That's just it though. I think you have a valid point there, and Karl as well when he talks about the poor state of science reporting in this country. I'd really like a completely neutral (as much as that is possible) magazine, website, etc that could address salient issues in science in an even-handed manner.
I run into the same problem with other scientific theories- it's not just exclusive to global warming. It's just a combination of the politicization of the topic and the urgent nature of this particular theory that bumps it up on my personal priority thread (as opposed to say the big bang theory).
Right now, I'm skeptical of what I understand of Global Warming theory. However, I haven't even come close to making up my mind about it. I just don't see a lot of the healthy skepticism in this science. Rather than looking at new evidence that didn't fit the model and developing a new hypothesis it seems like its forced to fit the current theory. Granted, this may be due to the wording of the reporting, but the impression is there for me.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
realclimate.org, while being liable to certain potshots (one of the climatoligists who helps run the site has been the center of attention for a while), seems pretty decent. Run in their free time, but several climate researchers, with fairly in-depth articles, and they respond to very complex critiques, in the comments, so they aren't ignoring people who try to question their articles.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: I am convinced that the global climate is increasing in temperature.
I am convinced that the activities of humans has contributed at least in small part to this, though this small part may be minute.
I am convinced that this change in climate is not solely due to human activity.
I am convinced that even if we stop all climate-affecting activities right now 100%, that the climate will continue to change.
I am convined that we, as humans, have little control over long term changes to the earth's environment. i.e. we will not stop an ice age should one begin to happen, nor will we stop the ice caps from melting entirely should that begin to happen.
I am convinced that the world has been warmer than it is now, and colder than it is now, and it will alternate between extremes whether humans existed or not.
FlyingCow has made some excellent points. My level of conviction on all of his points doesn't rise tot he level of being "convinced," but I FlyingCow hit the nail on the head with:
quote:I am convinced that there are plenty of other reasons to address environmental concerns and to reduce humanity's impact on its natural environment besides the idea of changing climate. (i.e. massive deforestation is bad for other reasons than its role in changing climate)
To which I would add that I consider myself an envornmentalist even though I reject Al Gore's arguements and message in the movie. You can reject the alarmists in the Al Gore camp, and still consider yourself an environmentalist. What's most distressing about this debate is the "your with us or against us" approach too many global warming advocates take on this issue.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am of the opinion that this film should be blasted all over the airwaves 3 times daily, mandatory viewing in all the schools from Kindergarden on to the Universities
Yeah, that sounds about right for a leftist. Fascist mandated opinions. "If we say it enough it will be true." The only good thing to come from Eco-fascism was the Autobahn.
I don't have any interest in what lying hypocrites like Al "All tobacco is evil except mine" Gore have to say.
Posts: 186 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
His family stopped producing tobacco at some point during the controversy over whether or not it led to lung cancer. And either way, it was his father's farm, not his. Would you like to be called a hypocrite for something your parents do?
I think that after this movie is finished with its run on the theaters, Gore should use all the money made from it to put it on as many television screens as possible. There's nothing wrong with buying air time, big war chest Republicans should know that well enough.
Suppose for a moment that Gore is wrong, that we have nothing to do with global warming, OR that he is right, but that there is absolutely NOTHING we can do to stop it. Regardless of those facts, everything he proposes that we do to halt global warming is beneficial for other reasons besides the issue of global warming. There are health reasons, national security reasons, economic reasons, diplomatic reasons, all of which add up to being beneficial to do, that don't really involve any dispute or debate, to the point where we should start doing them now, whilst still continuing this debate on global warming.
If at the end of the day, this whole debacle turns out to be wrong, then we say "well, at least we made a ton of money off of it, aren't dependent on foreign oil, saved a ton of money on gas, cut billions from health care expenses, and increased our standard of living." Isn't that good enough?
And if at the end of the day it turns out that this thing isn't alarmist or a hoax, then we'll have been doing the right thing for more selfish reasons all along, but at least still doing the right thing. The United States has a horrible history of being cautiously unprepared rather than unnecesarily overprepared. It makes no sense to continue that trend, especially when there's so much to be gained from preparedness.
I know I've made this argument several times before on global warming threads, but I think it again deserves attention. We should be doing all these things now, then continue the debate. It's a scientific progress in motion, and it could be a hundred years before we have a definitive answer, and problems related to pollution will have caused millions of deaths before the ice caps will have ever melted.
Gore ISN'T that radical. The man has spent the last 25 years of his life researching the issue, talking to experts, visiting the glaciers and both poles, talking to foreign leaders and foreign experts. He isn't just some crank eco-kook who thought it was hot out one day and figured it was time to start a crusade over it. For anyone who thinks he is only doing this for political gain, then I ask you "WHAT political gain?" Has any candidate EVER run for high office soley on being pro-environment and actually WON because of it? Nope. He has NOTHING to gain monetarily or politically from his venture, so why doubt his motives? I think his time spent researching and traveling to the hot spots in question should at least garner him a little more respect than I see given here.
And I wouldn't be surprised if Rabbit avoided this thread, she (it IS she right?) has posted so many times on this subject already, she's probably sick of it by now. Just do a search for some of her recent posts.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This whole argument reminds me of the mindbending concepts that I encountered developing this and this.
Temperature isn't all it's cracked up to be. When we heated oxygen to 3000 degrees and expanded it through a nozzle, it still seemed to behave like 3000 degree oxygen, because it still had all the energy we added to it. But from the molecule's point of view, it was actually very cold, because each molecule gave up its heat energy in order to accelerate in a straight line.
But if you stuck a thermocouple in the path of the jet, it measured about 3000 degrees, because the molecules gave up their kinetic energy to the thermocouple through friction and compression. Energy was conserved, but it made it really hard to know whether the O2 was hot or cold.
Ultimately it didn't matter whether the O2 came out hot or cold, it still lit the poop on fire.
As far as "global warming" is concerned, "warming" is a bad term because people assume it means temperature. Of course, what it means is simply that there is more energy available. So it means more storms, but it also means a general increase in the mobility of air masses, which is why the arctic is getting warmer, and we sometimes have cold summers. Arctic air moves south, and it's displaced with warm air from the south. There's increased mixing, so globally, air temperature is averaged out, rather than being distinctly warm vs. cold.
Somehow I think people who live on the arctic ocean are less skeptical of global warming.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the earth were dramatically cooling for non-anthropogenic reasons, would we try to increase our CO2 emissions to keep it stable? Should we?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Regardless of those facts, everything he proposes that we do to halt global warming is beneficial for other reasons besides the issue of global warming. There are health reasons, national security reasons, economic reasons, diplomatic reasons, all of which add up to being beneficial to do, that don't really involve any dispute or debate, to the point where we should start doing them now, whilst still continuing this debate on global warming.
I referenced mostly agreeing with this opinion in one of my earliest posts. However, I think how we go about it is crucial. If it is for an alarmist reason, then I really think there would be major inefficiencies and waste. Kyoto Protocol anyone?
However, if each of the things you mentioned are taken as being good for other, more solid reasons, then I think our approach would be much better. An example of this might be Brazil's development of ethanol automobiles after the oil crises in the '70s.
So I agree with most of the things that need to be done, but pretty much for other reasons than global warming. If the ones that truly believed in global warming would focus on getting what they believe to be the solutions implemented based on reasons that more people could buy into, I think we'd see a lot more progress. For example, cost effective hybrids. Yes they'll cut down emissions, but suddenly people will cut their fuel bill in half or 2/3. Everybody wins.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I don't really know anything about this.
I see the things a lot simpler:
No trees, no O2. No 02, no life.
No trees, no fruits. No fruits, no food.
It takes a pinetree 30 years to reach maturity. Y'cut it down, yer wastin' 30 years o' good gardening.
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Kyoto Protocol anyone?
Just as an example, my company has already cut its emissions to 77% of 1990 levels -- well ahead of the Kyoto target of 94% of 1990 levels -- and yet we're still quite profitable. If Canada hadn't ratified Kyoto, I'm very doubtful that we would have done this.
More broadly, many Canadian companies in my industry have already made the investments needed to approach or surpass the Kyoto targets, yet now the new Conservative government is talking about "reexamining" Kyoto and views it as "unrealistic." Why? Because the real issue with Kyoto here in Canada isn't the corporate environmental footprint, it's the citizens' energy and fuel use. Even accounting for harsh winters, Canadians have a larger per capita environmental footprint than anyone else in the world. We, the people, just don't care to reduce our energy usage. I'm just as guilty of this as the next person -- I drive a car that runs purely on gasoline, I shower daily with hot water, I own a lot of electronics, I have an air conditioner in my apartment.
I do some minor positive things. I buy Energy Star appliances (e.g. my HDTV). I buy low-watt, long-lasting light bulbs. I wash my clothes with cold or warm water, and use dryers as little as possible (and on as low heat as possible). However, my environmental footprint is still enormous.
In short, I need to be shocked. I'm not normally one to advocate alarmism -- in fact, I generally oppose such tactics. But, as Gore himself said in an interview about his movie, people really are complacent about the issue. This is even true in the case of people like me who have been following it for quite some time. So my perspective is that we need protocols like Kyoto to ensure that the corporate world does its part, but movies like Gore's (keeping in mind that I haven't seen it yet) help to remind us ordinary folks that we need to do more, a lot more, to reduce our environmental footprints.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It sounds like Canada's been making good progress on Kyoto. Good job. However, I've read that Canada was projecting violations of 56% above treaty levels. Most other countries seemed to be doing a little better than this, but in the ballpark. The economic cost is considerable. It was estimated at about a 4.2% reduction of the U.S. GDP in 2010. Additionally, the estimated gains were almost insignificant. In bang for the buck terms, the Kyoto Protocol was a resounding failure. That's why I used it as an example of using alarmist predictions to dictate policy. U.S.A. DOE Kyoto Studies
I'm just of the opinion that if you offer people a strong, economical, immediate incentive to implement these things they're more likely to do it than they are as some sort of vague, do your part to save the world type of argument.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: It takes a pinetree 30 years to reach maturity. Y'cut it down, yer wastin' 30 years o' good gardening.
I agree with you on the face of it, but many trees cut down were planted specifically for the purpose of harvesting. For instance look at the tree farms that exist only to create paper. Industries that rely on timber have more to gain from increasing the number of trees, not reducing that number.
So yes, a cut tree does represent time lost on growing it, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
quote: I'm just of the opinion that if you offer people a strong, economical, immediate incentive to implement these things they're more likely to do it than they are as some sort of vague, do your part to save the world type of argument.
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: However, I've read that Canada was projecting violations of 56% above treaty levels.
As I said in my previous post, this is because of Canadian citizens, not Canadian industry. Which is to say that this:
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: The economic cost is considerable. It was estimated at about a 4.2% reduction of the U.S. GDP in 2010. Additionally, the estimated gains were almost insignificant. In bang for the buck terms, the Kyoto Protocol was a resounding failure.
Has turned out to be untrue for us. While Canadian companies were investing billions in scrubbers and other emissions-reducing devices, the Canadian economy led the G8 in growth. I believe it still does.
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: I'm just of the opinion that if you offer people a strong, economical, immediate incentive to implement these things they're more likely to do it than they are as some sort of vague, do your part to save the world type of argument.
This strategy, at least in Canada, has failed miserably. As I've said, Canadian citizens still have the world's highest per capita environmental footprint. Collectively, we aren't interested in conserving gasoline even when it's over $1/L (about US$3.80/gal), as it is now. Convenience obviously trumps economics for us. It's time for something more aggressive.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To underly twinky's point. I actually agree that eventually, economics will force our hand.
But why do we have to be a slave to Adam Smith's boogeyman? If we all believe (global warming aside) that reducing our energy footprint is good, why don't we implement it ahead of harsh economic reality?
Now, the Kyoto Protocol has some issues, sure, but essentially the issues were out of envy. "We have to cut our emissions, but they don't!!" As if, in terms of energy usage we aren't so far ahead of them, historically. Sure, ideally everyone would sign on, but criticizing it out of a fear to give up one of our "advantages" seems a bit puerile.
posted
Bok- Trust me, I'm not exactly a disciple of Adam Smith, nor do I have a capitalistic belief that the free market will fix all. I realize my statement may be interpreted that way, which is why I'm clarifying.
I am suggesting that we implement it ahead of harsh economic reality. Take fossil fuels for example. Some reasons for immediately reducing our dependency on them that would sway me could be: divorcing our economy from the unstable and unpredictable politics of the Middle East has potential economic, political, and national defense benefits; fossil fuels cause pollution which in addition to be linked to a variety of health problems also stink and make cities look ugly; there is a finite supply of these fuels available, one day we will run out-China and Indias emerging economies will make that day come sooner than later; as scarcity increases, so will price- fuel, home heating, cooling, even power will consume a much higher portion of our incomes.
Most of these arguments will resonate with people a lot more than guilt trips about reducing carbon footprints and warnings about some carribean islands being submerged in 2100.
I think the Kyoto protocol has more than just some issues. It was fundamentally flawed and it's hard to find a story about it now that doesn't include failure. It was fundamentally flawed because according to the models, even perfect compliance bought us 6 years of time. In other words, rather than flooding at coastlines of country X occuring at 2094, it would occur at 2100. With the staggering economic cost, the $300 billion a year could accomplish a lot. I heard one estimate that that amount could supply fresh drinking water facilities enough for every person on the planet. And that was just the cost for one year. It was just really flawed from a cost/benefit analysis viewpoint.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Has turned out to be untrue for us. While Canadian companies were investing billions in scrubbers and other emissions-reducing devices, the Canadian economy led the G8 in growth. I believe it still does.
This is disturbing as well. The computer models and top scientists, economists, and advisors turned out to be 100% wrong on this? Yet this is exactly what we are basing our global warming panic on. Only rather than predicting a completely human controlled system, the economy over the span of just a few years, we're attempting to predict an infinitely more complex system of nature and human interaction over the course of a hundred years.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know I'm going to get a stream of people arguing against me here, but I think the government needs to do more to stimulate alternative energy options in America. They don't really need to for wind energy, it's already booming across the nation thanks to alt energy tax breaks.
But I'm talking about the average consumer. More should be done to reduce the environmental footprint of each individual American. It'd be too cumbersome to tax a footprint, the government would have to collect vehicle and energy consumption records for 300 million Americans, that's way too much bueracracy.
What about a government plan to loan out money for people to make home improvements that increase home efficiency? A few billion dollars could create a loan system that would lend out money for homeowners to buy double glazed windows to improve heating and cooling efficiency, thus saving on home heating and cooling costs. Money could be lent out to install solar panels, with ever increasing efficiency I might add, to the roofs of houses so homeowners could become self-sufficient in most cases for energy. This would vastly reduce the amount of energy needed from coal fired plants (and plants in general).
I think more work should be done on plug-in hybrids, and electric cars. Gas stations should include terminals for drivers to plug their cars in for a recharge (though I think improvements have to be made in the time it takes to charge them up, I don't have information on that yet). But for Plug-in hybrids, the efficiency of a car can skyrocket, vastly reducing the amount of gasoline needed, and saving hundreds a dollars a year for the consumer. The government can offer incentives to companies that offer these options for cars.
No one silver bullet is going to solve the problem. But a clip of bullets might. Each thing we add into the mix brings us a step closer to solving the problem, freeing our nation of dependence on foreign oil, saving literally thousands of dollars a year for the average consumer, and reducing the cost of health care by BILLIONS throughout the economy.
By the end of next year, Toyota will have the same market share as the Big Three. China and India are looking to enter the market with low cost cars (in the $6,000 range) by the end of the decade. Japan is planning to sell plug-in hybrids. Are we going to let ourselves be caught behind the curve AGAIN?
But people aren't just going to do these things for the heck of it. Gore is right, they are too complacent. Government needs to get involved, for its own good, and for the good of the people. Loaning money isn't going to be a drag on the economy, especially when that money is going to be paid back, and the benefits resulting from the loan will ripple throughout the country.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr: When the price comes down, I'd like to buy a hybrid.
Not for any junk science environmental reason, but simply because I'm cheap and hate shelling out $50 to fill up my car.
I think most people are the same way. I also think most people don't enjoy giving vast sums of money to a part of the world where most people want to see us burn in atomic fire.
I think there's a huge demand for both hybrids and alternative fuel if you can get it cheap enough. Just stop trying to sell us on the environment and appeal to corporate greed and the public's cheapness.
In the mean time, let's drill locally. The time when we can power the world on a pitcher of water poured into a Mr Fusion is coming, but it's not here yet.
And for god's sake let's keep the government out of it as much as possible! Jeez they've already shown they can't do anything right!
quote: I think there's a huge demand for both hybrids and alternative fuel if you can get it cheap enough. Just stop trying to sell us on the environment and appeal to corporate greed and the public's cheapness.
When, above, did I really try to sell any of my ideas based on environmental morality? My argument is almost entirely about saving money for the average consumer, and making millions for corporations. Thing is, corporations don't always make the best decisions for themselves. For example, it is in the best interest for major petroleum companies to invest money in alternative energy and next gen energy technologies, and though some do, not all of them go for it, instead then plunge millions into overhyped underproducing tech like clean coal and deep sea oil drilling.
quote:In the mean time, let's drill locally. The time when we can power the world on a pitcher of water poured into a Mr Fusion is coming, but it's not here yet.
And for god's sake let's keep the government out of it as much as possible! Jeez they've already shown they can't do anything right!
I disagree with that too. Drill locally? You're talking about what, ANWR? ANWR won't work for a host of reasons. It's ten years away from being productive, and would probably mean billions spent on a new pipeline, not to mention the fact that that pipeline probably won't even work, thanks to that crazy global warming stuff melting the permafrost up there. It also makes it impossible to truck the oil out, given the warming of the lakes and ground around there ever lessening the days trucks can safely drive in and out of the areas.
And sometimes, business wouldn't do anything if it weren't for government interference. Who else is going to make those sort of changes affordable for the average consumer? Home ownership was once at an all time low until government started loaning out money for it. When banks collapsed during the stock market crash, the government stepped in to steady the banking system after the public was wary during the crash. There's hundreds of other government sponsored meddling in the economy that has caused great gains for American people and business.
It will be decades until hybrids can compete with other cars as far as price wars go, if they are EVER able to. They are more mechanically complex, with a whole second engine, and will thus ALWAYS cost more than a single engine car. Government provides tax credits that allow them to compete better, and business steps in to produce them. There aren't many complaints about that from the consumers or the producers are there?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: I think the Kyoto protocol has more than just some issues. It was fundamentally flawed and it's hard to find a story about it now that doesn't include failure.
Unexpectedly, I agree. Scientific consensus is driving timid pushes into whatever 'solutions' might exist for regulating our industrial output as a protective measure, but Kyoto doesn't seem like the right process of action.
Add to that, that any solution available probably will be outshined by the desires, both economic and civic, for what is comfortable and now.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: [qb]Has turned out to be untrue for us. While Canadian companies were investing billions in scrubbers and other emissions-reducing devices, the Canadian economy led the G8 in growth. I believe it still does.
This is disturbing as well. The computer models and top scientists, economists, and advisors turned out to be 100% wrong on this? Yet this is exactly what we are basing our global warming panic on. Only rather than predicting a completely human controlled system, the economy over the span of just a few years, we're attempting to predict an infinitely more complex system of nature and human interaction over the course of a hundred years.
I don't think anyone here made the kind of prediction you're saying was made about Kyoto in the U.S. Some people did predict generic economic "doom and gloom," yes, but I don't remember hearing about any hard numbers. It's possible that the economy would have grown more had industry not made that investment, but in some ways I doubt it. My experience so far has been that a lot of energy saving measures pay for themselves very rapidly -- the low-hanging fruit, where I work, are generally in the 1-3 year simple payback range.
Certainly industry uses a lot of energy and releases a lot of pollutants, but I think a lot of people don't realize that it's us, the regular people going about our everyday lives, who bear much of the responsibility for making changes. In fact, the problem is exactly that people are not panicked. A little panic might help us make some meaningful changes.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
And the links below the little blurb on the car about the testing of several various "alternative" fuels is fascinating stuff too.
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Has turned out to be untrue for us. While Canadian companies were investing billions in scrubbers and other emissions-reducing devices, the Canadian economy led the G8 in growth. I believe it still does.
This is disturbing as well. The computer models and top scientists, economists, and advisors turned out to be 100% wrong on this? Yet this is exactly what we are basing our global warming panic on. Only rather than predicting a completely human controlled system, the economy over the span of just a few years, we're attempting to predict an infinitely more complex system of nature and human interaction over the course of a hundred years.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. How does the fact that Canada's economy prospered despite implementing what critics of Kyoto claimed would be ruin to a national economy relate to environmental models predicting increases of global temperature? They aren't the same thing. In fact, I'd bet that the climate models are more accurate than most economic models... So why do we listen to economists?
posted
Pix. My hybrid was 20k. I see an awful lot of large SUVs that I would guess go for the same, if not more... The comparable non-hybrid version, with the same options that come standard in my hybrid, ends up $2k less... Which, if you take the new tax credit, causes it to be close (probably around 500 bucks) to even in price.
They may not be affordable to you, but most of the hybrids being sold aren't in the luxury car class, price-wise (the Lexus hybrid being the exception that proves the rule).
Lyr, while hybrids are SOMEWHAT more complex, they aren't a lot more. There is NO second engine. There's a separate motor, but it't much simpler technology than the internal combustion engine itself. They use well known tech in the batters too (NiMH packs, I believe).
-- As for ANWR... If you are ympathetic to the criticism that Kyoto on gives us 6 years extra time, then ANWRs 10 years shouldn't be much of an incentive.
posted
Because the models are projecting the temperature increases pretty accurately, if the articles quoting scientists are true. What gets extrapolated from that data, as far as effects are concerned, may not be to the point of financial models; in fact they are probably just as good as financial models trying to predict the same detail... I know of no model that can consistently tell me which particular companies will fold due (if any) to economic measurements/models, much like I don't know which neighborhoods will be submerged by melting ice caps (if any). Though I am sure there are some economic models at a higher level that can model things accurately.
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Lyr, while hybrids are SOMEWHAT more complex, they aren't a lot more. There is NO second engine. There's a separate motor, but it't much simpler technology than the internal combustion engine itself. They use well known tech in the batters too (NiMH packs, I believe).
-- As for ANWR... If you are ympathetic to the criticism that Kyoto on gives us 6 years extra time, then ANWRs 10 years shouldn't be much of an incentive.
-Bok
What exactly is the difference between an engine and a motor? I've always wondered, and sort of been under the impression that there wasn't much of a substantive difference. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
As for ANWR, it doesn't really matter. I'd be in favor of drilling there if I thought it was worth it. With the melting permafrost, it's too much of a logistical challenge.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do they thing all the ice ages happened? We obviously did that. In the future, when we get time travel, we went back in time, lived there for a while, and caused the earth to change. Yep, there is no natural way for the climate to change drastically.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:What exactly is the difference between an engine and a motor? I've always wondered, and sort of been under the impression that there wasn't much of a substantive difference. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
In the generic sense, any device that converts energy into motion can be called either an engine or a motor. But within the auto context, "engine" means an internal combustion engine and "motor" refers to an electric motor.
The simplest electric motors have a magnet on an axle and some wire wrapping. The simplest combustion-based engine is far, far more complex.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well there you go right there. Elmer's logic oriented argument against global climate change as influenced by humans.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not in reply to any particular post, but well within the context:
The models used for the prediction of climate change get better constantly as ever more factors that contribute in a positive or negative way are discovered and measured against each other. For example the effect of sulphur dioxide that caused a cooling was discovered after most countries reduced their emissions of this gas. After the cooling effect was gone, temperatures rose even more and the effects of greenhouse gases were seen to be much greater than anticipated. The same is true for the man-made cloud cover due to airtravel. There was an interesting research wherein a scientist discovered that in the days after 9/11 when all aircrafts were grounded in the US, the teperatures in cities with normally high airtraffic rose several degrees.
I´m sure in a time there will be sufficient data to include all relevant factors and prove it even to the (honestly) sceptical scientists that there is a climate change and that it´s manmade. The question is if it won´t then be already too late to influence it.
Posts: 11 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am convinced that there are plenty of other reasons to address environmental concerns and to reduce humanity's impact on its natural environment besides the idea of changing climate. (i.e. massive deforestation is bad for other reasons than its role in changing climate)
Mig:
quote:
To which I would add that I consider myself an envornmentalist even though I reject Al Gore's arguements and message in the movie. You can reject the alarmists in the Al Gore camp, and still consider yourself an environmentalist. What's most distressing about this debate is the "your with us or against us" approach too many global warming advocates take on this issue.
In agreement with both of those statements...I don't understand why disbelief in Global Warming would excuse our level of pollution and destruction of resources.
Though I don't believe the assertions on Global Warming are fabricated, even if they were, the methods of stopping/reducing it are beneficial in a many other ways if implemented.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
It claims that we are now the hottest the planet has been in 2000 years, which seems very contrary to many other things I've read about climate over the course of recent history.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Such as? the five hottest years on record, and I believe we've kept records for the last 100 years rather well at least, were all in the last what, six years?
Before that, the last really big warming trend was during Medieval Times I believe. We actually talked about this in history class, you can track some of the rise and fall of populations in Europe with the rise and fall of the temperature due to the increased and decreased planting seasons and lack of technology to really get around it.
That was, depending on which part of it you use, about 500 years ago, and if this was hotter than that, then it is indeed the hottest period since 2,000 years ago or so, perhaps more. Depends on how much faith you put into (I believe this is the right term) paleoclimatology, and ice cores (which I believe is basically the same thing).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't come to any solid conclusion on this issue, partly because so very much BS is thrown around.
Like my professor of computer science (who had a PhD) on a rather hot day in spring (I believe it was a local record) saying "Feel how hot it is outside! Global warming is a fact, not a myth. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluded." The simple fact that we were having a record high was enough to convince her beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Yeah, okay, that's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. We'd had several record lows that winter, does that mean that global cooling is happening? In fact, I'm sure that in several places on earth at that exact day, record lows were being recorded.
Such a large amount of people have the same inability to view the subject logically, that it becomes impossible to separate good information from bullcrap.
I am more than willing to believe that global warming is a problem, and even that humans are largely to blame. I am not going to believe that based on "evidence" such as "the planet is the hottest its been in a couple thousand years" and I am certainly NOT going to be swayed by the fact that the last five years in the last 100 were the hottest ones.
Global temperature change is measured in hundreds of thousands of years, NOT the hottest year in the last 100. In a such a complex system as global climate, variations happen.
But people have no perspective. Its a hot day that day in their little corner of the world, and so global warming is obviously the cause .
Charts like this might put this point more in perspective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png It looks to me like the earth was far hotter than this around 125,000 years ago. Furthermore, it looks like our current temperatures are pretty darn par for the course in regards to how often the temperature spikes happen. In fact, it looks like our warming spike came a bit later than usual. I don't see how I could look at trends like those and not come away with the belief that global warming would happen around this time period, with or without humans here.
The graph does show that temperature and CO2 have a strong correlation, but what has caused the spikes in CO2 in the atmosphere back before human civilization? (I'm asking because I truly don't have any idea, which is one reason I find myself unable to form an opinion.)
Furthermore, something which no one has ever addressed to my satisfaction in these debates is the issue of ice ages.
Okay, its been about 10,000 years since the last Ice Age. Estimates I've seen have put the standard period between (mini)Ice Ages at around 12,000 years. So, what about the next Ice Age? How does that relate to the current warming trend? Do climatologists believe that the current warming will prevent the next Ice Age? If so, isn't that a good thing?
Looking back at the graph, it looks like there are almost always huge drops in temperature not long after a spike. In my mind, a huge temperature drop sounds a lot more damaging to our species than a temperature increase. If we completely remove all human based CO2 production, it looks pretty clearly like we will hit another cool phase.
And what about Volcanic activity? Again, from the graph, large amounts of dust in the air very strongly correlates with a drop in temperature. So will the next super-volcano that erupts plunge us into the next Ice Age? If it did, would there be a global effort to produce large amounts of CO2 to counter-act it?
I have too many questions, and even though I often follow the debates here, I still don't have enough information to form an intelligent conclusion.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well said Xavier. You've put it much better than me some reasons why I've been unable to come to some conclusions on the matter. However, I constantly get my questions dismissed by statements like, "Well, Big Oil is paying out millions to make you confused about this." It gets tiring.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Such a large amount of people have the same inability to view the subject logically, that it becomes impossible to separate good information from bullcrap.
I find this is true with plenty of issues, especially ones that are being hotly contested. Err...I mean the first part, not the second.
There are generally reliable sources of information. I wouldn't trust an advocacy group on either side, but I have a lot more confidence is what's said in reputable, peer-reviewed journals.
I guess I'm just trying to point out that there being a large volume of crap out there doesn't take away from the quality of reputable sources.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Flying Cow, although your linked article does have the first part right:
quote: The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.
It fails to note that if you read the entire 155 page report, the group which did the study also called the change "insignificant" and not worthy of changes in pollution regulations, etc. In other words, they said, "yes, it is warmer, but this isn't enough to be concerned about."
posted
they also said that the global warming was most likely as a result of human activities, that is a fairly big point to be leaving out. basically, this report summarises all the evidence that was presented in the movie "an inconvenient truth". it really is impossible to argue against it. for all the propaganda put out by both sides, this movie manages to present an evidence based inquiry into the issue of global warming. there is simply no arguing against a straight graphical representation of data, unless of course you don't believe that the method used to collect the data is correct, but in the case of global warming, there is virtually no dispute over the methods of data accumulation.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It claims that we are now the hottest the planet has been in 2000 years, which seems very contrary to many other things I've read about climate over the course of recent history.
We've got two competing effects. First, we are at a period between ice ages, which by its nature is going to be a warm spell, geologically speaking. So based on the natural cycle (as in Xavier's graph) we are due for temperatures to fall and a new ice age should begin.
Instead what we have happening is that global temperatures are going up. Think about that for a moment: We are already at a natural high point in the cycle, and temperatures are going up. The scientific concensus is that this rise in temperature is the result of man made causes that are overriding the natural cycle. That's scary.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It looks to me like the earth was far hotter than this around 125,000 years ago. Furthermore, it looks like our current temperatures are pretty darn par for the course in regards to how often the temperature spikes happen.
I don't think you can safely look at the peaks and say that the previous peak was higher than the current one. Look at the noise in the most recent data. If you look at the current peak, you see an occillating signal that is seen as a thick band instead of a sharp peak. The previous peaks are thin lines that come to a pointed peak. The difference is most likely caused by the scarcity of data from the previous warm eras.
The most that you can draw from the graph is that the warming periods seem to have similar periodicity, and similar orders of magnitude.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:At this point, if 1000 scientists were to produce new and conflicting evidence, they'd be shot down one at a time as being vastly outnumbered. Unless they managed to do it all at once.
I realize, like your Chicago meteorologists jibe, that you were probably just joshing, and we shouldn't read too much into your post.
Nevertheless, for the naive among us, it's worth pointing out this is not how science is done. If I am an accredited climatologist and I pursue a study of something or other, and then collate my results into a paper (and I believe the majority of such papers do not, in themselves, assert general conclusions like 'Al Gore is right' or 'Al Gore is wrong' -- they report relatively atomic conclusions, like 'the proportion of CO2 trapped in ice cap snow from 134 MYA to 28 MYA follows the trends shown in chart B'), and submit them for publication, they undergo peer review (for scholarly methods, citations, documentation, etc.), and then are published.
At this point I may be one of your thousand, but who can say?
Another kind of science that is done, combs the literature for articles like the one just described, and collates and analyzes otherwise disparate (but already accepted) evidence, and attempts to draw larger conclusions. In climatology today much of this is aided by computers. Gaps in knowledge or uncertain points of interpretation may in turn drive the next stage of data gathering and research.
Given this model, IF evidence existed that accelerated climate change was not occurring, or that it was not attributable to human agency, it would easily emerge, a little bit at a time; and it could not be hidden. Soon, paper after paper would include reference to the fact that 'there is significant doubt about X,' or 'contrarian evidence has been found by Z.'
Now, of course I don't personally know that it was accurate, but An Inconvenient Truth in turn claimed that of all 600-some peer-reviewed journal articles in the past 10 years (20 years?) that presented scientific conclusions about climate change, the number that expressed any doubt that such climate change is impelled by human activity was zero.
(Edit: grammar)
[ June 23, 2006, 01:50 AM: Message edited by: John Van Pelt ]
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW -- did you see the film, Lisa? I think you should. It had a bit of a propagandistic flavor, but if Michael Moore is a 10, Gore is a 2 or 3, on that scale. And I found in it a deeply human and caring view, whose motives, impulses, and conclusions lead to a better, cleaner, safer, more liveable world.
Why would anyone rail against this so, unless they were an Exxon executive? To me, Gore makes his case that this represents a moral crossroads for all of humanity. I'm not afraid of asking myself tough moral questions.
Nuclear proliferation, Peak Oil, Pandemic -- and Global Warming. The four potential planet-busters that threaten us and future generations. It is an important moral lesson to recognize that whereas in the past anything pitched as a doomsday scenario was likely to be guff -- humanity just didn't make that much difference to the globe -- things have changed.
(Edit: grammar)
[ June 23, 2006, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: John Van Pelt ]
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: New data has shown that the European Union (EU) remains embarrassingly off track for meeting its pledges under the Kyoto Protocol, the UN climate-change pact it championed after a US walkout. ADVERTISEMENT
Instead of falling, EU greenhouse-gas pollution actually rose in the latest year of monitoring, adding to the task of meeting the Kyoto goals, according to figures released by the European Environment Agency (EAA) in Copenhagen.
Apparently, the biggest problems are road traffic, iron, and steel makers. Spain had to switch back to fossil fuels after a drought damaged their ability to produce hydroelectric power.
Germany, Denmark, and Finland saw reductions. Denmark and Finland added more hydro, but Germany's explaination is vague.
That's what irks me about global warming. Everyone wants me to know about it and care very much, but if I don't run the R&D department of General Motors, there's not a lot I can find to do about it until I'm ready to buy a house. And don't even talk to me about hybrids. The last cars we bought were $1,500 and $2,100. Most of these new cars cost more than I make in a year.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but global warming is an upper-middle class or rich people problem.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
