The Global Warming Agenda

[guido911]

More snow equals proof of global warming?  Here's a funny compilation video:

http://www.breitbart.tv/flashback-clips-snow-levels-cause-democrats-to-demand-urgent-action/

I guess every weather phenomenon is proof of global warming.

[TheArtist]

More snow equals proof of global warming?  Here's a funny compilation video:

http://www.breitbart.tv/flashback-clips-snow-levels-cause-democrats-to-demand-urgent-action/

I guess every weather phenomenon is proof of global warming.

Just as absurd as every weather phenomenon being proof against it.  Just because you can point to loons on one side of the issue, doesnt mean there arent loons on the other or that either side is right or wrong.   Though if your commenting on my statement about how some models show more snow in certain areas,,, those videos did little to refute that possibility (the only exception being the first senators comments) for those same models did show less in areas of the western US (which most of those snips also talked about), and more snow in parts of the upper east.   And again, yes a year or two of anecdotes one way or the other, cant be held up as "proof" of anything.  Examples of what could come, sure, proof no. Its still hard to tell exactly what will happen in each area of the world, (on a whole it will get warmer) let alone in tiny sections of a comparatively small US.  But that change of some sort will happen, and fairly rapidly due to human causes, is little in doubt.  Not that rapid change couldnt happen anyway,,, just sayin lol.  An asteroid could hit us for all we know lol. 

[USRufnex]

I knew I could count on you to tote the mass media Algorist line.  

Welcome back from vacation or wherever you were.  

Except I never voted for Al Gore.

I just don't believe Global Warming, Climate Change, and Evolution are "hoaxes"

Harsh winter a sign of disruptive climate change, report says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012800041.html

...despite a wealth of scientific evidence, the American public is increasingly skeptical that climate change is happening at all. That disconnect is particularly important this year as the Obama administration and its allies in Congress seek to enact legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions and revamp the nation's energy supply.

"It's very hard for any of us to grasp how this larger warming trend is happening when we're still having wintry weather," said National Wildlife Federation climate scientist Amanda Staudt, the new report's lead writer.

The study charts how climate change is linked to more heavy precipitation, including intense snowstorms like the one that blanketed the D.C. area last month. The Great Lakes region is also experiencing more snow, the report says, because during warmer winters, "the lakes are less likely to freeze over or are freezing later [and] surface water evaporation is recharging the atmosphere with moisture."

[Red Arrow]

Except I never voted for Al Gore.

I just don't believe Global Warming, Climate Change, and Evolution are "hoaxes"

Harsh winter a sign of disruptive climate change, report says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012800041.html

...despite a wealth of scientific evidence, the American public is increasingly skeptical that climate change is happening at all. That disconnect is particularly important this year as the Obama administration and its allies in Congress seek to enact legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions and revamp the nation's energy supply.

"It's very hard for any of us to grasp how this larger warming trend is happening when we're still having wintry weather," said National Wildlife Federation climate scientist Amanda Staudt, the new report's lead writer.

The study charts how climate change is linked to more heavy precipitation, including intense snowstorms like the one that blanketed the D.C. area last month. The Great Lakes region is also experiencing more snow, the report says, because during warmer winters, "the lakes are less likely to freeze over or are freezing later [and] surface water evaporation is recharging the atmosphere with moisture."

I didn't say you voted for Al Gore, just that you are toting the doctrine.  You may have investigated this more than some of us.  At some point though, you have accepted the analysis of others.  The popular analysis has become questioned more in the last few years and questioned by by scientists involved in climate research.  The irrefutable evidence is no longer irrefutable.  Science, especially inexact science, is that way.

Mathematical (and therefore computer) models include simplifying assumptions.  It's usually necessary to obtain a solution.  Mostly the simplifications involve "insignificant terms".  Sometimes they turn out to not be insignificant.  Climate change models to date cannot reliably determine events which have already happened without adjustment factors.  This is somewhat like multiplying your incorrect answer by zero and adding the correct answer. (My source for this is, unfortunately, my deceased uncle.  He was very interested in Global warming/climate change and had the time to do the research.) 

Assuming the CO2 scare is correct, Cap and Trade should be Cap. Period.  CO2 from developing countries is no less "dangerous" than if it's from the US.  If CO2 cap fits the US, it fits the world.  Help them achieve it.  This is also assuming that CO2 is the main culprit and has no significant accomplices like water vapor.  Savings of CO2 in the US should be just as valuable as CO2 savings as say in India.  The article link and excerpt below from a Light Rail Now article highlights some of the injustice of Cap & Trade.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/myths/m_bog_2009-09a.htm

"Unfortunately, the first thing to understand in regard to this issue is that these kinds of transit successes in advanced countries like the USA are ineligible for consideration. The process of issuing Certificates of Emissions Reduction, or CERs, is overseen through a program called the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and under its procedures, neither transit systems nor cities in advanced industrialized countries (such as those of the USA and Europe) can earn CERs (commonly called "carbon credits") for reducing their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Such countires, including the USA, are classified as "Annex 1 & 2" countries – i.e., advanced industrial nations. Only developing countries can earn the credits (CERs) and thus be in a position to sell them.
Thus, since only Third World countries can qualify for "carbon credits" (CERs), this restriction eliminates from eligibility any rail transit systems in advanced countries, even where studies have shown (or could be carried out to demonstrate) significant reductions in "baseline" motor vehicle traffic (and thus emissions) in specific corridors (remember, "baseline" – considered in the CDM's evaluation of a project – means the level that would exist in the absence of the transit service)."

Cap and trade is not about CO2, it's about money.

I will agree that a few seasons and some out of character storms or lack of storms are not a definitive sign that a trend has stopped, or started.  Weren't we having global cooling in the 70s?  Climate change is inevitable.  Man's contribution may or may not be significant enough to be a controlling factor.  If it is not a controlling factor, stopping all man's contributions will not stop the change.  That does not mean that I am in favor of wanton wasting of energy.  (Except you better not make me drive a weenie vehicle.  Doesn't have to be petroleum powered, just fun to drive.)  I believe I have made enough statements on this forum to show that I am in favor of public transit, especially rail, where it can be effectively utilized.

[jamesrage]

Self-parody alert.

Self parody alert? How does making that statement prove that religious nuts in the man made global warming fairy religion are right?

[nathanm]

I didn't say you voted for Al Gore, just that you are toting the doctrine.  You may have investigated this more than some of us.  At some point though, you have accepted the analysis of others.  The popular analysis has become questioned more in the last few years and questioned by by scientists involved in climate research.  The irrefutable evidence is no longer irrefutable.  Science, especially inexact science, is that way.

Not really. There, as there have always been, are a few doubters in the scientific community, but as a whole, there's significant consensus on the truth of global warming. Where there is less consensus is what exactly we can expect that to cause in the short term. In the longer term, there is significant consensus that it will cause sea level rises at the very least.

Now, among the public at large, there is little consensus because they don't like the politicization of the issue.

Moreover, it's hard for the public at large to see at this point without looking at temperature records directly because the effect is masked by yearly changes in weather caused by El Nino and the various oscillations that control our weather on a short term basis.

[rwarn17588]

Self parody alert? How does making that statement prove that religious nuts in the man made global warming fairy religion are right?

You're a self-parody because you're ranting against so-called "nuts" when you've proven yourself on this forum to be one.

Look at yourself ... you've chosen the pen name "jamesrage," and many of your posts are so steeped in anger, silly stereotypes and fact-free assumptions that it's easy to imagine foam dripping from your mouth as you type. "Nuts," indeed.

Besides, the allegation of scientists mixing religion is a misnomer. It's sort of like a vegetarian attending a meat-packers convention. The two things really don't mix.

[Red Arrow]

Not really. There, as there have always been, are a few doubters in the scientific community, but as a whole, there's significant consensus on the truth of global warming. Where there is less consensus is what exactly we can expect that to cause in the short term. In the longer term, there is significant consensus that it will cause sea level rises at the very least.

Now, among the public at large, there is little consensus because they don't like the politicization of the issue.

Moreover, it's hard for the public at large to see at this point without looking at temperature records directly because the effect is masked by yearly changes in weather caused by El Nino and the various oscillations that control our weather on a short term basis.

Spoken like a true believer.  I hope I live long enough to find out which is correct.

[nathanm]

Spoken like a true believer.

If by true believer you mean that I've read a lot about the subject and have some understanding of it, then yes, I am a true believer, as you put it.

I completely understand the confusion about what the effects of global warming will be. What I don't understand is how someone can look at the temperature records and not see the warming trend. Combine that with the empirical evidence that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas, I don't see where there's room to deny that our activities are causing global warming.

[Red Arrow]

If by true believer you mean that I've read a lot about the subject and have some understanding of it, then yes, I am a true believer, as you put it.

I completely understand the confusion about what the effects of global warming will be. What I don't understand is how someone can look at the temperature records and not see the warming trend. Combine that with the empirical evidence that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas, I don't see where there's room to deny that our activities are causing global warming.

By true believer, I mean that you believe in this as one would be a religious devotee.  You are unwilling to accept that any of the data or analysis could be in error. 

[we vs us]

Why are we even arguing over relatively small details like scientific consensus?  What's in front of us is a major opportunity -- economically, politically and culturally.  Globally, the idea that climate change is real and is man made is gaining acceptance, but there's no leadership and no consensus about how to address it.  These ideas are out there but haven't coalesced around any forward motion. 

We can be that forward motion.  Seriously.  If we threw our energy and our economy and our money behind it, literally the rest of the world would follow us.  It would also conveniently marginalize some of our newest and biggest competitors (major pollutors China and India) until they toed the line that we defined.  It's the easiest and most conflict-free way to ensure American dominance through the next century at least. 

And it really has nothing to do with whether the science is 100% correct or not.  It doesn't even matter whether any climate change is man-made.  We're wasting time squabbling about root causes and whether science can be trusted or not, and all the while this opportunity to take the leadership reigns is passing us by.  Whether it's real or not, other countries believe in it.  Why wouldn't we take advantage of that?

It's easy to ridicule Al Gore, but he's almost single-handedly created the biggest market for new products and services globally we've seen since the internet boom.

[rwarn17588]

I think what's getting lost in this debate are several things that are huge wild cards in the issue:

-- It's very uncertain whether carbon emissions can be lessened in the coming decades, simply because you have emerging Third World nations and natural population growth that will require more energy.

-- The trend of a warming planet is unmistakable, based on mountains of evidence. However, because carbon continues to be spewed into our thin atmosphere, will the effects of said carbon make an impact on our climate for decades? Centuries? Millennia? No one's really sure. The daunting thing is even if we drastically cut carbon emissions, it may not do a damned thing to the climate for generations.

But then you have ...

-- The fact the world's oil reserves are slowly but surely being depleted, and the depletion will accelerate because of the aforementioned emerging nations. Therefore, emissions from carbon sources may drop accordingly because the world will have no choice but to embrace alternative and renewable methods for energy.

Those are the big variables we're juggling with, and where these balls are going to fall is anyone's guess. Based on the available short-term evidence, the third scenario is the most likely, which may end up making an impact on the first and second variables. I'm pretty certain that folks who poke fun at alternative-fuel cars and solar panels and wind turbines are going to look pretty stupid a few decades from now.

[rwarn17588]

=

We can be that forward motion.  Seriously.  If we threw our energy and our economy and our money behind it, literally the rest of the world would follow us.  It would also conveniently marginalize some of our newest and biggest competitors (major pollutors China and India) until they toed the line that we defined.  It's the easiest and most conflict-free way to ensure American dominance through the next century at least. 

Having studied the alt-energy issues in recent years, I think I have some perspective on the issue. So here goes ...

I think the reason there's hesitance by industry and government to embrace alt-energy is because there's so darned many methods and directions we could go. When it gets down to the brass tacks, there's going to have to be just one or two big, overarching energy sources to build infrastructure around and, thus, bring with it the efficiencies of scale to make it more affordable.

The big problem is no one knows what this energy source is going to be. Is it going to be electric? If so, from what? Wind? Solar? Nuclear? Hydroelectric? Is it going to be petroleum produced from algae? Is it going to be biodiesel? Is it going to be alcohol from switchgrass? Or corn? Is it going to be from natural gas? Or methane? Compressed air?

And the big question -- are any of these methods on the brink of a breakthrough in which energy can be produced cheaply and on a mass scale?

I was talking to this guy a few days ago out east who is going to be driving Route 66 this summer in a Pontiac GTO that's outfitted to burn compressed natural gas. He's all starry-eyed, and was convinced this is the wave of the future, and give the U.S. "energy independence." I think I took him aback when I replied we have no idea what alternative energy will be the wave of the future, and that energy independence is a fantasy because of the ubiquity of world trade.

I appreciate idealism as much as the next guy. But I think, after looking again at the sheer number of possibilities for alternative energy, that it may be wise for us to not get all gung-ho about certain "green" power sources that could be suddenly rendered as obsolete as a Betamax tape. Pragmatism has to co-exist with ambition.

[TheArtist]

 Not really interested in talking about policies and such, but as for climate change science...

The average change in the amount of carbon dioxide over the last 600,000 years has been 22 parts per million. We have run up CO2 levels by 100 ppm over the last two hundred years, and at an ever increasing rate. Currently we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate 14 THOUSAND times faster than nature has over the past 600,000 years.

Yes the earth has "negative feedbacks" that can absorb even sudden, natural, large releases of carbon dioxide (volcanic eruptions for instance).  But we are sending a LOT into the atmosphere (among other gasses as well, some more potent and longer lasting greenhouse gasses than even CO2), and are continuing to do so decade after decade, and have been increasing our rates to boot.  

The earth is incredibly, amazingly, resilient, we likely wouldnt be here if it werent.  And no we dont know everything and are still learning...  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100131145840.htm  
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100203161436.htm

But, over time, I have noticed that whenever we discover some piece of info about this or that which would counter, help keep in check, or something we werent right about with global warming and climate change,,, new info then adds onto the ever larger pile, the larger balance of info showing that the earth will still likely warm/change, and that WE are definitely a player in that.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100205130226.htm

Now, sure, the earths climate, has changed in the past, and will change no matter what. But there are 3 possibilities here that look increasingly likely.

1. The earth will "gradually" warm over one or two centuries (that may be gradual to us, not gradual in the usual scheme of things).

2. And this is the one scientists are having a worrying time trying to figure out if or when it could possibly happen. The earth hits a TIPPING POINT.  Greenhouse gasses are rising (we know that) the climate is changing (whether you believe that specifically is us or not) and changing parts of the earth (less ice in the arctic) which also feeds back into changing the earths climate and weather, then add onto that the usual fluctuations, El-nino, Sun cycles, etc. Sometimes they warm, sometimes cool, sometimes they counter each other, sometimes,,,, they reinforce each other...      Tipping points have happened in the past, when in just a few years the entire earths weather and climate systems have suddenly shifted into very new and different patterns. Patterns where weather in an area (Europe for example) will switch from the "usual" into something very different (an ice age for instance) and will stay in this new pattern for a long time. Now yes, this is the scary hype version of things, and also the one where we are most uncertain as to whether, when and if it could happen.   But IF it happens, we wont be able to do much about it, and its that scenario which could really hurt us if we arent prepared. Man made global warming and climate change may not lead to such a scenario at all, BUT it could. Thats worth being very cautious about imo.  

Big Freeze Plunged Europe Into Ice Age in Months
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091130112421.htm

3.  This scenario could be various combinations of the above two.  Things could happen quicker than in the first, but not as quickly and dramatically as the second, etc.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090420121335.htm

Just one little tidbit to leave you all with... The sun has been in an unusually extreme "cool and quiet" mode over the last decade.  She is starting to wake up again...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8494225.stm

Its going to be interesting to see how things go over the next 30, 40 years of natural, cooling, warming earth (el nino etc.) and sun (solar minimums and maximums) warming cycles,,, and see how the man-made effects (and gradual changes like in the arctic "less ice-more warming") influence and push at the weather and climate.  Sometimes working at odds and cancelling each other out,,,, sometimes all combined in the same direction.

[we vs us]

Rwarn, I think you're right about the amount of different paths to take and how ultimately complex that would be.  IMO, until something obvious comes long, we're going to be stuck relying much more on diverse energy sources -- decentralizing the mix, really -- rather than focusing solely on the next best singular thing.

However, we're bogged down still arguing the whethers, not the hows.  The believers and the deniers are at loggerheads over a relatively small patch of ground while the bigger picture -- this major opportunity -- is just hanging out there. 

On a personal level, obviously I think think that we're staring down some catastrophic stuff, but I'm hoping to point out that that doesn't have to be a point of agreement to move forward.