Global Warming

[xyzer]

Good point rm! Getting the diverse nations of the world in coordination to reduce emissions is in itself a problem. China didn't reach its so called targets under Kyoto and is now complaining about the cost. I guess in the next couple of years the issue will be tossed around internationally? And just think we really don't know whether anthropogenic energy use is the cause?

Here is the latest being considered in the USA. The Climate Security Act..S2191Climate Security Act Revealed

From the article...

According to the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), the biggest obstacles to the success of S. 2191 are the increases in U.S. population and energy use. More people mean more energy needed for home heating and cooling, job growth and transportation.

Do we consider all the adverse effects of reducing human energy consumption for a goal that may be affected by other natural climate causes?

[xyzer]

Parrot, I don't think you got my point about graphs? You can use any time span you wnat to make a point. If you include a span of a decade you may show a temperature rise that would not average as dramtically as if you showed a span of 50 years?
Your response included temps from the 1970s which were in a decidedly cooler era(the middle of the century). What comes out is that such stuff is relative to what the depicter wants us to see. Example the dramatic "hockey stick" graph which excluded a period of warming a thousand years back. Including that period would have made the graph less dramatic.

The climate records which we have indicate that there have been periods(some short, some long) of climate change over the eons. CO2 was not an influencer for warming and followed rather than preceded global temperature changes. The vast oceans of the earth emit and absorb CO2 as they are warmed by the fluctuating solar heat.CO2 is about 1% of the earths atmospheric content and humans contribute some fraction of that? Its a puzzle that we haven't solved.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer Parrot, I don't think you got my point about graphs? You can use any time span you wnat to make a point. If you include a span of a decade you may show a temperature rise that would not average as dramtically as if you showed a span of 50 years? Your response included temps from the 1970s which were in a decidedly cooler era(the middle of the century). What comes out is that such stuff is relative to what the depicter wants us to see. Example the dramatic "hockey stick" graph which excluded a period of warming a thousand years back. Including that period would have made the graph less dramatic.

Ah, so you're trying to argue that choosing any point for your starting period is cherry picking? Cherry picking is the act of choosing data to fit a pre-conceived conclusion (like what you thought you were doing with your 1998 argument), it isn't the act of choosing a starting place at all.

The author of the Blog chose the mid 1970's as his starting point for the first graph because that is when the modern 20th century warming period began.

Michael Mann's hockey stick graph shows two thousand years of temperatures because that is as far as dendrochronology studies go.

No matter which reconstruction you choose or which time period you choose as a starting point, the results all show the same general pattern of 20th century warming.

The climate records which we have indicate that there have been periods(some short, some long) of climate change over the eons. CO2 was not an influencer for warming and followed rather than preceded global temperature changes. The vast oceans of the earth emit and absorb CO2 as they are warmed by the fluctuating solar heat.CO2 is about 1% of the earths atmospheric content and humans contribute some fraction of that? Its a puzzle that we haven't solved.

The oceans actually release carbon dioxide as they warm. Carbon dioxide is less soluble in warm water. And CO2 is about 0.038% of the Earth's atmosphere and human contribute some 36% of that.

But whatevs. None of this is relevant to our current discussion.

[rmnunez]

Genuine Advertisement

Company: CBS News Position: Seeking Vibrant Reporter/Host for Eco Beat Location: National, United States Job Status: Freelance Salary: Negotiable Ad Expires: December 12, 2007 Job ID: 850633 Description: CBS is expanding its coverage of the environment. We seek a talented reporter/host for Internet video broadcast. We are looking for smart, creative, hard working up and comers, who can bring great energy, creativity and a dash of humor to our coverage. A deep interest in the environment and sustainability issues will serve you well. You are wicked smart, funny, irreverent and hip, oozing enthusiasm and creative energy. This position requires strong people, reporting, story telling and writing skills. Managing tight deadlines should be second nature. Knowledge of the enviro beat is a big plus, but not a requirement. Responsibilities include reporting and hosting two to three news packages per week plus daily writing for our blog. You should be comfortable using a video camera and the Internet. Be prepared to see America. Heavy domestic travel. Send resumes, cover letters and links to katzn@cbsnews.com or send DVD reels to: Neil Katz CBS News 518 W57th Street 5th Floor journalismjobs.com/Job_Listing

[rmnunez]

Educated people with common sense who don't stand to profit from a climate change industry don't buy reports that the sky is falling when those reports come from a political organization such as the UN, oil companies and other rich folks who would profit from such industry. After all, they're not the ones who will pay the bills for "mitigation". There are obscene amounts of money to be made in those carbon mitigation industries and reasonable grounds for motivation to some, even if there's no perceptible climate impact.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez Educated people with common sense who don't stand to profit from a climate change industry don't buy reports that the sky is falling when those reports come from a political organization such as the UN, oil companies and other rich folks who would profit from such industry. After all, they're not the ones who will pay the bills for "mitigation".

If it were up to "oil companies and other rich folks," this entire discussion would probably be seen by far
fewer people, if not ignored altogether. It's no coincidence that many so-called "think tanks" are funded by these same people.

Grandpa h.

[Century 25]

Quote by: rmnunez Educated people with common sense who don't stand to profit from a climate change industry don't buy reports that the sky is falling when those reports come from a political organization such as the UN, oil companies and other rich folks who would profit from such industry. After all, they're not the ones who will pay the bills for "mitigation". There are obscene amounts of money to be made in those carbon mitigation industries and reasonable grounds for motivation to some, even if there's no perceptible climate impact.

That is not logical. This however, is:

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, if every U.S. household replaced just one regular incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb, it would prevent 90 billion pounds of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, the equivalent of taking 7.5 million cars off the road. And the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says that by replacing regular light bulbs with compact fluorescent light bulbs at the same minimal rate, Americans would save enough energy to light more than 2.5 million homes for a year.

It makes sense.. and along with this:

Reasons to Switch to Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs:

Replacing one regular light bulb with an approved compact fluorescent light bulb would save consumers $30 in energy costs over the life of the bulb. Compact fluorescent light bulbs use at least two-thirds less energy than standard incandescent bulbs to provide the same amount of light, and they last up to 10 times longer. Compact fluorescent light bulbs also generate 70 percent less heat, so they are safer to operate and can also reduce energy costs associated with cooling homes and offices.

Lighting accounts for 20 percent of the electric bill in the average U.S. home, and the average home has approximately 30 light fixtures.

All the info is here: Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs - Save Energy, Money and the Environment with Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs

If you think a little.. the old incandescent bulb is from the 1880's.. why use such old & power hungry technology..??? It is stupid. Who among us would use such old technology for our phones.. and cars..?? Or anything that is so very old & antiquated..?? I for one have no desire to spend $$$ on such wasteful energy hogs.


.

[rmnunez]

Some people don't see CO2 the way others do:

Carbon dioxide is one of the essential ingredients in green plant growth, and is a primary environmental factor in greenhouses. CO2 enrichment at 2, 3 or 4 times natural concentration will cause plants to grow faster and improve plant quality. Modern growers are becoming increasingly aware of the value of CO2. Particularly now that most greenhouses are purposely shutting out CO2 to conserve energy. The Johnson CO2 Generator automatically provides the carbon dioxide to meet maximum growing potentials - and operates for only pennies a day. The Johnson Generator can easily be installed in any greenhouse. No expensive ductwork is necessary and CO2 is diffused evenly without supplemental fans. Join with modern growers everywhere - use Johnson CO2 Generators - the low cost way to produce CO2 -the nutrient of the new millennium. Johnson CO2 Generator

[xyzer]

Century25..Your point about light bulbs makes sense. How about carrying it further without any impact on consumers? Just build enough nuclear power plants to supply the energy needs of the nation. Nuclear power doesn't produce CO2. And as these plants are being built introduce clean burning coal technology into the existing plants until they can be replaced?

We keep putting the onus for change on the consumer and the energy companies who make money from a product and create jobs. Why prohibit the development of a cleaner power source? The Navy has successfully been using nuclear power for years. France has a large number of nuclear power plants? Why not the USA?

[Century 25]

xyer, I agree about the nuclear power. BUT.. I don't agree to developing more and more power plants. I don't see how using the still old technology of using fluorescent lighting is any kind of "onus" on us, the consumer. It is there for us to switch out those very old incandescent bulbs, and use the much more efficient lighting that industry has provided for us. Show me the onus.

Soon, LED bulbs will be cost effective for task lighting. In fact.. they already are. So, using LED's for task lighting & fluorescent for area lighting.. we can begin saving a nice chunk of change..

If you ever watch HGTV you will see them smashing up "old" kitchens & bathrooms.. ripping out the recessed fluorescent lighting, and putting in can lights by the dozen. And those "home improvement" shows are heavily funded by Home Depot & Lowe's.. not to mention all the paint, plumbing & lumber companies... along with several other interested parties hoping you will be "monkey see.. monkey do's" -

I say: "F- them" -

[rmnunez]

So the South Pole is melting away, or is it?

Indonesia (Reuters) - Antarctica's penguin population has slumped because of global warming as melting ice has destroyed nesting sites and reduced their sources of food, a WWF report said on Tuesday. The Antarctic peninsula is warming five times faster than the average in the rest of the world, affecting four penguin species -- the emperor penguin, the largest and the grandest in the world, the gentoo, chinstrap and adelie, it said. ENN: Antarctica's penguins threatened by global warming

[Century 25]

Quote by: rmnunez So the South Pole is melting away, or is it?

As Antarctica warms.. it snows. The liquid realeased from the Arctic is re-deposited upon the Antarctic. Most of Antarctica is a land mass].. and the depth of the compressed ice is over two miles in depth over much of it. Our coastlines have not been inundated due to the melting of the Arctic.. simply because most of the liquid is now frozen upon the Antarctic. As for the sea around Antarctica.. water temp's are more stable.. and less ice is melted than what is deposited upon that rocky continent.

Question: Will Antarctica's mass be enough to de-stabilize the earth's rotation..? Once upon a time, the Antarctic was tropical:

LiveScience.com

Also, the precedent has been set for planetary bodies to roll & rotate upon a new axis. That would seem to be one possibility for much unexplained events that have transpired upon this planet.

[Muser]

Here's an interesting perspective from someone covering the Climate Change Conference in Bali:

Do the Rich Owe the Poor Climate Change Reparations?
First dispatch from the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Bali
Ronald Bailey | December 11, 2007

Finally, I mentioned at the beginning that the mood of the climate activists here in Bali was triumphal. I suspect that's because many now really believe that an impending climate crisis will at last endow them with the power to completely remold the world's economy in a more egalitarian direction. And that's what they've always wanted, anyway.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Muser Here's an interesting perspective from someone covering the Climate Change Conference in Bali: Do the Rich Owe the Poor Climate Change Reparations? First dispatch from the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Bali Ronald Bailey | December 11, 2007

Thanks for this update. Very enlightening. Sure looks like they have the USA in their crosshairs.

[rmnunez]

The IPCC stated in its landmark reports in 2007 that annual worldwide emissions must be cut at least in half by 2050 to avoid the most serious consequences of global warming, such as severe sea-level rise and prolonged droughts.

I wonder whethey they mean that by 2050 the world must annually produce half as much CO2 as it did this year. This could be a serious problem, particularly as the world's population, economies and our expectations continue to grow.

To do so will require 30 new nuclear power plants, 170,000 wind turbines, 400 biomass power plants, 2 hydroelectric dams the size of China's Three Gorges Dam and 42 coal or natural gas powered plants equipped with still-experimental systems to sequester their carbon dioxide emissions underground, all of this by 2013 and then repeat every year until 2030. Experts question focus of global warming meeting - Los Angeles Times

There are 17 years from 2013 to 2030, that would mean an additional 510 nuclear power plants, 34 major size hydroelectrics, 714 coal or natural gas power plants with this experimental technology and nearly 3 million more wind turbines. I don't think we're going to make it, maybe we ought to be looking into building those dykes and levees.

[rmnunez]

Distortions?

Contaminated data
And do note that all of humanity's pollution adds up to a grand total of about 8/10ths of a degree change since 1860.

[xyzer]

Here is a recent development that may enlighten those who are not Gorefixated?
Scientists Send Letter to UN: Give Up Futile Climate Change Battle | NewsBusters.org

It reflects my repeated doubts about the influence of humans on natural climate changes? Cervantes was right about humans..they continually attack "windmills".

Computer models are not a sure way to predict climate change? The changes in climate experienced recently are within historic norms? Could it just be that humans have not influenced climate change and may be wasting money and resources in trying to change natural cycles?

[rmnunez]

I wonder how many of those scientists signing that open letter will now be ostracised, accused of being mouthpieces for greedy oil companies and fired from their jobs.

[rmnunez]

So do you drive a "Prius", have you replaced at least 5 conventional light bulbs with the more expensive but energy-efficient ones, and how many trees have you planted today? And then when your done planting about 60 billion trees, replacing about 1.5 billion lightbulbs and all those gas guzzling SUVs, you've only reduced CO2 emisions by an eighth of what is needed to meet the IPCC's goal -which we don't even know will reduce global warming at all.

[Compugasm]

I actually unplug appliances when I don't use them, light my apartment with just two light bulbs, and drive less than 5k miles a year. But that is because I'm a cheap bastard.