Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?

[nathanm]

[TheArtist]

Hey, whatever happened to the on-coming Ice Age?

I have explained this several times on here but apparently there are some that just ignore it, hope everyone else will forget or will not know, and then "falsly" ask the question all over again at a later date as if the question never got answered and as if the question itself somehow debunks global warming/climate change.

Lets go back to the 70s shall we.  To a time when scientists were just really beginning to get a grasp on the idea that human activity might possibly, actually be able to have an effect on the entire earths climate.  An astounding notion at the time.  But there it was right in front of us SMOG! everywhere and growing worse.  Smog was choking our cities, we were increasingly spewing out more and more lower level Ozone and CFC's.  Do any of you remember seeing photos of the Grand Canyon that were so choked with pollutants from far away cities that you could barely see across it?  And in many cities it was far worse. Some scientists looked at what this could do if we continued and drew some conclusions.  Some of these things would deplete our upper level ozone, and over time some would have a cooling effect on the earth.  Extrapolate this out over time...

BUT Guess what? WE DID put government efforts into place and reduced the ozone destroying chemicals.  WE DID avert what the scientists predicted could have happened. We saved the ozone that helps protects life on earth.

As for the smog and lower level ozone, we, through government regulation, DID indeed reduce their outputs.

Neither of the above actions destroyed our economy.  But they did help us.

While all of this was going on, there were also scientists who were beginning to take note of other chemicals and pollutants that we can not see.  We humans tend to pay attention to the stuff right in front of us, easily seen, before we take note of the "unseen". Its just easier to believe I guess.  But, they started doing more and more research on the things that we are spewing into the atmosphere that act to warm the earth.  

To say that scientists did not know everything is true.  Some were more concerned with and paid attention to the cooling stuff we were spewing out.  But as a more sophisticated datasets started falling into place AND as we started decreasing the cooling chemicals, THEN the warming chemicals came ever more to the fore.  For instance they began to notice that these warming chemicals lasted MUCH longer in the atmosphere than the cooling ones. We were decreasing the cooling stuff all the while increasing the warming stuff.  Oh, and we cant go back to spewing out the "cooling" smog to counterbalance things.  Its just unhealthy folks lol.

In science when a new field or endeavor begins, there are often large swings in what the data seem to say.  As more and more information is added, as time passes and various hypotheses are weighed, added or discarded, a concensus begins to emerge.  The "swings" become smaller and smaller. The 60s and 70s were the beginning, and even then scientists weren't completely wrong (we did change the equation by reducing certain types of emissions, while increasing others), and ever since then more and more information has been piling up.  First people argue one side then the next, then one side seems to gain the fore, then over time as more and more information is critiqued, they may say "we don't know yet" or " we are more and more certain".  In the instance of human induced global warming/climate change,,, We have become more and more certain.  The warming effects do indeed far outweigh the cooling, and if we continue on our current path, will actually cause the average global temerature to warm (though yes, some areas may actually cool lol, hence "climate change").

To somehow point back at the beginning and the knowledge we had then in order to somehow lay suspect the decades and decades and decades of science that have steadily built a consensus, is to be disingenuous.  The situation today is different for many reasons than it was in the 70s.  A. We have indeed decreased our "cooling emissions", but B. have increased the "warming emissions" AND learned ever more about them and the earths climate system.

When I see people playing this "what about global cooling" card, I know that they aren't being truthful.  They aren't seeking the truth. They are trying to create a lie of misinformation. They can spout out in one or two sentences something that causes people who aren't that informed, to cast doubt.  A doubt that they then know requires a lot of explanation to debunk (see above).  They are counting on the the short lie, that people want to believe, winning out over the long truth. 

[Red Arrow]

We need a government funded program to develop non-toxic smog.

[nathanm]

Thanks for explaining it to him. I may have to replace "Knowledgeable Neil" with "Knowledgeable TheArtist"

[Red Arrow]

Lets go back to the 70s shall we.  

Been there, done that.  NO THANKS.

[heironymouspasparagus]

BUT Guess what? WE DID put government efforts into place and reduced the ozone destroying chemicals.  WE DID avert what the scientists predicted could have happened. We saved the ozone that helps protects life on earth.

As for the smog and lower level ozone, we, through government regulation, DID indeed reduce their outputs.

Neither of the above actions destroyed our economy.  But they did help us.

They are counting on the the short lie, that people want to believe, winning out over the long truth.  

Inhofe keeps shoveling the s*** and Oklahoma keeps lapping it up.

Artist,
You are correct of course, but there is very much more related to not destroying the economy.  Not only did all these regulations NOT destroy the economy and very much help our environment, that actually did massive amounts of good for the economy.  They spurred the development of a wide range of new industries and technologies that would never had occurred without that drive.  People go on and on about how the space program has driven our technical development, and it is true, it has.  

But government regulation related to conservation and pollution control have done much, much more.  An incredible array of electronics, material science, service industries, and even business management methods have added literally trillions of dollars to our economy at the cost of a few hundred billion over the same few decades.

Remember when points and plugs in a car had to be changed every 10,000 miles?  Now it is 100,000.
Remember when oil had to be changed every 2,500 miles.  Now it is 7,000.
Remember when 300 hp engine got 6 mpg.  Now it is 18 mpg.
Remember when the river in Ohio caught on fire?  Now you can fish in it and eat the fish.
Remember when most of the country had no safe water, or sanitary toilets?  Now missing those things is the exception rather than the rule.
Remember when it was no big deal to kill a railroad worker?  Union Pacific could just find another one down the street a little ways.  Now we have predominantly safe workplaces.  I can drive down the interstate in OKC and there are a few companies that brag about their safety records.  Banners stating 1,000,000 man hours without a lost time accident.  That is incredible especially when compared to as recently as 30 years ago or so - NO company could brag that.  In particular, pre-OSHA.

All due to the RWRE so called "unwarranted government intrusion".

Just a tiny handful of examples.  There are so many more!  And here is a sweeping statement for you...EVERY Federal regulation related to environment preservation and safety has generated savings OR increased economic activity and opportunities OVER the actual cost incurred.  

Don't think so?  Show me an example where it hasn't?  (You can't, because there isn't one.)

[we vs us]

Caught NPR's Science Friday as I was driving around between client meetings, and they were interviewing a Rear Admiral who also happened to be a meteorologist about the Navy's contingency plans for global warming, specifically what to do with much higher, much warmer seas.  He was discussing the Navy's (very detailed, it turns out) plans for how much seas will rise in the next century, some of their operational solutions and then specific ideas about how they are currently prepping for climate change.  Much of it had to do with how to prepare their bases, docks and dry docks, and how to move through potentially rougher and stormier seas.

I found this article that tracks what he was saying fairly closely, but in the phone conversation on the radio today, he was very pointed in saying that data is pushing the rate of climate change higher and higher, and melting is happening much much faster than originally thought.  They're currently preparing for a total sea rise of about a meter by the end of the 21st century, and he said that, if he's wrong, he's wrong on the low side. 

Interestingly, the first outside caller to the show was from Oklahoma, and asked the Admiral how he, when confronted by the like of Inhofe and other climate-change deniers, can continue making the assertions that he does.  The Admiral said that he doesn't believe in politics or parties or big money donors, he only believes in ice and how fast it melts.  Which happens to be faster and faster every year.  That's what's driving his operational planning. 

A very very interesting listen.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I missed that one, sadly.  Will listen to the link when get some time.

Yeah, leave it to an Oklahoman.  Suppose this one had the mythical 8th grade education??  (Another thread...)

The islands in the Pacific are still getting flooded regardless of what Inhofe says.  Am   not   NOW  hearing predictions that north polar ice may be melting completely soon during the summer.  That would really bite.

[Conan71]

Remember when oil had to be changed every 2,500 miles.  Now it is 7,000.

It's been 7500 for as long as I can remember per most manufacturer's recommendations unless it was more frequent prior to better filtration which came about in the '50's and later.  It more recently became 3000 to 3500 miles when dealerships, Jiffy Lubes, and lubricant manufacturers began to realize they were missing out on a great revenue stream.  Go get your oil changed at any commercial establishment and take a look at the mileage you are supposed to return at 3000 to 3500.  Read your owner's manual it says 7000 to 7500.

[Hoss]

It's been 7500 for as long as I can remember per most manufacturer's recommendations unless it was more frequent prior to better filtration which came about in the '50's and later.  It more recently became 3000 to 3500 miles when dealerships, Jiffy Lubes, and lubricant manufacturers began to realize they were missing out on a great revenue stream.  Go get your oil changed at any commercial establishment and take a look at the mileage you are supposed to return at 3000 to 3500.  Read your owner's manual it says 7000 to 7500.

My Dodge recommends every 6 months/6000 miles.  The 6 months always comes first for me.  My car uses synthetic oil.

[Red Arrow]

It's been 7500 for as long as I can remember per most manufacturer's recommendations unless it was more frequent prior to better filtration which came about in the '50's and later.  It more recently became 3000 to 3500 miles when dealerships, Jiffy Lubes, and lubricant manufacturers began to realize they were missing out on a great revenue stream.  Go get your oil changed at any commercial establishment and take a look at the mileage you are supposed to return at 3000 to 3500.  Read your owner's manual it says 7000 to 7500.

I am fairly sure our 1960s cars recommended 3000 mi on the oil change.  More often if driven in town or heavy use.  I remember that 3000 mi was my target.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It has been a mix of numbers for a long time, with a lot of people still saying 3,500.  Detergent oils (additives) can all go for many thousands of miles.  Relative in early '60s at Sunoco (west Tulsa) was involved in testing and basically, if start with clean engine, can pretty much go 20,000 to 30,000 miles before full change IF (and it's a big one) you use a good filter (NOT Fram) and change it every 5,000 or so, with a quart of new makeup oil for the filter. 

Cadillac recommended 10,000 in 2000.  Ford went to 7,500 in 2007.

Filters are huge part of this and they have gotten much better - some of them.  Wix is probably the "best" for gas engine.  As mentioned, Fram is built to the lowest common denominator - sales at WalMart.  Wix is also good for diesel.

If you buy new GM, you are gonna get hosed on that new dexos oil they are pushing.  Enjoy the view between your ankles when they bend you over.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Hoss,
Synthetic??  You got a 6.1 liter?  Turbocharger.

Or do you just like the idea of synthetic?

[Hoss]

Hoss,
Synthetic??  You got a 6.1 liter?  Turbocharger.

Or do you just like the idea of synthetic?

Nope, 2.7l Flex.  That's what the dealership puts in it.  That's what's recommended in the owner manual.  I have lifetime 19.95 oil changes with the dealership so I'll let them do it.  Plus, they wash my car like noone else can when I have it serviced.

[Red Arrow]

I have lifetime 19.95 oil changes with the dealership so I'll let them do it.  

Don't let that ever get away from you.