what that is I don't think anyone really knows yet. But I think we have to keep studying and if we are to err, let's err on the side of caution. We don't want to wake up one day and find the doom sayers have been right all along and it's too late.

Erring on the side of caution sounds nice, but like many platitudes, it is nonsense. It depends on the "cost" of erring. People die diving, so why take a chance by going underwater hooked to a metal cylinder of air? Why send your children to school, safer to keep them home. We trade value for risk everyday. If reducing carbon output were easy and free, fine, I agree. But it isn't. No one has demonstrated a level of risk from GW worth the cost people seek to extract.

Astronomers predict that another asteroid hitting the earth and killing us all has a small but real chance of happening. Would you be willing to give half of your salary, along with half of everyone elses', for the next twenty years to build a giant laser to stop it? Of course not. Huge cost, small (and uncertain) risk.

 

[BTravlin]

This presumes, once again, that human carbon emissions are even a problem.

The drive to fuel efficient cars is good, but it has nothing to do with global warming. It has to do with the price of fuel. People will buy cars according to how cheaply they can be bought and run, not according to how carbon neutral they are.

Exactly how do "alternative energy sources" enhance my lifestyle? Right now, burning gasoline and using coal-derived electricity is pretty easy for us...exactly how will windmills and solar panels make our lifestyles any better? I am not saying that going to nuclear or fusion power would not be a good thing, but I don't see the connection to lifestyle, unless the energy is cheaper.

Our lifestyles require energy that is 1) plentiful 2) cheap 3) non-polluting. If one subtracts carbon dioxide from the equation, oil fits the bill perfectly. Thanks to modern automotive technology, a 2007 car gives off less pollution at full throttle than a 1965 car did JUST SITTING IN THE GARAGE giving off fumes from its gascap. If the US were to tap its northern reserves, we would have enough oil to last for centuries. Like diamonds, oil is only expensive because geopolitical forces make it so.

I believe that GW is a concoction of people who HATE big oil for some irrational reason. And people who have a vested interest in alternative energy. Given the recent lack of major oil spills, the removal of lead and carcinogens from gasoline, and the near vanishing of any significant air pollution, the anti-oil crowd had to turn on the ONLY thing that oil use produces right now and that's CO2.

Think about it. If human produced CO2 proves NOT to be a problem, what environmental hammer is left to drub EXXON with? Given that the world is AWASH in oil (if we choose actually to drill for it, rather than let it sit under useless tundra), and given that the modern combustion engine has been made SO clean that it produces only carbon dioxide and water vapor, the alternative energy industry would vanish if were shown that CO2 is harmless.

As further proof that GW is about hating big oil, why the drive for electric cars? Charging them still produces C02, since most US electricity is generated by burning coal, which is, in some ways, dirtier than burning gasoline (and mining is more harmful than drilling). But no one has a beef with "big coal", only "big oil". Why?

What makes me most mad about the GW thing is how politicized science has become. Once science is full politicized, there will be no havens of rationality left in the world.

I think it would be great if we were to harness fusion or hydrogen fuel cell technology. Oil is good, but not ideal. But jumping over immediately to poorly developed, expensive and inefficient technologies that clearly lack the capacity to sustain our present energy use (like solar, wind, ect) based upon alarmist predictions is not warranted right now.

I'm not a global warming zealot as I think the jury is still out on this but you have definitely made some inaccurate statements.

As trigfiunctions says, cars are definitely still very polluting. Yes, they are significantly better in that respect compared to the 60's but they still pollute the air. Check out the smog in LA, a lot of which is due to all of their traffic. Also, most third world countries don't have all the nice new cars with the fancy pollution controls installed that we have here in the US. Go to some major cities in South America like Quito, Ecuador or Lima, Peru and sit in their traffic. It will flat out gag you.

If we had an alternative to burning all the coal we presently burn, our air would be a lot cleaner and outdoor activities would be a lot more pleasant for everyone. Here in Louisville we have days where the smog/ozone are so bad that many people can't go outside because it burns their noses and throats just to breathe the air.

Lack of recent major oil spills? True no Exxon Valdez lately but there have been many spills that I would say are far from minor.
1/07 approx 44,000 gals spilled in Gulf of Mexico due to ruptured pipeline
6/07 approx 38,000 litres of fuel spilled by ship near Brisbane, Australia
8/06 a tanker with 530,000 gallons of oil sinks off the Philippine coast and is still leaking oil today
8/05 an estimated 7 million gallons of fuel & oil were spilled in New Orleans due to Katrina

The world is not awash in oil. Proven reserves are declining and new fields tend to be much smaller, harder to get get to and more expensive to pump to the surface. Also, with China and India growing rapidly our supply situation is only going to get tighter. Unless we find good alternatives to oil there is a very real possibility that there will be a WW III fought over oil in the not too distant future.

As for the tundra being useless, that is just plain ridiculous. Birds from all over Canada, the US and Mexico migrate to those areas to lay eggs and nurse their young before migrating back south. Millions of Caribou also live on the tundra. Many people travel to this area every year to experience the wilderness and see the wildlife and I hope to take my kids up there within the next two years. Hardly useless.

Come to think of it, Pennsylvania is pretty much useless too except for the coal and timber. I say we make everybody move out and let the coal and timber companies have it.

I agree that global warming is not a foregone conclusion but, please, let's try to be more accurate rather than throwing out a lot of silly blather.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

There are so many things wrong with that post, I can only concentrate on the main items right now. Petroleum combustion is horribly polluting, even if CO2 is "harmless". Much more than CO2 and water vapor comes out of your tail pipe. In addition, the extraction, processing, delivery, and storage of petroleum products contribute a tremendous amount of pollution - not including CO2. Reducing that pollution will enhance your lifestyle.

The bit about GW believers "hating big oil" is nonsense. Maybe some people do, but that has nothing to do with the overwhelming scientific evidence. That's the same red herring thrown out about people "hating" Bush - it's way to avoid discussing the real issues by saying any opposing viewpoint is invalid because of the "hate." It's hogwash.

The plain and simple facts are that scientific evidence demonstrates very clearly that human activities are altering the climate, and that it may be possible to halt those changes if we take reasonable precautions that are in our best interest anyway.

The scientific evidence is not overwhelming. The facts and not "plain and simple". The fact that you use such phrases in a debate such as this indicates "true believer" status. How can predicting the climate of the entire globe decades into the future, knowing not only what will happen but why, and how bad it will be for us, be plain and simple?

The fact that there are some very knowledgable climate and weather experts who disagree with GW doesn't make your position on GW wrong, but it does invalidate your position that the facts are plain and simple.

By the way, what happened to the terrible hurricanes we were supposed to have the last two years? Funny how uncertain the atmosphere and ocean can be in the Atlantic. Good thing we know the earth's climate in 2050 with such overwhelming simplicity.

Oh, and one last thing. Remind me which energy sources are not polluting? Coal? Nuclear? I don't list any more sources because if you added up all the other goofball sources (windmill, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc), you couldn't run a good sized city on them, even when perfected, let alone a nation.

The only reasonable C02 neutral way to power this nation is nuclear...do you support this position? If, on the other hand, you think we can power our lifestyles using bird-chomping windmills and gazillion dollar solar panels, then you are drinking the koolaid.

 

[BTravlin]

The plain and simple facts are that scientific evidence demonstrates very clearly that human activities are altering the climate, and that it may be possible to halt those changes if we take reasonable precautions that are in our best interest anyway.

I have to agree with Shaky here, the facts are anything but plain and simple. I agree there is evidence to be concerned and I believe we need to look at this carefully but man made global warming is far from a foregone conclusion.