quote:I remember when we banned CFCs and that year a volcano erupted in the Antarctic that put out more CFCs then we would have in the next thirty years. Made our gesture pretty pointless.
You know, this attitude -- that it happens anyway, and thus we shouldn't worry about our contribution to it -- baffles me. If you're worried about a bathtub overflowing, wouldn't you try to turn off as MANY faucets as you could, especially if there were a few big faucets you COULDN'T switch off?
You might also try to open the drain wider. You might also try to scoop out some water and put it somewhere else. Believe it or not, all of these analogies have real-world equivalents.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Will you concede the possibility that he's informed on this issue?
I was referring to his "stupid jokes" comment. And sure, I'll concede the possibility. I just find it unlikely. Even more unlikely than I find Gore's doomsday scenarios, and that's saying quite a bit.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: What in the holy hell in a handbasket happened in this thread?
Sam, did you break our board? ^_^
it is very possible. The code broke and stopped displaying posts no matter how hard I tried.
I am assuming it's possible that I managed to repost EIGHT BILLION TIMES but I will hope this didn't happen. In case it makes anyone feel better, breaking the board also broke my computer and I was forced to reboot.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
The ice ages started all by themselves, and they ended all by themselves, and I just spent a frigid day in June in Chicago in which I could have used a little global warming.
quote:
I too have spent a cool weekend in Chicago, yet somehow that doesn't make me deny the idea of global warming. It actually sort of solidifies the idea in my head.
Of course, if I was going to argue about weather patterns changing or not, I wouldn't use Chicago as an example. I've lived here my whole life and the weather has never followed any predictable pattern. Cold day in June? Heck, I remember it snowing in late April a few years back. Let's just thank God that it's not snowing in June!
Posts: 511 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: I remember when we banned CFCs and that year a volcano erupted in the Antarctic that put out more CFCs then we would have in the next thirty years. Made our gesture pretty pointless.
CFC's from volcanos? I am not sure this is the case.
Wait! I remember this one. The origin of this was from Rush Limbaugh, and I believe he was (totally) mistaken. I also think that the volcanic eruption most often referenced is Pinatubo.
He said:
quote:Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical, and insensitive corporations in history. . . . Conclusion: mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less billion years' worth, so how can we destroy ozone?"
Here's the truth of the matter:
Volcanoes emit two sorts of ozone-depleting compounds. One is hydrochloric acid, but the amount of this chemical in the stratosphere, measured before and after Pinatubo's eruption in 1991, was found to be largely unchanged.
The other ozone-depleting chemical emitted by Pinatubo, sulfur dioxide, is converted in the stratosphere into tiny particles which, acting in combination with man-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's), temporarily increased the rate of ozone depletion by several percentage points during 1992 and 1993. Nevertheless, nearly all the particles resulting from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption (Which are water-soluble, making them self regulating as opposed to human compounds that rise into and then degenerate in the ionosphere, where they react with and destroy ozone) have already washed out of the atmosphere, unlike CFC's, which remain in the stratosphere for as long as a century.
Cumulatively speaking, Pinatubo's destructive effect on the ozone layer has been about fifty times less than that of CFC's, rather than a housand times greater, as Limbaugh claims. Thus, his estimate is off by a factor of fifty thousand.
Volcanic eruptions are actually good news. Volcanic activity produces, overall, a global cooling effect.
Ok I am going to try to post the lengthy part of my previous and failed attempt. Here's hoping I don't break anything this time.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments which concluded that there is "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." The study said that the only factor that could explain the measured warming of Earth's average temperature over the last 50 years was the buildup of heat-trapping gases, which are mainly emitted by burning coal and oil.
quote:American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said: There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... The report by the IPCC stated that the global mean temperature is projected to increase by 1.4°C-5.8°C in the next 100 years... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders. [5]
quote:In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [3]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the science community: The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. [4] The summary begins with: Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. (ibid.)
quote:In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [url= http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222][2][/url], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.
The most recent IPCC report is Climate Change 2001, the Third Assessment Report (TAR). The TAR consists of four reports, three of them from the Working Groups:
* Working Group I: The Scientific Basis [30] * Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability [31] * Working Group III: Mitigation [32] * Synthesis Report [33]
The "headlines" from the summary for policymakers [34] in The Scientific Basis were:
1. An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system (The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6°C; Temperatures have risen during the past four decades in the lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere; Snow cover and ice extent have decreased) 2. Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate (Anthropogenic aerosols are short-lived and mostly produce negative radiative forcing; Natural factors have made small contributions to radiative forcing over the past century) 3. Confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased (Complex physically-based climate models are required to provide detailed estimates of feedbacks and of regional features. Such models cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate (e.g., they still cannot account fully for the observed trend in the surface-troposphere temperature difference since 1979) and there are particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their interaction with radiation and aerosols. Nevertheless, confidence in the ability of these models to provide useful projections of future climate has improved due to their demonstrated performance on a range of space and time-scales [35].) 4. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities 5. Human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century 6. Global average temperature and sea level are projected to rise under all IPCC SRES scenarios
Final point, on the viability of attempts to change the problem through regulation:
[url= http://"http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/hansen_timebomb.pdf"]PDF: Defusing the Global Warming Time Bomb,[/url] from the pages of Scientific American.[/quote]
quote:At present, our most accurate knowledge about climate sensitivity is based on data from the earth’s history, and this evidence reveals that small forces, maintained long enough, can cause large climate change. - Human-made forces, especially greenhouse gases, soot and other small particles, now exceed natural forces, and the world has begun to warm at a rate predicted by climate models. - The stability of the great ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica and the need to preserve global coastlines set a low limit on the global warming that will constitute “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with climate. - Halting global warming requires urgent, unprecedented international cooperation, but the needed actions are feasible and have additional benefits for human health, agriculture and the environment.
pt. II
quote:Any effect of CO2 is negligible next to plain old water vapor. Both are greenhouse gasses, after all.
quote:natural greenhouse gas which, of all greenhouse gases, accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor levels fluctuate regionally, but in general humans do not produce a direct forcing of water vapor levels. In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. This in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature, and thus an increase in water vapor, until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback (but not a runaway feedback) to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2.
posted
I think you will find that Rush is pretty good at keeping his research scrupulous.
Excerpt from article on volcanoes in Douglas M. Considine, editor, Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, 7th Edition (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989), p. 2973:1]
These observations suggest that the impact of anthropogenic production of chlorine in fluorocarbons should once again be reviewed against the backdrop of disturbance of the ozone layer that may arise from natural, volcanic causes. Researchers have observed, for example, that the Augustine Volcano (Alaska), which erupted in 1976, may have injected 289 x 10E9 kilograms (289,000,000,000 kg) of HCl into the stratosphere. This quantity is about 570 times the 1975 world industrial production of chlorine and fluorocarbons.''
The ice ages started all by themselves, and they ended all by themselves, and I just spent a frigid day in June in Chicago in which I could have used a little global warming.
quote:
I too have spent a cool weekend in Chicago, yet somehow that doesn't make me deny the idea of global warming. It actually sort of solidifies the idea in my head.
Of course, if I was going to argue about weather patterns changing or not, I wouldn't use Chicago as an example. I've lived here my whole life and the weather has never followed any predictable pattern. Cold day in June? Heck, I remember it snowing in late April a few years back. Let's just thank God that it's not snowing in June!
I grew up in Chicago, and I was raised to understand that weather reports were more a form of entertainment than anything serious.
Then I moved to Israel, where you could, more often than not, count on the weather reports. And then I moved to the Santa Cruz area, where the same was true, but maybe even more.
I just assumed that the science of meteorology had improved since I was a kid.
Until I moved back to Chicago. I don't even know why they bother with five-day forecasts. There can't really be anyone who takes those seriously, can there?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rush's research is not scrupulous and his conclusions are often wrong. This was the case here.
You also don't seem to understand what is actually presented here by the VNSE: You are pointing out a scientific article that said that a volcano pumped a whole bunch of HCI into the stratosphere, and it mentions that there was a whole lot of it pumped into the atmosphere. That's okay, the industry regulations weren't trying to limit HCI output into the atmosphere, it was trying to limit man-made CFC's.
HCI ≠ CFC. One will note that HCI does not cause holes in the ozone layer like CFC interactions used to. The CFC regulation was a success!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Asphalt, as it happens, is a good way of reducing global warming, because it binds down carbon that would otherwise go into the atmosphere as CO2. So, build them parking lots.
Not so fast. We have now covered enough of the Earth in asphalt to measurably reduce the albedo of the planet. (albedo is the reflectivity of a body, or in this case the amount of radiation the earth reflects back into space.) All that sunlight absorbed by all that blacktop which would otherwise have been reflected back by leafy green vegetation, in most cases, goes a long way toward heating up the biosphere.
Ever notice how the weather in the inner city can sometimes be 5-10 degrees hotter than the surrounding area? In Baltimore we could pretty reliably get our "spring" a week or two earlier than the sub-urbs, even those to the south. Even the good nursuries give two different planting dates for annuals - one for the city and one for the suburbs.
Additionally, the carbon that is being "bound down" in asphalt largely isn't carbon that would otherwise be in the atmosphere. All things being equal, it's carbon that would still be in the ground.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Rush's research is not scrupulous and his conclusions are often wrong. This was the case here.
The counterpost was also citing an encyclopedia published over 15 years ago, and an encyclopedia at that time may or may not reflect a full, informed understanding of the science as it currently stands.
I honestly don't know, myself, but I am delighted at your posting so much background data, Samprimary. Thanks! *reading
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa, you are trying to make two different things equivalent. Doing localized weather forecasting is magnitudes MORE difficult than the climate change research and predicitions. For localized weather, requires measuring values for precipitation, wind, temperature, at various levels of the atmosphere, and calculate the results from their interactions.
With global climate change, you are looking at a globaly scale, using global aggregates. And the research has shown that as the CO2 level has gone up, so has the temperature.
I'm sure The Rabbit, or realclimate.org could give a more in-depth (and cited!) explanation.
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: starLisa, you are trying to make two different things equivalent. Doing localized weather forecasting is magnitudes MORE difficult than the climate change research and predicitions.
Um... chill. It was an anecdote, since the subject of Chicago weather came up. Don't read too much into it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: Really? It causes holes in everything else....
BC
ya rly.
quote:Myths about ozone depletion
"Manmade chlorine is insignificant compared to natural sources"
One occasionally encounters statements such as It is generally agreed that natural sources of tropospheric chlorine (volcanoes, ocean spray, etc.) are four to five orders of magnitude larger than man-made sources. This falls into the "true but irrelevant" category as tropospheric chlorine is irrelevant; it is stratospheric chlorine that matters. The chlorine from ocean spray is in the form HCl and is soluble; it never reaches the stratosphere. CFCs, in contrast, are insoluble and long-lived and hence do reach the stratosphere. Even in the lower atmosphere there is more chlorine present in the form of CFCs and related haloalkanes than there is in HCl from salt spray, and in the stratosphere the organic source gases dominate overwhelmingly. This includes the CFCs and methyl chloride, which has both natural and man made sources (FAQ, Part II, section 4.3). Another point which must be kept in mind when evaluating the contributions of various gases to stratospheric ozone is that methyl chloride molecules only contribute a single chlorine atom, but CFC molecules contribute multiple chlorine atoms. Very large volcanic eruptions can inject HCl directly into the stratosphere, but direct measurements (FAQ, Part II, section 4.4) have shown that their contribution is small compared to chlorine from CFCs.
More here, but the ozone depletion issue has little relevance to the greenhouse gas effects related to the global warming phenom, making it a side issue.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The chlorine from ocean spray is in the form HCl and is soluble; it never reaches the stratosphere. CFCs, in contrast, are insoluble and long-lived and hence do reach the stratosphere
Argh. The lack of precise chemistry is making me rather upsed.
Chem 101. Chlorine is an element. In its pure elemental form it is Cl2. That is, 2 chlorine atoms molecularly bonded to each other.
There is a difference between a molecular bond and an ionic bond. Molecular bonds have the two atoms sharing electrons. Ionic bonds have one atom stealing the electon from the other element and keeping it for its own.
The "Chlorine" that you speak of in seawater, is by and large in the form of the "Chloride" ion. Counterbalancing the negative Chloride charge is the positively charged sodium ion. This is why the ocean is saltwater. Thermodynamically, although it does happen to a minscule amount, chloride ions practically never spontaneously forms "HCl" as a gas in the atmosphere. It is generally against the second law of thermodyamics. There is some Cl2 dissolved in seawater, and this can degas to the air, but the actual formation of airborne HCl (from seawater) is chemically negligible.
The volcanic HCl is also easily absorbed by seawater, while molecular CFCs are not
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: First of all we are between Ice Ages, and between every Ice Age is a Hot Age. That is indisputable. But Ice Ages and Hot Ages span many thousands of years. We are seeing a change in temperature that can be measured across 100 years.
Actually we are in an "interglacial period." From what I can remember of my Earth geology class, we are in a somewhat unique state of temperate weather in the middle of a longer ice age. The earth has been covered in a deluge of ice 17 times in the last 2.5 million years, and some of these periods are followed by an 8 or so thousand year temperate period. In fact it is very unusually to have a temperate planet where much of the water is held in ice caps, and some geologists believe that having ice caps at both polls without substantial glaciers in between may be an entirely unique state in the geologic history of the world.
There is nothing indisputable about the long term cycles of the earth though, and that attitude hurts the environmentalist as much as the do-nothings who, well, do nothing. I think its probable that global warming is being caused by humans and to a negative effect, but let's not pretend we understand the Earth all that well. We don't.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Robin, what if global warming and rising sea levels were an inevitable cost of living in a complex, hi-tech society in which a small fraction of the population can feed hundreds of millions, leaving a few of us free to do silly things like make movies? Would you want to undo all of that and give up what you've achieved to live as a low-impact subsistence farmer?
I've never quite understood the choice some try to impose between economy and ecology. Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't investments in alternative energies drive the economy -- to say nothing of cheapening the cost of fuel by ways of newfound competition (which we don't need to import from the Middle East), and possibly discovering new paths and technology for future research?
Petroleum =! economy. Pollution =! economy. We need energy, not necessarily fossil fuels or coal -- and we've never lacked for that.
As for anyone citing the common wisdom that "Yes we're nearing a couple of peaks, but the point is the peaks are a little bit higher than they were last time" or, heh, "CO2: They call it pollution, we call it life" -- please see the movie. I think it'd answer many commonly misunderstood explanations about global warming, if some people could just swallow their partisanship enough to listen to Al Gore.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Petroleum =! economy. Pollution =! economy. We need energy, not necessarily fossil fuels or coal -- and we've never lacked for that.
Fossil fuels have a much higher efficiency rating (energy released per unit of energy used to acquire and transport it) than any other form right now. Further, the infrastructure we have is largely tailored to fossil fuels. We'll need to make a new (or upgrade existing) infrastructure for new forms of energy.
I agree that alternative energy sources should be developed, and that some people will make a lot of money doing so. But our economy currently is based on spending x units of energy to get y units of energy, and converting to an economy where y units of energy require 2x units of energy to make will cause major readjustment.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I agree that alternative energy sources should be developed, and that some people will make a lot of money doing so. But our economy currently is based on spending x units of energy to get y units of energy, and converting to an economy where y units of energy require 2x units of energy to make will cause major readjustment.
But somehow I think the coal and oil industries are worried that research will show us a way to get 10y units of energy for the price of 0.1x units of effort, thus making them obsolete. After all, if only 0.1x units of effort are required, doesn't 90% of the coal and oil industry no longer have a job? You can't convince me that our coal and oil industries are even attempting to increase efficiency if it doesn't turn out to be cost effective- why would an oil company in any way support research into a car that uses less gas? Who WILL fund that research?
On the plus side of that, having freely available energy would make all kinds of other industry easier and increase job availability... so that would be a good thing too.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just saw the movie earlier today and I thought it was good. It was a clear foundation of science, a nice debunking of myths, and a great call to arms in general.
I think everyone should see it. The little pieces where Gore talks about "himself" are nowhere near as self serving as I've heard others describe. He's talking about the history of his interest in the subject, and why he is so passionate about it. I also think it's ironic by the way, that he grew up on a farm in the south, and is called a suburban eastern intellectual, and Bush grew up in the city in what, Connecticut, but is considered a southern rancher. But that's beside the point.
Especially interesting were some of his arguments on the economy versus alt energy. When you look at the fuel efficiency standards of the US, we lag behind every major nation in the world, even China and India. What does that mean? We can't sell our cars to India, China, Europe, and other places because we're 10's of miles per gallon behind where we need to be, but ALL of them can sell to us. 2.5 billion people in India and China, and we can't sell them our vaunted trucks and Explorers, or even our smaller cars. We either have to start up whole new companies over there, try and buy existing companies, or invest billions to create new car designs that don't even end up being sold in America.
It makes little sense from an economic point of view. We're hampering ourselves in the global auto market.
Everyone should see the movie.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dumb Troll Shaman think that if you take all the lifeblood (oil) of Earth, Earth will die. Big Troll Shaman no want puny human shamans to take any more blood out of Gaia.
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, you're assuming .1x units of mystery source will cost the same as x units of fossil fuels. My dad used to work for a power company that ran 1 nuclear plant and 4 coal plants. The nuclear plant takes less fuel to power more houses, but it costs more. So they run four coal plants with it to offset the cost.
We probably want to start by adding new fuels to what we already have. Diversify our sources to give us the best hedge against price fluctuations. I doubt we can change to a new energy source in the next couple of decades.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I agree that alternative energy sources should be developed, and that some people will make a lot of money doing so. But our economy currently is based on spending x units of energy to get y units of energy, and converting to an economy where y units of energy require 2x units of energy to make will cause major readjustment.
But somehow I think the coal and oil industries are worried that research will show us a way to get 10y units of energy for the price of 0.1x units of effort, thus making them obsolete. After all, if only 0.1x units of effort are required, doesn't 90% of the coal and oil industry no longer have a job? You can't convince me that our coal and oil industries are even attempting to increase efficiency if it doesn't turn out to be cost effective- why would an oil company in any way support research into a car that uses less gas? Who WILL fund that research?
I'm at a bit of a loss. This is posted seemingly in response to what I wrote, but I don't get how it does respond.
I'm not talking about conspiracy theories or even who will pay for research. Nothing we're looking at now shows the promise of being more efficient (in terms of energy spent per unit of energy extracted) than fossil fuels in the next 20 years. This fact alone - without any other consideration - pretty much guarantees that the economy will change radically if we shift to non-fossil fuels in the next 20 years.
It may be worth it to undergo the radical shift necessary. But anyone who doesn't think it will cause economic suffering shouldn't be making the decision. It will. We need to acknowledge that (many people advocating change do). We need to study and measure it.
quote:On the plus side of that, having freely available energy would make all kinds of other industry easier and increase job availability... so that would be a good thing too.
Sure. But there won't be "freely available energy."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not convinced that the advocates of global warming [I know that's a misnomer, but try to express that idea another way ... it's hard] have accurately predicted the future. I don't think that we understand climate sufficiently to be able to project its behavior and say what it will do over the next 10 or 100 or 1000 years. There are factors in the equation we do not understand, and I think that the climate will surprise us way more often than it does what we say.
That said, however, these folks have laid out some scenarios that, if they are accurate, could obviously have a severe impact on our society.
At the same time, we're running into a few other problems which have nothing to do with forecasting the future (and which, therefore, I find more compelling). We are definitely insufficiently prepared to respond to natural disasters. We are definitely overly dependent on oil and other fossil fuels.
Unpredictable systems like climate cannot be controlled the way you control a car. A better analogy might be surfing a wave. You don't know what the wave is going to do, so instead, you learn to be flexible, be prepared, and have excellent balance, so that you can respond to whatever happens with grace and style.
That's why I find most of the strategies for fighting global warming uncompelling. The advocate fills my head with the massive damage we've already done, and the huge disaster that is looming right around the corner ... and then recommends a minor reduction in a few countries' emissions over a decade as the solution? If this incoming disaster is truly as certain as people predict, then a minor reduction in emissions of CO2 is going to be a drop in the bucket. With the largely-unregulated Chinese and Indian industrial complexes growing as fast as they are, if anything, we'll be losing ground.
What I'm wondering is ... if this disaster really is looming like this, and if I'm right about how ineffectual our last-minute "preventative" measures are going to be in the face of it, then shouldn't we be focusing more of our efforts on survival strategies that are less about controlling the weather and more about riding the waves?
Like vastly expanding and improving our system for responding to natural disasters and other internal problems like riots?
Like vastly reducing the resource requirements of our economy, in general? This one is long-term, but it isn't focused on averting an incoming disaster, so it can be, and every little step along the way will make a difference. Right now, if everyone in the world were raised to an American standard of living, we'd exhaust our readily-available resources within a decade. If we suffer a shortage of a vital resource like oil, everything grinds to a halt. The more cheap and efficient we become, the better-able we are to roll with the punches when both natural and economic disasters occur. And in the very long term, the cheaper we make the American standard of living, the more we can extend it to other societies, and the less likely they'll be to resent us and want us gone.
In short, I'm facing some serious dissonance between what global warming advocates describe as the problem, and what they proscribe as the solution. I absolutely agree that we need to make some drastic changes, soon, in order to be better prepared for inevitable disasters. But focusing on this one scenario, with these particular solutions, just sounds like a grab for people's attention, and an attempt to use fear to manipulate me. I'm already plenty concerned about our environment, our lack of efficiency, and our lack of flexibility in the face of unpredictable events, thanks. I don't need to go through this exercise.
My concern is ... what if we pour all our half-assed efforts into the very specific task of averting this forecasted global warming, we pay all the costs for it ... and then something else happens? Some unpredictable result of global warming, or even another disaster that has nothing to do even with the weather? I think we are much better-served by developing general flexibility and efficiency in our economy, in our use of resources, and in our preparedness for disaster, rather than going through this knee-jerk response to a very specific possible future that, if it is real, is probably far too advanced to stop in the way we're trying to stop it.
The truth about the future, especially when you are working with complex systems like climate and human society, is that even when you think you know what is going to happen, you certainly don't know what else is going to happen alongside your prediction. Rather than reacting specifically to what we see in the crystal ball, I think we should be examining our vulnerability to all kinds of possible emergencies, and should be finding much more general solutions that make us a more robust, enduring society, no matter what happens.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Al Gore is the best thing to happen to the opponents of the Global Warming myth, including me. He's the reason why we don’t have a viable CO2 control treaty (assuming we need one). He negotiated the Kyoto treaty for the Clinton Administration. During the negotiation, the Senate voted 95-0 against any treaty that would exempt the developing world from any obligation to reduce its emissions. But that didn’t stop Gore from agreeing to a treaty with this term, and that exempted China, knowing full well that it would never be ratified. For political expediency he negotiated an impractical treaty that he knew the Senate would not ratify. Gore and Kyoto essentially ended pursuits for a more realistic alternatives. Thank you, Al.
Another plus: none of the nations that signed the treaty are any where near close to meeting its targets. Good work Al.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would just like to make a prediction here for the record...
When we reduce automobile emmissions to 0 or near 0, many of the people who are up in arms over their environmental impact will switch to bemoaning the Highway Fatality Epidemic.
Cuz you know, whatever we do, it's not enough. And they'll have to make a living off some other panic when the environmental one is gone.
posted
Nah Pix, the environment will always be here. [tongue in cheek] Probably even before men paid tribute to priest classes for rain on their crops, people were trying to control and predict the weather. Now the priest class just asks for research grants to do the same job [/tongue in cheek]
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The more I hear agruements from both sides the more I have to agree with Michael Crichton that we just don't know enough about how complex systems work to really manage the environment.
I think that the development of alternative fuel sources is a very good idea, and I also think its an inevitability that we will start using them eventually. From what I understand of history the human race does not have a long track record of not using new technology in favor of remaining with "The old". Unless you are an eccentric collector type. We have been using oil for not quite a century. Its true that there is initial resistance to new technology (railroad companies were not too happy about the automobile). But I think the current is still in favor of "The New."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I think the current is still in favor of "The New."
There's a very interesting article in Wired this month about how we Americans assume this to be the case, but in reality have been increasingly rejecting new technology since the '70s.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, reducing emissions a little is not the only proposed solution, it was just the most publicized/villified one in recent memory.
The ultimate problem is, if we can't convince enough people that there is the problem, there is no point in providing the list of possible solutions (this point is the primary thrust of the movie, according to reviews I've read). The science is ahead of the media. The media tends to provide 50/50 coverage, when the science is largely on the side of anthropic(?) climate change being a real danger.
BTW, Geoff, your argument echos what I remember back before CFCs were banned. A lot of "half-assed", or "too late to stop"... And yet, we are finally seeing the predicted by science replenishing of the ozone layer. The global environment is actually simpler to predict than it's results, largely due to the ability to apply statistics on a large set of aggregate data.
--- BB, the issue is, the energy footprint was much smaller back then. We may not have the ability to simply wait for the "New" to replace the current system, before problems start occuring.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
Where have you seen 50/50 coverage of this debate?
And I'd like to see the data on the replenishing of the ozone layer. Just because no one has even talked about it for over a decade, and this is the first I've heard of it.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puppy: but the great thing about the global warming scam is nothing ever HAS to happen! It's always on the horizon. And since they renamed it Global Climate Change(tm) EVERYTHING is evidence that it's happening. Too Cold? Global Climate Change(tm). Too Hot? Global Climate Change(tm).
100 years from now people can point back and say "People like you said the same thing back in the 1900s" and the response will be "Yes, but Global Climate Change(tm) (or whatever they're calling it in 100 years) could happen any day! It could happen within our lifetimes!" and the scam continues...
Of course, maybe people will wise up and Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change will be a phrase people use to mean "Snake Oil"
posted
Geoff, it's worth noting that the Y2K bug did exactly that. And yet -- speaking as an IT guy -- it's a darn good thing we all spent as much money as we did fixing it. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Geoff, reducing emissions a little is not the only proposed solution, it was just the most publicized/villified one in recent memory.
The ultimate problem is, if we can't convince enough people that there is the problem, there is no point in providing the list of possible solutions (this point is the primary thrust of the movie, according to reviews I've read).
See, I just don't buy that. Yeah it's really really bad. We know how to fix it too, but you're not ready to listen to us so we won't tell you how.
Why are they playing games like this if it's such an impending disaster? Environmentalists have never worried about sounding extreme. People driving hybrids are criticized now because it's not enough. Why wouldn't China and India be required to keep the same treaty if the fate of the world is at stake.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Geoff, it's worth noting that the Y2K bug did exactly that. And yet -- speaking as an IT guy -- it's a darn good thing we all spent as much money as we did fixing it.
Alot studies have shown that Y2K was fixed almost 95% by the companies that were going ot be affected by it themselves. The government did almost nothing. Y2K though was an obvious problem that was easily shown. Global Warming still has so many questions that remain unanswered, and it remains an enigma.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of all we need to be researching new energy. We should develop efficient ways of harnessing the power of the planet. If we could somehow draw enough energy out of the atmosphere couldn't we neutralize a hurricane before it got beyond a tropical storm? Or even prevent them altogether? If we could convert the energy that is currently fueling global warming into electricity, wouldn't we effectively cool down the planet?
I'm all for taking all the time, effort, energy and money currently being used to debate the issue, and funneling it into basic research on the planet, weather, and alternative energy forms. Who's with me?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was an article in the New Scientist a few years back that I read called The Icehouse Effect. It acknowledged the ice build-up in the Anarctic was the opposite of the rising coasts that had been predicted. It then went on to say that although it was the opposite, it was actually proof of Global Warming (it then explained why). Honestly it's pretty difficult to trust what I'm hearing. I'm not talking about the media coverage of dissenters. I'm talking about the hoops that believing scientists have to jump through to continue to advance global warming. I'm not on Rabbit's level obviously, and I don't read the actual scientific papers- just magazine articles about them.
What frustrates me is that Global Warming cannot be wrong. It simply cannot be. There will never be a piece of evidence that makes this theory falsifiable. When the facts do not turn out to match the predictions, explainations are made so that the underlying theory is correct.
I'm not close-minded about this, I don't disbelieve in global warming. I just don't believe it either. I'm kind of confused. This is probably simplistic of me, but I've always thought that real science is falsifiable. The Global Climate Change theory doesn't seem to fit that.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, just because you haven't heard about it, doesn't mean you should assume no one else is. In fact, that one of the thrusts of the movie. The research, in scientific journals is prolific. But when the media writes an article, you hear fro mat least one person from opposite sides of the debate. The scientific evidence is hardly debated.
posted
BQT, I think you're confusing several issues and that's what's giving you the effect you write about above. I doubt there are that many dogmatic scientists jumping through hoops to "advance global warming". I don't doubt there are plenty of environmental wackos, politicians, and oil company executives that are willing to selectivly twist the facts to illustrate whatever "theory" is most convenient to them at the time, and I know that science reporting in this country is abysmal, with reporters seemingly obligated to give commentary on what a scientific finding "means" regardless of whether they are qualified to make such assertions. And I don't doubt there are a handful of sell-out "scientists" who will prostitute their credentials to lobbying groups, politicians, or for personal notoriety. However, I believe the vast majority of scientists are genuinely concerned with the facts and what they mean, not in how they can use them to support an already drawn conclusion.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
