Climate change

[David Sturch]

Cliff,Jack,
The earth is changing. The post I did earler on the Artic was to show how territory and borders will affect us. The polar ice mass has been reduced by 30% in the last 5 years alone. It maybe none existant in our own lifetime. The eco-system is a delicate one. The main concern will be increased shipping due to the Northwest Passage being open all year. The main concern there is that our Russian friends will develop the areas for oil. There tanker fleet is not compiled with the most modern double walled tankers. We all have to work together and change the way we do things.
Dave

 

[Garry]

What no one has convinced me of is that this climate change is really based upon CO2 or is it something else. There is direct evidence that the glaciers are melting at an alarming rate and the Polar Ice Cap is as well. And yes, we have enormous pollution problems,especially in China. The question that I have about the current "climate models" based on CO2 levels is that the origional premise this measurement is the single source to base these theories upon may not be the whole story.
Since we have been recording climate change for such a short period with respect to the earths formation, how accurate is the analysis? Anyone can postulate a theory and support that theory with statistical data that appears to prove the theory to be true. However, real understanding of problems come from exstensive testing and trial and error. The combined knowledge of climate science is as tiny as our own understanding of our universe and subject to new discoveries all of the time.
As I pointed out in my last post, the observational perspective often affects the outcome of experiments and leads to false conclusions.
Some of you will say we must 'DO SOMETHING!" to head off this problem and in our own arrogance we might make a problem worse. I don't have to give you examples, as you can see for yourself this trend in the headlines of today and the recent history of the world.
Let's all agree that something is going on, but this global cap and trade for carbon emmisions is political (can anyone say money?) and proof that this will change the climate is premature at best. In the past the earth has had more extreme levels of CO2 than is present today. While that may bode ill for the human race, it led to the development of new species of plants and animals that evolved into what we are today. So to all of you who claim to "see" the future based upon a narrow observational window, I say take a chill pill and do your homework.
I'll stop my rant now and let others lend their voices to this opinion.
Garry:shy:

 

[Mark Clapp]

I agree with Gary, our weather data over 200 years is less than miniscule to even begin to draw thoeries from. Here's an "in our lifetime" example. The temperature in Phoenix Arizona is over 100 F everyday except for a short time in the winter and it is generally a desert. However, I've seen pictures of corn growing there in the early 1900's. Our heavy fossil fuel usage wasn't until fairly lately so the climate change there was not due to us. Another problem is that the global warming theory cannot be disproved. When it is mentioned that record low temps are being recorded, the gw advocates say see, that's due to global warming. They then say that all the data supports the thoery, which is BS.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

<TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD class=contentheading width="100%">G8 leaders - 'arrogant' arbiters of global thermostat </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>Written by Jim Brown, OneNewsNow </TD></TR><TR><TD class=createdate vAlign=top>Friday, July 10 2009 08:28 </TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>

A leading skeptic of "manmade global warming" says Group of Eight leaders have embraced a new movement he calls "climate astrology."

President Obama and other Group of 8 leaders promised Wednesday they would keep temperatures from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 Celsius) above average levels of more than a century ago. They also agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050.
Marc Morano, executive editor of ClimateDepot.com, says it is ridiculous for the G8 leaders to believe they have the power to turn up or down the earth's thermostat.
"This is the height of arrogance," he exclaims. "This is the madness of our age that world leaders, including our own president, can go up there with a straight face and act as though they can control the earth's thermostat -- act as though they control nature."
Morano compares the G8 leaders' mindset to a Third World mentality.
"In Uganda, they're blaming drought and disease on angry gods," he notes, "and people are saying, 'Oh, if only they knew. They need to be educated [and told that] it's manmade climate change.'
"Well, who actually needs to be educated here?," Morano asks. "Is it the Ugandans who blame bad weather on angry gods -- or is it Western leaders who actually think they can control the climate?"
Energy Secretary Steven Chu has said that science tells him for certain what the earth will be like 100 years from now -- which leads Morano to ask: "At what point should Secretary Chu be on a boardwalk with a full deck of tarot cards dispensing this?"​

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[Scott Calabro]

Coolest July 21 recorded in Nashville as cool wave continues in Tenn. - WHNT

I think its Al Gore's hometown!

 

[Cliff Beer]

What no one has convinced me of is that this climate change is really based upon CO2 or is it something else. There is direct evidence that the glaciers are melting at an alarming rate and the Polar Ice Cap is as well. And yes, we have enormous pollution problems,especially in China. The question that I have about the current "climate models" based on CO2 levels is that the origional premise this measurement is the single source to base these theories upon may not be the whole story.
Since we have been recording climate change for such a short period with respect to the earths formation, how accurate is the analysis? Anyone can postulate a theory and support that theory with statistical data that appears to prove the theory to be true. However, real understanding of problems come from exstensive testing and trial and error. The combined knowledge of climate science is as tiny as our own understanding of our universe and subject to new discoveries all of the time.
As I pointed out in my last post, the observational perspective often affects the outcome of experiments and leads to false conclusions.
Some of you will say we must 'DO SOMETHING!" to head off this problem and in our own arrogance we might make a problem worse. I don't have to give you examples, as you can see for yourself this trend in the headlines of today and the recent history of the world.
Let's all agree that something is going on, but this global cap and trade for carbon emmisions is political (can anyone say money?) and proof that this will change the climate is premature at best. In the past the earth has had more extreme levels of CO2 than is present today. While that may bode ill for the human race, it led to the development of new species of plants and animals that evolved into what we are today. So to all of you who claim to "see" the future based upon a narrow observational window, I say take a chill pill and do your homework.
I'll stop my rant now and let others lend their voices to this opinion.
Garry:shy:

Garry, you can't say that DOING SOMETHING like burning less/cleaner fossil fuels is not a good thing to do right now starting this very moment. I'd rather have a little more obviously positive action put in motion than more analysis paralysis, wouldn't you agree?

Said another way, while you're right in that there's no conclusive proof that global warming is related to human CO2 production, putting less pollution into the environment (air, water, terra) is a good thing to do, and the sooner the better. Seems reasonable and logical to me at least. So can't we all just get along...and freaking get on with it??

 

[Garry]

Cliff,
No one is arguing against smart energy use and developing alternative energy sources. It makes sense both economically and envionmentally for us all. There are a lot of great proposals for reducing emissions thru the use of natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, etc., and the free-market system has begun to embrace this trend. This trend is not new, as it started about 20 years ago, but up untill now, there has not been an incentive to change world behavior on a mass scale. As the cost of alternative fuel sources becomes even with fossil fuels, more and more end users will adopt a more diversified formula. Simple economics and it works everytime.

The problem with the "climate change" crowd is not that they are concerned, but that activist want to force a change based upon suspect science and tax the hell out of conventional energy users. Where is that money going to go? More reasearch into alternative fuel sources like the disastrous ethanol program in the US. Using food crops like corn (excess water usage) to make fuel at the expense to world food price. Just my 2 cents, but this looks like a new revenue source for the governments and a way to show that they are "doing something" to justify the tax increase. The funny thing is, what happens in 10 or 20 years when it is discovered that all of these scientific theories were wrong? Do we get the money back? Could we have put that money to other uses such as private reasearch and development (which bythe way has produced more improvements to mankind faster than any government sponsored program) which may lead to more efficient improvements faster?

I agree with you that we need to be concerned and to put our best and brightest to work on the problem, but most of these scientist work for private enterprise, not the policy wonks. Let's not rush pell-mell into a another mouse trap fo crappy government programs and taxes without substancial understanding of the true nature of what is occurring.
Garry

 

[Ian K]

Coolest July 21 recorded in Nashville as cool wave continues in Tenn. - WHNT

I think its Al Gore's hometown!

Yes, but did you read the reasoning behind the record setting cool temperatures:

Cool Weather Continues to Set Records
...
NWS forecaster Mary Black in Morristown said the cool weather is a gift from Canada, with a strong high over the western U.S. allowing a trough of cool Northern air to slide into the Southeast.

The western US has seen higher than normal temps, and higher than normal humidity,
during this same period. Again, warming does not mean that pockets of cooling and other
odd weather anomalies will not occur, in actuality, warming means we will see more
sporadic weather patterns.

Ian

 

[Mike]

Ok, here's some things I have found about this topic.

That if ALL human behavior that released CO2 into the atmosphere was eliminated, it would reduce yearly output into the earths atmosphere by about 1%. That means if humans didn't exist.

That satellites put up in the last few years have shown the WORLD average temperature to actually be dropping very slightly, but this fact can be explained away by the fact that the sampling time is so small.

That most of the calculations about world average temperature rising do not adjust for the fact that many reporting stations of the former territory of the USSR stopped reporting upon the USSRs demise. Thus the average moved up due to the fact that some of the colder places on earth stopped reporting their number to be counted.

That almost all of the computer models, all but one or two in the publication I read, can not even accurately predict weather patterns OF THE PAST. In other words, the models couldn't even accurately model weather that we have evidence actually occured!

That CO2 contributes to plant growth.

That more sunny days equal a higher average temperature and that growing seasons may be increased.

Combine these last two and crop yields increase.

We have enough proven oil reserves to last us about 1000 years.

Ethanol requires 40% more fuel for the same amount of energy to be released compared to gasoline. Therefore ethanol must be 40% cheaper in order to be competitive with gasoline.

Commiting the US to an 80% reduction in CO2 is tantamount to putting a gun to US industrial production and, if the agreement has any teeth, pulling the trigger.

Do we all want a cleaner, better world for our children? Yes

Is there absolute proof that what we are doing currently will lead to the death of our planet as we know it? NO

Is it worth bankrupting our nation and its industries in order to do something that has not been proven will have any meaningful positive effect?

In the big picture, if our president had the intention to destroy the United States of America from within, what policies would he have that this president doesn't?

I'll leave those last two for you to answer, but remember that this administration has already suspended 200 coal mining permits, revoked logging plans for the Pacific Northwest, and put on hold new uranium mines in the Arizona/Nevada region.

Combine this with cap and trade, mandated renewable energy production, and the mandated 80% reduction in CO2 emmissions and one thing is for sure. WE ARE ALL GOING TO PAY A HELL OF A LOT MORE FOR ENERGY IN THE NEAR FUTURE AND ALL OUR $$$ WILL GO TO FOREIGN SOURCES IN ORDER TO SIDE STEP THE LAWS OUR GOVERNMENT IS CURRENTLY PASSING.

Heaven help us.

 

[Mike]

BTW- Did anyone notice that Jupiter was just hit by an object that WAS AS BIG AS THE EARTH!! Am I the only one bothered by the fact that an object the size of our own planet was moving through our solar system and nobody knew about it until an AMEATURE with a telescope in his back yard saw it hit Jupiter?

I mean we are knocking our selves out about all this climate change "crap" and something that would totally obliterate our planet in probably a matter of minutes or less just occured relatively close to us and no one KNEW it until after the fact!!

We are indeed as stupid as Al Gore thinks we are.

 

[Ron Earp]

BTW- Did anyone notice that Jupiter was just hit by an object that WAS AS BIG AS THE EARTH!!

The object was not as big as the earth. The impact left an area of slightly elevated temperature that was as big as the earth. The object is believed to be only a few hundred meters across but as it plunged through Jupiter's liquid and gaseous atmosphere it stirred up the thermal stratification layers. We can observe the temperature change, which is very slight, in the infrared using a telescope.

Ron

 

[Ian K]

The object was not as big as the earth. The impact left an area of slightly elevated temperature that was as big as the earth. The object is believed to be only a few hundred meters across but as it plunged through Jupiters liquid and gaseous atmosphere it stirred up the thermal stratification layers. We can observe the temperature change, which is very slight, in the infrared using a telescope.

Ron

Yeah, the object was estimated at about 50 - 100 miles across, still substantial, but when
compared to Jupiter, invisible. The assumption is either a wandering comet that was
too faint to be seen prior to impact, or a chunk of ice/debris from within Jupiter's orbit.
It is only the second time such an impact on Jupiter has been seen.

And, Jupiter has a strong gravitational pull, which does us a great favor by pulling random
space objects into it's gravitational field. It kind of keeps our system safe in the process.

Ian

 

[Ron Earp]

Yeah, the object was estimated at about 50 - 100 miles across, still substantial, but when
compared to Jupiter, invisible

According to a number of sources not that big. The Shoemaker-Levy-9 impact in 1994 was far more dramatic and the largest fragments were estimated to be no more than two to four kilometers across. Entire swathes of the planet were lit up in the infrared and huge impact plumes that towered over the surface were visible. Cool movies of that since it was imaged in real time.

This impact was much smaller. The object that recently hit is suspected to be no more than a couple hundred meters at most.

Ron

 

[Cliff Beer]

Crash, I'm wondering about a few of your facts:

E85 is generally accepted to diminish mileage by between 15 and 20 percent, this suggesting it should be 15 to 20 percent less expensive. Not 40 percent.

Commercially viable oil reserves are forecasted to last between 75 and 125 years at current consumption rates. That's assuming zero percent growth in consumption rates (not likely with China and India coming online).

What's wrong with a few less mining and logging permits? Logging is no longer a major industry here in the Pacific Northwest. Take a look out the window the next time you're flying over Washington State - you'll quickly notice that there aren't that many trees left, it has been denuded for the most part.

 

[Mike]

Well, thanks for the correction. Either I misunderstood or the local paper had it wrong. Either is possible. In any case, I'm sure something that was big enough to do what it did to Jupiter would not be a net positive if it happened to find it's way into THIS planet.

 

[Mike]

Crash, I'm wondering about a few of your facts:

E85 is generally accepted to diminish mileage by between 15 and 20 percent, this suggesting it should be 15 to 20 percent less expensive. Not 40 percent.

Commercially viable oil reserves are forecasted to last between 75 and 125 years at current consumption rates. That's assuming zero percent growth in consumption rates (not likely with China and India coming online).

What's wrong with a few less mining and logging permits? Logging is no longer a major industry here in the Pacific Northwest. Take a look out the window the next time you're flying over Washington State - you'll quickly notice that there aren't that many trees left, it has been denuded for the most part.

Well, I'm basing that on actual experience using alcohol as a race fuel. I understand alcohol and ethanol are slightly different, but probably the biggest issue is that there is still 15% gasoline added. Yes, E85 may only be at a 15-20% deficit to gasoline, but the fact is that THAT is still a high hurdle to overcome. Especially considering the fact that energy can never be created or destroyed. Only its form can be changed. In other words, in order for corn to hold as much energy as oil, which has had millions of years of pressure and temperature working on it, you have to put that energy into it somehow. That's never going to be viable, even disregarding the secondary impact on food stuffs.

Does your estimate of 125 years include the discovers in the last few years around the world including in the US that are said to be larger than ALL of the middle east's proven reserves combined? And BTW, I believe that in the 70s the "experts" were saying we would run out of iol in the mid to late 90s. More oil is being discovered all the time.

What's wrong with it? I left that for you to answer, but I can tell you what one of the results will be. Substantially higher prices for commodities and energy. Maybe even the banishing of vehicles like we all are here, supposedly, because we love.

 

[Ian K]

Does your estimate of 125 years include the discovers in the last few years around the world including in the US that are said to be larger than ALL of the middle east's proven reserves combined? And BTW, I believe that in the 70s the "experts" were saying we would run out of iol in the mid to late 90s. More oil is being discovered all the time.

You were using the word "Proven" - the discoveries from around the world are a mix of
"proven", "probable" and "possible". As far as actual "proven" reserves, the number is
about 125 years. The summary of proven reserves data from 2008 indicates that the top
17 oil producers only have about 54 years left. Again, we're talking "proven".

Also, the amount of human produced CO2 in the atmosphere is actually around 3%,
but that isn't the big thing to think about. The big issue is that since the Industrial
Revolution, the concentration of CO2 has risen by 35%.

Ian

 

[Mike]

Cliff, I suspect everyone on this forum agrees we should reduce pollution in all it’s forms. So, how much do you want to reduce, and how much are you willing to give up/pay to achieve the reduction? Not just in cost of fuel, but across the board in the economy? Industry in the U.S., economic growth, jobs? And what should we demand as a minimum result, or target for the price? Then how do we go about getting the rest of the world to participate, or do we go it alone and set the example, in effect handicapping our ability to compete with the likes of the rising Chinese star? Can we /Man actually manipulate global climate?
We shouldn’t use the E85 example you and Crash33 discussed, since it seems agreed that ethanol requires more energy to produce than it returns, whatever the percentage. It is also less efficient than gas, again whether it’s 15% or 40%. So, in the long view, we should dump ethanol because it puts more pollution/greenhouse gas into the atmosphere than it saves, right, even if it should be 15%-40$ cheaper…(but it isn’t! It’s more expensive. We’re paying more for what is less efficient and puts out more pollution. Obviously a boondoggle, only making sense to farmers)…to say nothing of the increased water demand and the reduction in available food for the poor starving masses of the world!

I want to help husband the Earth (not some politician’s pet pork project nor one of the 10?12? green companies Gore’s investment holding company sponsors. Gore’s rise from a net worth of maybe 2 million to over 100 million in less than 10 years suggests Green is a profitable color). Tell me how!

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Mike, ditto well said.

 

[Scott Calabro]

For what its worth on the oil reserve thing.....

I was a Flight Mechanic for one of the worlds big oil companies in the '90's.

We routinely flew the corporate jet to places that the company explored/drilled for oil.

We carried lots of spares and I was on board to make sure we could come home in the event we suffered a "mechanical".

One day after discovering a major offshore gas field near Perth Australia we flew to Melbourne.

It was evening on this leg and the exec's and a few of the senior geologists were emptying the galley liquor stock.

Needless to say they were getting quite "Happy":thumbsup:.

Anyway I figured it was a good time to get out of my comfort zone and explore the boundaries of proper protocol with these guy's.

We got to talking about this exact topic of the amount of undiscovered oil on the planet.

"Sleep well" I was told, "We are never going to really run out".

On the order of 10 to 15 generations.

Could be some drunk geologists just spewing at the mouth while buzzed, but I don't think so.