1. Welcome Hearth.com Guests and Visitors - Please enjoy our forums!
    Hearth.com GOLD Sponsors who help bring the site content to you:
    Hearthstone Soapstone and Cast-Iron stoves( Wood, Gas or Pellet Stoves and Inserts)

Global Warming - Questions and other BS.

Post in 'The Green Room' started by webbie, Jan 24, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. begreen

    begreen Mooderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    49,669
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    There's no way (to maintain our current standard of living) given the current systems in place. But we can make a significant change in three critical areas: transportation, industrial output, heating and cooling. The technology is out there. We just need to act/design/execute smarter. Cooperation from the govt. would help. Recently 10 execs from GE, DuPont, Alcoa, etc. sat Bush down and said - we need a policy!

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201237.html

    Helpful Sponsor Ads!





  2. saichele

    saichele Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    540
    Sure we can improve, and should. I have yet to see anybody suggest we can reduce emissions to pre-industrial levels, however. So if the theories are to be believed, maybe instead of doubling CO2 concentrations in 50yrs, we'll take 70 or 80. But soon we'll be at double, and perhaps triple. Avoiding that would require 1) sweating a lot more in the warmer parts of the country, and 2) mass relocations out of the cold parts of the country, and virtual abandonment of Canada. Sure, some could live up here, burning biomass and whatnot, but we aren;t on the brink of a full-replacement heat source in the next several decades.

    As to the sham Alcoa et al are putting together, the fine print is that they want to convert their legacy of mass pollution into an asset. They take their 2005 emissions levels, and turn them into tradable CO2 credits. The credits idea is all well and good, but their issue is to have them assigned to existing industries initially, rather than openly traded as a commodity. Obviously then they'd be leading the "green" parade, blocking creation of more credits so their pollution shares would be more valuable.

    Steve
  3. jjbaer

    jjbaer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    781
    Loc:
    OH
    Yes...pretty soon these companies are going to become like many who sell on e-bay........companies will make their profits trading CO2 credits just like many on e-bay who make their biggest profits on shipping........
  4. jjbaer

    jjbaer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    781
    Loc:
    OH
    BeGreen,

    Many months ago I sent Bush and the Energy Dept letters stating that Bush needed to take a page out of the John Kennedy play-book (Kennedy's challenge to get to the moon in 10 years) and challenge the best and brightest minds in the country to get us off oil and onto some other form of cleaner, less political energy source......I got a letter from the Energy Dept saying virtually nothing and got that (nothing), not even a letter, from Bush. I told them both that the Energy Dept has, I think, a $22 Billion budget and we've got little to nothing to show for it........another example of our corrupt government in action and I say this with standing in the community........20 years in the military watching Billions outside of military programs going down the rat hole and into the cesspool..............
  5. begreen

    begreen Mooderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    49,669
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    Amen brother. I witnessed about a million (1970) dollars worth of govt. computer stations sitting idle, month after month. They took an entire floor of a large building. I am sure that by the time they were ready to use them, the computers were obsolete. The country is ready, but the "leadership" is not there.
  6. smirnov3

    smirnov3 Feeling the Heat

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    Messages:
    435
    Loc:
    Eastern Ma
    In 1996, the company I work for sold a computer controlled instrument (with computer) to the DOE. In 1999 they shipped the computer that ran it back to us to be certified as Y2K comliant.

    It was returned in the original packaging - the box had not been opened yet.
  7. begreen

    begreen Mooderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    49,669
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    Our tax dollars HARDLY at work!
  8. jjbaer

    jjbaer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    781
    Loc:
    OH
    Buy a mac instead.....they were always Y2K compliant.........
  9. colsmith

    colsmith New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    323
    Loc:
    near Milwaukee, WI
    Craig, I am surprised by your statement I’m told that if it does exist, it will take decades of reversal to change it. In other words, not during my lifetime. That automatically means it moves down my priority list. There is really no debate among scientists that global warming exists and is happening right now. There are front groups for big oil companies, mainly ExxonMobil, who try to make it look like the scientific community isn't sure about global warming. They are sure, it is just that it is inconvenient for big oil, and for Bush and Cheney, to admit that global warming is a problem. Notice that the Republican term for it is climate change, not global warming. Although even the Shrub has admitted now that global warming is happening. Anyway, here is some info that might inspire you to believe that global warming is quite real, and why people are mislead into thinking scientists aren't sure.

    ExxonMobil's been under intense pressure to stop funding front groups and think tanks that put out disinformation on global warming. A new report released last month by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) documented how ExxonMobil employs the same tactics, and some of the same personnel, to deceive the public on global warming as the tobacco companies did with smoking. The report ties about a dozen scientists whose views on global warming are discredited by the scientific community to scores of Exxon-funded front groups and think tanks, and shows how this tobacco-style technique insidiously spreads false doubt around global warming.

    America's vocal disgust over oil has also played an instrumental role. Recently Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) wrote ExxonMobil to urge the company to "come clean" about its funding of global warming denier groups and be a more responsible corporate actor. The U.S. Senators' letter was not the first one ExxonMobil received. The Royal Society, among the most respected scientific academies in the world, established in 1660, detailed its research showing ExxonMobil spent $2.9 million in 2005 funding some 39 groups that “misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence." Research by Greenpeace shows that ExxonMobil has spent $19 million since 1998 funding more than 70 institutes and front groups that have worked to delay crucial action on global warming by injecting uncertainty into the scientific discussion and by falsely claiming that climate policies would result in economic ruin.

    The Royal Society revealed that Exxon had said it would stop funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a U.S. group that claims carbon dioxide is good for you and that global warming isn’t a threat. CEI is one of Exxon's favorite front groups, receiving over $2,000,000 from the company since 1998.


    Due to public pressure. ExxonMobil claimed it stopped funding "five or six" of these groups, but there are thought to be dozens if not hundreds of other ones they still fund. Isn't it a shame that instead of working on ways to slow down global warming, they would rather spend the money on PR efforts to make themselves not look so bad?!?
  10. colsmith

    colsmith New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    323
    Loc:
    near Milwaukee, WI
    Just a short post from me for a change. I wanted to share just one sentence from the latest National Resource Defense Council's quarterly publication onearth. "Even conservative global warming models predict an astounding 60 percent reduction in soil moisutre on U.S. farmland in this century." I would think we would all be anxious to try to stop?!?

    My best friend was in the Peace Corps in Kiribati, a Pacific island nation which consists of coral based islands. They are expected to be the first nation lost to global warming, as their islands are only a few feet above sea level.
  11. DonCT

    DonCT Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    609
    Loc:
    Bristol, Connecticut
    If you're going to use the term, alteast use it correctly. What you are talking about is Advanced Global Warming. Sure, the planet is warming, but it's far from certain that humans are the direct cause.
  12. jjbaer

    jjbaer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    781
    Loc:
    OH
    You're wrong on that statement..... there are many reputable scientists who say that while we are going through a warming period, that it is natural and not man made. Just because you chose to ignore these people and their opinion, doesn't make them any less credible......
  13. webbie

    webbie Seasoned Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    12,100
    Loc:
    Western Mass.
    I think this says a lot:
    "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The American Enterprise Institute, which has received $1.6 million from ExxonMobil, offered scientists up to $10,000 for a "policy critique" of the U.N. global warming report released on Friday."
  14. webbie

    webbie Seasoned Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    12,100
    Loc:
    Western Mass.


    You have to carefully read my post.

    First of all, the scientists all agree that the action=reaction time is decades long....are you claiming that something can be done about it and get results in less than 20-30 years?

    My point is ONLY the Global Warming is a selling point for only a small percentage of the population, and is surely not a selling point for the corporations that we really need to spearhead the changes. People are inherently selfish, and IMHO will be much more likely to change when it affects either themselves or their children very directly.

    Look at how many years it is taking for the Kyoto protocols, etc. - so it will take 10-20 years to come to ANY agreement and then another 20-30 for the changes to be instituted and have an effect.

    "America's vocal disgust over oil "

    The only digust I can imagine this is referencing is the general disgust that we are not getting enough of it and we want it cheaper!

    Again, my point is "sales and marketing" related. Here are some examples....

    Are people wearing less fur because they really care about the animals (while they go to a steakhouse and buy leather clothes?) Or are they responding to public pressure and the idea that instead of everyone looking UP at them, most people are looking DOWN.

    It takes a certain type of person to drive the big HUMMER around. Most people, conscience aside, don't want everyone looking at them with scorn and giving them the finger!

    So, again, my point on Global Warming is that it should be taken care of as only ONE of the many benefits of reducing pollution associated with the use of excesses of fossil fuels. When it becomes "cool" to have a smaller house or a more efficient heating system, that will do more to change things...for MOST people. When it is more patriotic to save energy than to place flags and stickers on your SUV, then change will start.

    I hope this clears up my opinion.
  15. DonCT

    DonCT Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    609
    Loc:
    Bristol, Connecticut
    Wow, that little spin's never been brought out before....

    Is the Fraiser Institute paid off also?

    http://www.ccnmatthews.com/news/rel...earchText=false&showText=all&actionFor=633895
  16. colsmith

    colsmith New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    323
    Loc:
    near Milwaukee, WI
    Some Like It Hot - 06 February 2007 01:47 AM
    There is really no debate among scientists that global warming exists and is happening right now.


    Castiron says in reply:
    You’re wrong on that statement..... there are many reputable scientists who say that while we are going through a warming period, that it is natural and not man made. Just because you chose to ignore these people and their opinion, doesn’t make them any less credible......

    My dear castiron, it must be months since we have argued, did you miss me? ;-) The average temperatures around the globe are going up, the ice is melting, blah blah blah. I don't know of anyone credible who refutes this. Yes, a few say it is natural, and many think people and all their mess has a lot to do with it. However, that does not negate the fact that global warming exists and is happening right now, regardless of what you think the cause or reason is. The only ones I know of saying that the earth is NOT getting warmer or that giving off more carbon dioxide is a good thing are getting funds from ExxonMobil. What credible climatologists do you know of that don't think the earth is getting warmer right now? Give me a couple names and what groups they are affiliated with. Preferably none that get their funding from oil companies or power plants.
  17. colsmith

    colsmith New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    323
    Loc:
    near Milwaukee, WI
    Craig explains
    First of all, the scientists all agree that the action=reaction time is decades long....are you claiming that something can be done about it and get results in less than 20-30 years?


    I thought you were saying it wasn't urgent to DO something about global warming now. Yes, it takes a long time to see the results, both for it to have happened initially, and for it to slow down if we cut emissions of gases that contribute to global warming. But, if we don't work on it real soon and accomplish some real cutbacks of emissions, it will be MUCH TOO LATE in 20-30 years to start actually doing something once the results are dreadful and the average joe starts to get nervous. What I am saying is action is needed promptly, BECAUSE global warming is already in motion and will continue to be for some time, whether we change our ways or not. There are considered to be certain points of no return, after which is won't really matter what we do, we are screwed. I would prefer that not to happen.

    Global warming leads glaciers to melt, exposing more dark soil and boulders, which absorb light and hence heat more than the shiny reflective ice did, which leads to more global warming, regardless of us putting out more carbon dioxide, etc. Or the frozen tundra that is melting, same thing, permafrost melts, trapped methane is released, increasing the rate of global warming. So basically global warming leads to more global warming, even if we all died tomorrow and stopped making pollution of every sort.

    The problem is that ordinary people don't understand global warming or its consequences very well, not suprising considering how stupidly many people vote and shop and spend money and things like that. So since it is cold today, they think global warming isn't happening. They don't understand or even know about glaciers melting in the Himalayas and the resulting new lakes being created and building up and making huge flows of icy water that destroy villages, things that like. And if they do, they think they are safe because they don't live by a glacier or the sea.

    I used to spend a lot of time on a sailboat in the Caribbean, people there already notice the water getting warmer, coral and other species having a too rapid die-off, etc. In WI it isn't very obvious, except that in recent years we have had some amazingly late first killing frosts, and we all think that is a nice thing. Well, it is nice for us gardeners. But the problem is that global warming seems neither urgent nor applicable to most people, so they ignore it or say it isn't real.

    As for the Kyoto protocols, we are one of the few big countries that has resisted going along with it for a long time, most countries we do business with are already on that boat.
  18. DonCT

    DonCT Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    609
    Loc:
    Bristol, Connecticut
    I don't think they're disputing that it's getting warmer, just the cause and the ultimate effect of the warming. What we and quite a few scientists are saying is that there is no cause for the "Panic" mentality. According to the science models, the temp rise in the next century is only 2-3°. This is GLOBAL. This means that some areas will warm, others will cool. After all, the global mean temp average baseline is 59°. Last year, the global average was 57.53°.

    Nice try, trying to discredit a group of researchers just because their foundation recieved money from Exxon. As a total of their funding, it only equals about 5%. Not really an attempt to change results. Unlike the IPCC report. They put out a summary before the report is even finalized. They are working the final draft to match the SPM.


    How do you explain the growth in total ice in the Antartic region? The Antartic ice will actually lead to a negative forcing on global sea levels. Fact.

    It's been proven that Greenland was once.......oh my, GREEN. Meaning it wasn't always covered in ice. So there's precident for the glaciers to melt. And it obviously wan't catastrophic then, why should it be now??

    As for Kyoto, there are alot of countries that are regreting signing. They are seeing their governements spend trillions of dollars and not getting any benifit. The science is not conclusive that CO2 will cause the massive problems that have been perpetuated by the MSM and environmental activists. In fact, they have proven that temps rise BEFORE CO2 levels. How do you explain that?? Just goes to show that not enough is known about the climate engine of Earth, so why cripple our economy trying to change something that isn't a factor anyways. Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect"


    http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html
    http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
    http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.html
    http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Greenhouse_not_a_problem.html
    http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/
  19. begreen

    begreen Mooderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    49,669
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    With all the rationalizations and refutes, one thing is clear and a standout fact in the data. That is the rate of increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Drill, dig, melt,and research as they may, this rapid 150 year spike is unprecedented so far. I'm not saying that some thing didn't occur as some point in the earth's geological history that might have resembled this. Maybe a meteor collision triggered such an event at the junctures of the cretaceous or triassic ages. But there is no other rational explanation for the --current-- spike other than the presense of man and the industrial age.
  20. DonCT

    DonCT Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    609
    Loc:
    Bristol, Connecticut
    Other than the fact that they were melting PRIOR to the industrial age? You claim that the rate is unprecedented. I'm saying we have no research to suggest it is.

    Another thing I would like to point out about the forcasts by the IPCC. They are based off of a global population growth that is completely unrealistic. They also used unreliable ground based temp measurements that don't match up with satellite observations.
  21. begreen

    begreen Mooderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    49,669
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    This research refers to atmospheric CO2 and methane levels, not melting of anything. There is a lot of research to support this. These are not corporate dummies, but some of the best researchers in the world, collecting and analyzing the data. The samples from Greenland and the deep ice cores in the EPICA Dome in Antarctica show that the current increase is unprecedented in the last 650,000 years.

    While I agree that the speculation on the affect of this increase is up for debate, the research is sound.
  22. DonCT

    DonCT Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    609
    Loc:
    Bristol, Connecticut
    Still not showing me any corelation between rising CO2 followed by rising temps causing out-of-norm glacial melting.

    And I never disputed that CO2 levels are higher than they were. I stipulate that they're still not the highest seen on the planet and there is no reason to try and regulate levels that even if doubled would only lead to a temp increase that still falls withing natural climate changes. Also, CO2 has very limited capabilities to contribute to AGW. Feel free to peruse this page:

    http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
  23. webbie

    webbie Seasoned Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    12,100
    Loc:
    Western Mass.
    Don, are you suggestiing that Greenland is so named because it was green? Certainly they had warmer periods, but we learned in school that:
    "The name "Greenland" comes from Scandinavian settlers. In the Norse sagas, it is said that Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find the land that was rumored to be to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grænland ("Greenland"), possibly in order to attract more people to settle there."

    Conversely, we learned that Iceland was so named to stop others from discovering:
    "The climate of Iceland is temperate. The warm North Atlantic Current ensures generally higher temperatures than in most places of similar latitude in the world. The winters are mild and windy while the summers are damp and cool."

    Not to dispute your points, just making certain everyone knows that the name itself may have nothing to do with real green.
  24. webbie

    webbie Seasoned Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    12,100
    Loc:
    Western Mass.
    BTW, just so we can get clear again about who agrees that Humans are responsible, here is a summary of the UN report....

    -----------------
    The International Panel on Climate Change released on Friday, Feb. 2, its most definitive report yet on climate change. The report, which says there is at least a 90 percent chance that humans are causing the earth to warm, is the most important assessment on the science of climate change in six years.

    The report, a consensus document put together by 600 scientists and agreed on by representatives of 113 countries, predicts a continued warming of 0.2 °C per decade for the coming few decades. It paints a bleak picture of climate change, and says that evidence of the negative human impact on the environment is “widespread.” Declaring that the “warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” the authors said in their “Summary for Policymakers” that even in the best-case scenario, temperatures are on track to cross a threshold to an unsustainable level.

    A rise of more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels would cause dramatic global effects -- such as massive species extinctions and the melting of ice sheets -- that could be irreversible within a human lifetime. Under the most conservative IPCC scenario, the planet will warm by 4.5 degrees by 2100. Heat waves are likely to be more intense, more frequent and longer-lasting, and tropical storms and hurricanes will probably be stronger.

    The Arctic will likely be ice-free in the summer, and mountain glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets will continue to melt, according to the draft of the report. Similarly, the new report says that sea-levels will rise by between 28 centimetres and 43 cm by 2100, compared with the 2001 prediction of between 9 cm and 88 cm (2.54 cm = 1 inch). The report also warned of “positive” feedbacks, which could play a role in accelerating temperature increases—meaning that the melting of glaciers, for example, will keep speeding up. The findings are the first of four IPCC reports to be published this year.

    ---------------------------------------

    Again, I am not personally in the know - but 600 Scientists and 113 countries agree on this? AND, some of the language was toned down - for instance, most wanted it to be "virtually certain" , which indicates a 99% possibility of human causation - they settled for "very likely" at only 90%+

    It's really a stretch to think of a few Exxon Mobile funded Junkscience sites having similar cred as this study. Obviously, there are many who will continue to hold other opinions - you can find hundreds of millions of people on the planet who think the entire earth is less than 10,000 years old. But it would be silly to debate such a point, as it gives credit to nonsense. It is like us discussing a point, and then when I am clearly wrong, I say "well, you can't even prove that I exist", which...of course you cannot.
  25. webbie

    webbie Seasoned Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    12,100
    Loc:
    Western Mass.
    BTW, I was wrong on the earlier thread about how fast changes would take effect:
    "The warming of Earth and the increases in sea levels “would continue for centuries … even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized,” according to a 20-page summary of the report that was leaked to wire services. The report also makes a strong link between increases in man-made carbon dioxide emissions and climate change,"


    So, it will be centuries after we change behavior! Not exactly the kind of time frame that will stop either Trump or Pelosi from flying in private jets.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page