Soren Jesperson: Act now against warming

Advertisement

— As a reader and person concerned with the health of the planet, I want to highlight the recent release of the ground-breaking government science report entitled "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States," which presents a clear picture of global warming's threats to Colorado. Among other concerns, decreasing snowpack and water availability are highlighted as major climate-related impacts to our region. Yet, despite the report's dire predictions for a warming world, I believe this is a much-needed wake-up call and an important opportunity for all of us to take action with timely solutions for our planet and economy.

Already, the negative repercussions of climate change can be seen in our beloved Colorado Rockies where changing precipitation patterns have reduced snowmelt and runoff. As snowpack decreases, Colorado's water supply will face increasing shortages, placing agricultural, community and recreational needs in competition with one another, particularly in late summer.

In view of these impacts on our economy and beautiful landscape, I encourage our representatives to act now. Congress soon will vote on a historic bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill) that will help protect our communities and natural resources from the effects of global warming. That is why we need U.S. Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., to support this effort to protect Colorado for future generations by reducing carbon pollution, creating new green jobs and preserving our state's natural beauty and the benefits they provide. Our future depends on it.

Soren Jesperson

Steamboat Springs

Comments

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

Oh, And I have had the privilege of listening to Glenn Beck on AM radio about 10 years ago when I lived in MD and I was still a Democrat at the time. I thought he was a breath of fresh air because of his honest reporting. Political correctness does nothing but keep info from the public and eventually it got Glenn fired from that station. He was reporting on Islamic terrorism and that was a no no to the Libs because it might upset the Muslim community. Yes popcan Glenn does bring forth well investigated information that he can back up so the defense you will hear against him will be the, destroy the messenger stuff like, he is a bigot right wing nut. They will not have any contrary information because it won't exist.

0

popcan 5 years, 2 months ago

Soren: Where are the green jobs that the Government is talking about? If being GREEN is so good, THERE should have been thousands of jobs already created right? There should be new alternative energy jobs all over the country ... This recession is a big joke. With all the GREEN opportunities being talked about for years, everybody should be making tons of money, the DOW Jones should be running at 13000 plus points. All kinds of opportunities for years with being Green ... Right ... WHY not create Green jobs without CAP and Trade? Why do you green wack jobs keep saying the Green jobs are coming? WHY aren't they already here? The Today Paper should have at least 30 plus green jobs in the want ads. Where are they? The truth is you greenies destroy our economy as you are doing right now. You make people feel miserable and guilty about existing on the planet. Where does all the money go with the Colorado Carbon Fund? The CCC website says it is much to complex to tell you where your green funds go. Sounds like ACORN to me.

0

playa46 5 years, 2 months ago

Hey Soren, you can stop fighting for truth and justice for the planet, if you haven't noticed, nobody cares.

0

popcan 5 years, 2 months ago

Knee_dropper: So I need to take Glenn Beck with a grain of salt with his opinions? I do believe Glenn Beck has a better opinion on the environment then you do. Why? First of all, Glenn has the number one best selling book called Common Sense. Glenn Beck has a dedicated staff to thoroughly research of what is going on with Politics, the environment, and of course our economy. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to show that Glenn Beck is smarter than you with the environmental issues. So a very basic question that a third grader could answer. Who is popcan going to believe with Crap and Tax? Choice A, Glenn Beck or Choice B, Knee_Bender. I am smarter than a Third Grader, and I pick Choice A, Glenn Beck. Oh by-the-way, Glenn Beck has one of the highest rated TV shows and a very highly rated talk radio show. Take Glenn Beck with a grain-of-salt. That doesn't sound very smart to me.

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

I have been watching the global warming bill coments on c-span and it is so obvious it is nothing more than a new tax bill. Rep. Butterfield(D) said it eloquently when he said that 15% of the new tax reciepts of this bill will go to lower income people. This is another transfer of wealth, or as Obama promissed, spreading the wealth around. One of the Senators from Florida, a Dem, is already asking for $50million dollars to build a new huricane study center. We have one at the University of Miami. Several trillion dollars of this tax money will go to foriegn countries for things like trees. How much of that money will be stolen by the elite in those countries? In the meantime, we will all feel the pain of this bill in higher prices on everything from a doubling of our electric bills to a 70 cent new tax on gasoline, which will cause an increase in all production costs here in the USA. That will cause massive job loss as factories close and the gap will be picked up by the Chinese and the Indians as worldwide demand will continue to grow. Those countries cause 3 times the carbon emissions than we do in production as they don't have the regulations and standards of the USA. Bottom line is this bogus global warming bill will not do a thing to clean the environment, if anything it will do the opposite, and it will cause further damage to our economy.

0

popcan 5 years, 2 months ago

Playa46: What do you mean Justice for the Planet? Answer my basic question? If green so good, why aren't there tons of green jobs? Why is there a recession? All the green opportuntities should have eliminated the recession this past year.

0

Fred Duckels 5 years, 2 months ago

All this hoopla will let us subsidize wind and solar and stop carbon usage. Where are we going to get our power? The left has an agenda to reduce our consumption, how will we ever pay our debt with limited economic activity? My guess is that they don't know and don't care.

0

popcan 5 years, 2 months ago

Green people do not want Americans to grow up to have fullfilled and productive lives. They want us to be depressed, feed our kids meds and be totally miserable for being active on the planet. Tax Tax Tax and regulate. I wonder if Green People know that CAP and TAX will cost them money too. It may be enough to push their job(s) over the edge.

0

knee_dropper 5 years, 2 months ago

Bury your heads in the sand, or recognize that the world will change with or without you. Nothing will replace fossil fuels in the short-run, but they will become rarer and more expensive as time goes on. The climate's changing and the costs incurred by less predictable rainfall and earlier snowmelt will add up. I see this bill as a step in the right direction, to end carbon's subsidy; and to start leading the world again on environmental issues instead of being a non-committed bystander while the rest of the first world moves ahead. Popcan, here's some "green" jobs being created in Colorado.

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2009/03/23/daily35.html

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

All Americans want to advance forward with new technologies and get off the Middle East oil train but this climate change bill hr-2454 has a lot more in it than green. Our lives are going to be greatly affected by this bill which just passed the House. Real Estate appraisers will have to be retrained in green technology and report in the appraisals the comformity of those properties to yet unknown standards. What does this do? It creates a permanent record against that home and what happens then? There is a provision in the bill to funnel $millions$ of dollars to community organizing groups(ACORN). Trillions of $$ will go to foriegn countries. I hope the Senate wises up and stops this power grab. God help us. Pass gas now while it is still free.

0

jk 5 years, 2 months ago

seeuski, and Fred maybe it's time to give up the undermining of OUR country and figure out a way we can all get on the same bus! We had better all do it soon or, WE are going to HAVE to do it to survive. Popcan, WE need to come up with ideas, and stop pointing fingers. As the famous dairy add might imply "Got Any"? There are oppurtunities here boys and girls who will take the bait??

0

popcan 5 years, 2 months ago

Knee_dropper: I am not looking for 100 jobs just getting started in Colorado. That will not fill our unemployment problem. If green is so good and people have been talking green for awhile now, there should be thousands of jobs in Colorado already, including many jobs right now in the Steamboat Pilot. There are not going to be lots of jobs created for green stuff. In reference to HR-2454, in Europe the CAP and TAX (screw you) program has failed miserably. There is an 18.1% unemployment rate in Spain currently due to Cap and Tax. There are 2.2 jobs lost to every green job created. Austrailia, which I understand is getting rid of their CAP and TAX program. I have referenced this information from the Glen Beck Program. I am sure Glen has researched his information very carefully and he has a well paid staff to do this. Dirty politics is the winner here. You and I are the loosers. We will flip the bill. Enjoy the future of throwing money towards high utility bills. The winners are Nancy Pelosi, $50,000 in Clean Energy Fuels Corp; Edward Markey(he wrote the bill), $51,000-$115,000 invested in First Hand Technologies Solar Energy; and of course your buddy Al Gore, heavily vested in Software Techology to track carbon footprints. Congradulations to these Business Ventures. America today, we have some smart people like the politicians I mentioned and course we have lots of dumb ones throwing away money on taxes to corrupt politics.

0

popcan 5 years, 2 months ago

JK: How are we the capitalists undermining this country? What are we doing, were working, paying taxes, we do our part in keeping the country clean. I sacrifice the hell out of my paycheck at each pay period paying FIT and SIT. I paid a crap load of taxes to Obama and IRS ... What the hell more do you want. I am a major tax payer in this country. WHAT the hell am I doing wrong to undermine my country? The economy must be first, business needs to succeed. We can look at Green alternatives when the country gets back well-to-do on it's feet. Not until then. We have in the past ten years done an excellent job with the environment in this country.

0

jk 5 years, 2 months ago

popcan you were not included in that comment. You however need to stop waiting for Green Handouts and help in creating the new green economy. It is not up to others, and as soon as the rest of the planet realizes it will be a good thing, or life will not persist, then we will be ahead of the game.

0

knee_dropper 5 years, 2 months ago

Popcan, that last statement of yours is pretty telling. In the past eight years your friends in the senate and W have done their best to gut the EPA and roll back protection of the environment for the benefit of business. Cry me a river about the taxes you have to pay, just the same as anybody that still has a job in this country. As for the cap and trade program, Europe's was modeled after; guess who's, OUR cap and trade on sulfur and nitrogen dioxide emissions. Some of Europe's problems have been from making their baselines on grandfathered levels rather than rewarding more efficient facilities and infighting between different member countries. Glenn Beck may suit your needs for "news", but he is a political commentator and I would take anything he has to say with a few grains of salt. BTW, the company building those turbines, and blades will be employing a total of 1,300 in a year; they already employ over 200, not to mention the construction jobs now building those plants. Some companies will win from this legislation, some will lose; what else is new in politics? Personally if there is going to be government money being spent, I'd rather it go to some renewable/solar company than the billions that have gone KBR. But maybe that's just me.

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

You guys have no idea of the truth behind this bill. It has nothing to do with your admirable desire to do right by the earth, its all about power and wealth redistribution, period!!! We will not become extinct because of some phantom bugeyman global warming. We will become extinct because of the fall of our democracy. Talk about fear mongering, you all bashed Bush for fear mongering with terror which was a reality, but the heights to which this president is now threatening us with global warming or unemployment etc,etc to get his progressive agenda through is absurd. You guys can gloat now but this is far from over. The Tea Parties will be growing, you'll see.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 2 months ago

How about a tax on Tea Parties? If they're growing, money can be made to help benefit the Green movement. After all, there's a lot of hot air spewing from those things, from what I hear. LOL!

Spending money only on war to keep us safe means that the terrorist called Earth will attack us for not keeping it in check. Isn't that worth spending money on?

0

popcan 5 years, 2 months ago

seeuski is correct ... It is all about fear mongering and yes if the earth ends it will be because of the fall of our democracy. There is no guarantee how long anyone is going to be on this planet. You think some green weanies are going to save this planet. We will all be dead long before global green kills us, by a nuclear war. Yes you got to love Crap and Tax. We can send all the green jobs to China, India, Cuba and where ever else. They can do all the polluting for us creating our goods and services. Yes they will be laughing at us for the next 100 years. I am living now not in the future.

0

popcan 5 years, 2 months ago

Knee_dropper: What is wrong with the environment we have now? Everything looks good to me. I think George Bush did ok. I am out in the environment all the time, I don't see anything wrong with it. Trash is all picked up, lots of people do recycling on a volunteer basis. We don't have to be taxed to volunteer our environmental work. Mountains seem to be clean. Sometimes is rains and snows. Seeing lots of run-off in the Yampa River. I can't figure out what you Green Wack jobs are talking about.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 2 months ago

popcorn- Try Googling "largest tax increase in history" quotes and see what you get. It gets said every time a Conservative doesn't agree with anything and guess what? Never has the world ended yet.

And if you think sending jobs to China and India so they can do the polluting is a good idea...which way do you think the wind blows globally in the Northern Hemisphere? The jet stream goes from West (or Far East, if you like) to the East (or what others call us...The West).

And I guess if you're living in the now and not the future, you should never have to worry about leaving our children a large National Debt, so we can take that debate off the table, right? Problem solved! We can be just like Rockhound (Steve Buscemi's character) in "Armageddon" when he borrows $100,000 from a loan shark thinking he'll never have to pay it back if he dies.

"Vinnie the loanshark: You don't look too healthy, you're not gonna die on me are you? Rockhound: Let's just say no more than you are. [laughs]" "Armageddon" 1998

0

playa46 5 years, 2 months ago

popcan, I mean just what you mean. People try to control things that are out of our power, such as nature. They convince themselves what the right way is to do to the planet, like yourself.

BTW-my comment was not directed at you, I simply was putting out my thought on the article.

0

JLM 5 years, 2 months ago

The irony of this situation is that not a single Congressman or commenter on this subject has actually had an opportunity to actually "read" this Bill. That's right --- just like the Stimulus Bill, no time to review, no time to read, no opportunity to debate. Just raw political power used to force through something which at its core is exactly what its most ardent opponents have called it --- a huge tax program.

When the cost to American business is measured in "energy" then the jobs will simply move to where the cost is lower. Mexico and China will be big beneficiaries of this program.

You know that any attempt to regulate the use of fossil fuels is bogus when it completely ignores nuclear power. The US Navy has been powering ships for almost 60 years w/ not a single mishap. Nuclear power is the cheapest alternative for real power --- not pie in the sky solar and wind and geothermal.

The reality of this disastrous decision will be coming to your electric bill very, very, very soon.

The Stimulus has been working pretty damn good so far, eh? Cause remember we couldn't delay to read it because it was going to keep unemployment below 8%, right?

Ooops!

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 2 months ago

Glenn Beck has a #1 besteller and top rated cable show? Vanna White had a #1 besteller, and WWE Raw is War on Mondays in 1 night has Glenn's 5 night total.

I do agree- the future will take care of itself. I don't know about you, but I did just as well during higher taxes in Clinton's years as I did under tax cuts with Bush.

As for jobs, people will go where the jobs go, one way or another. Or, they will find a way to create a new industry. Economy is just like the weather...it goes in cycles. We don't control it, but we can hopefully nudge it in a better direction.

0

popcan 5 years, 2 months ago

Matthew: First of all I did not say that it was a good idea to send jobs to China and a good idea for them to pollute for us. I did say that they would pollute for us. But I did not say it was a good idea. Next, I guess Crap and Tax isn't going to solve our green house gas problem, because the work will go over seas and the foreign countries will enjoy getting our work and laughing at the same time because were so dumb worrying about global warming. Do you think foreign countries are going to listen to us about being green? Not, they're going to enjoy the work and enjoy getting paid big bucks for doing the work.
Yes I am living now, and yes the future can take care of itself. You damn right I'm selfish. I am going to enjoy living now and I am not going to worry about a future that I cannot control. Our kids will control the deficit the way they want to. Not my problem! With Crap and Tax you may enjoy throwing your money at a political tax scam, shell game what ever. Not me, I account for all my money and will do what ever possible to keep it out of the hands of green corruption.

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

Popcan, You are arguing with people who don't care to know or will ignore it if they do know what this tax bill is about. It is not a save the earth global warming bill, but a transfer of wealth bill (reparations) which finally was uttered through the messiahs lips the other day. For the life of me I don't understand why these people can't see what is taking place before their very eyes. The nationalization of all industry, governmental control of every important aspect of our lives from health care to the energy ratings on our homes to how many miles we drive etc.etc. This bill imposes a 70 cent additional tax per gallon of gas and 80 cents on diesel. What will that do to the economy? The government is in charge of the insurance industry, banking, automobile. When the Investigator General found nearly 1$million$ of fraud with our tax money in Sacramento,CA. Mr. Walpin was fired and then smeared by the President. 2 other IG's have been similarly fired since. So who is protecting us from them? Nobody anymore. ACORN has 14 lawsuits currently pending for the group to open it's books, all the suits have been brought by former or existing employees of ACORN. Rep. John Conyers(D) just yesterday said that the chance for a Congressional investigation has been quashed by the powers to be. The big question is who is he referring to, well being that Obama was an insider with ACORN and the organization acted on his behalf during the election he would be the Powers to Be. So the argument here is between those for Marxism, which is what we are witnessing, and those of us who want to remain a Capitalist Democracy. Or freedom.
I guess I really don't need to google search Socialism/Marxism to recognize it is being forced upon us.

0

knee_dropper 5 years, 2 months ago

Ha ha, yeah, the bill's all about Marxism and the long march towards govt. control of EVERYTHING - Right . . . How about owning up our responsibility towards stewardship of the earth? Oh, I see, that takes a back seat towards corporate profitability because GOD gave us this planet to use to procreate and make some dough, once it's all used up the messiah will come down and take the chosen ones away right? If that isn't how you see it poppy or seeu, tell me different.

Pop, I'm glad you think you're smarter than a third grader. I prefer to get my political commentary from this guy over Beck, at least he's funny.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/223279/march-31-2009/the-10-31-project

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

You make my argument for me when you admit your knowledge of events is from a comedian. HA HA HA. As far as the earth, we all do are parts to leave it as we found it. This dumba$$ bill will do nothing to clean up the earth, as I said before, it is a power grab tax attack. Enjoy the sunny day.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 2 months ago

Ummm...Glenn Beck just went on a Comedy Tour. Your "slip" is showing.

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

I'll put my comedians info up against your comedians info any day, and you actually do wear slips and hose!!!

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 2 months ago

Only on stage, but thanks for watchin'. And my comedian can beat up your comedian, so there!

0

nikobesti 5 years, 2 months ago

Hey popcan, I'll answer your silly question. Why aren't there more green jobs?

Because 85% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.

You must be confused. That's exactly what this bill is trying to change. You don't see effects of policy before it is instated.

I don't like that this bill could push production to China where there are no similar measures. We won't make much of a dent in world carbon emissions. However, we need to do SOMETHING to curb our use of oil. If they added a tariff on imported good that used fossil fuels, that might do the trick. We also need a gradual gasoline tax.

"I have been an oilman for 50 years, so it may seem odd for me to predict that our days of pumping gas into our cars is over. Here's the problem with oil: The world currently produces 85 million barrels daily. Production volume will not rise. Yet as third world countries become greater consumers of oil, the resource will become more valuable. I predict that by the end of this year the price of a barrel of oil will rise to $75. In three years it'll be back up to $150. In 10 years, if America has done nothing to cut our dependence on oil, we'll be importing 70 percent of our oil and paying $300 a barrel for it. We had better do something about it before we have a disaster on our hands." --T. Boone Pickens

History will look back on any legislation to create market signals to push us towards alternative energy sources as a huge positive step for America.

0

nikobesti 5 years, 2 months ago

A few more points for popcan and seeuski:

Europe has made significant strides is reducing their dependence on oil by using similar measures. Europeans' per capital oil use is much much lower than ours. We use 68.672 bbl/day per 1,000 people. The UK uses less than half that, 29.008 bbl/day per 1,000 people. That's very substantial. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con_percap-energy-oil-consumption-per-capita

Reducing our use of oil isn't only important for our environment. It's critical for our economy. There's absolutely no question which direction energy is moving in the world right now. The question is do we want to lead, or do we want all our alternative energy innovators to move their companies to Germany instead of making money for America. We're better off shifting jobs gradually now than a more drastic decline of the oil industry.

0

nikobesti 5 years, 2 months ago

Finally, let's talk climate change. Here's a list of 28 scientific organizations concurring with anthropogenic climate change: 1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 2. Joint science academies' statement 2007 3. Joint science academies' statement 2005 4. Joint science academies' statement 2001 5. Network of African Science Academies 6. U.S. National Research Council, 2001 7. American Meteorological Society 8. Royal Meteorological Society (UK) 9. World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 10. American Geophysical Union 11. American Institute of Physics 12. American Astronomical Society 13. American Physical Society 14. Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006 15. National Center for Atmospheric Research 16. American Association for the Advancement of Science 17. Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London 18. American Quaternary Association 19. Geological Society of America 20. American Chemical Society 21. Federation of American Scientists 22. Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia) 23. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society 24. The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society 25. European Geosciences Union 26. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics 27. International Union of Geological Sciences 28. International Council for Science

I would like to know who you would have us believe if it's not these organizations. What science are we to believe besides the thousands of studies published concurring with these conclusions? Let's see, should I trust the American Institute of Physics, or some dude that calls himself 'popcan' on the Steamboat Pilot forum?

0

Fred Duckels 5 years, 2 months ago

I don't know if the warming theory has merit or not, but nuclear is our only option if we are to move away from carbon. It is scary to hear the left loons try to convince us of the magic of wind and solar. Add the theory that they want to control our lives to that, and it is starting to make sense.

0

nikobesti 5 years, 2 months ago

Fred, you must not be aware of this climate change legislation.

The House-passed bill contains provisions to make it easier to get loan guarantees and expands the nuclear industry's access to loans for reactor construction, a big problem for that industry. An Environmental Protection Agency analysis that shows modest future costs from a low-climate energy world assumes a significant expansion of nuclear energy. Plus, nuclear power would benefit greatly from a cap-and-trade system because the technology does not emit carbon dioxide. The Senate could add more incentives for the nuclear industry.

Some "loons" might not want nuclear, but obviously the liberals that matter (the policy makers) understand its importance. We're going to need EVERY kind of energy in a post peak oil world.

0

Fred Duckels 5 years, 2 months ago

Niky, O has to wash out his mouth everytime he mentions nuclear and "clean coal". The nuclear option has been the Republican view and now he wants to jump on the bandwagon. When he first got in office, he cut the funding for Yucca Mtn. Sounds like a real nuclear buff. As with Georgia and Iran he will eventually determine the direction of the political winds, after he has been told over and over. Not the one that we need when he has to get it right the first time. The fact that he has control of the congress with his Chicago mafia is something that I predict that we will regret for generations. On the job training for these thugs is going to be a huge price to pay.

0

Fred Duckels 5 years, 2 months ago

Europe seems to be the idol of some, with their wisdom. They can consume less, but they do not have much of a military burden, that falls upon our shoulders. If we stopped spending on defense we could lood pretty good from certain perspectives. Think of the last century devoid of an enforcer, we night not be blogging here today. O goes to Europe and apologizes, standing in front of thousands of our tombstones. He is begging them not to be mad at us. God help us!

0

Viper 5 years, 2 months ago

Matt. did it ever occur to you that the price of airline tickets and lift tickets are going to go through the roof if the Statists pull this off? A ski vacation is going to cost a lot more. Do you really think we will still be able to pull off a million skier days with these higher prices?

If this nonsense becomes law, it is going to be a lot tougher on Steamboat than any of you GWers think.

0

the_Lizard 5 years, 2 months ago

The number of scientists that no longer subscribed to the global warming conspiracy is growing. "Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program."

"The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

0

popcan 5 years, 2 months ago

Nickobesti: Your list of references for scientific climate organizations is just one side of opinions on the Climate Cooling, Global Warming, Climate change or what your scar tactic for the week is. Now a common sense thinker as me can easily tell you that there are just as many scientific organizations out there that will tell you that Global Warming is a bunch of crap. So there is no point with that debate. If there is an oil problem, then why don't we extract the oil we have here? Job creation huh? Probably create more jobs extracting oil then Tax and Crap Legislation. I believe T. Boone Pickens is in charge of this new Global Green Windmill scam along with G.E. Let me tell you somethng else Nickobesti : I take advice from the best think tanks out there that are for Capitalism and yes MAKING MONEY! I want my freedom, putting money and the bank and building my family. The last thing I am going to do is support a Green Scam! Perhaps if you have a fricken brain in your head, people making a profit can donate money to a WORTHY environmental cause in which a majority of the country can agree on without GETTING THE DAYLIGHTS scared out of them and being threatened continusoly.

0

popcan 5 years, 2 months ago

Nickobesti: What do you mean by my question "Where are all the Green jobs?" is a silly question? Unemployment is very high right now. Is that silly? Nickobesti : Why is unemployement so high. If green is so good, everybody should be happy working green jobs! Right? Come on Climate Change : Let me sum it for you. The climate has changed in the past, changes in the present, and of course will change in the future with or without us.

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

Niko, This bill is a disaster and will not do what you wish for. You may find this a little weird but I want the same things you do. A complete reversal of our dependence on foreign sources of fuel and a move towards more efficiency in our use of fuels and energy, and if that just happens to change the climate to your liking well shiver me timbers. It's just that we will still be needing oil and gas for many years to come and as we develop and we increase the use of newer green technologies we should use our far superior drilling technologies here in our known vast supplies of untapped oil and gas, not punish the people with huge taxes. But because of sweetheart deals that politicians have had with foreign suppliers for decades there is and will be resistance to that change. So I guess we will just go ahead and continue to let third world countries dirty the air and water over there while we have feel good wealth transfer policies over here. Oh, and the billions of our dollars that these countries get from us monthly can continue to be used for weapons and terrorism against us. Great!

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

Oh no!!! CBS NEWS is reporting a breaking scandal in the Obama Administration regarding the cover up of scientific evidence opposed to Global Warming. What now???

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml?tag=pop

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

"Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT. His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing.

After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."

Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature.

If there is a need for the government to lower planetary temperatures, Carlin believes, other mechanisms would be cheaper and more effective than regulation of carbon dioxide. One paper he wrote says managing sea level rise or reducing solar radiation reaching the earth would be more cost-effective alternatives.

The EPA's possible suppression of Carlin's report, which lists the EPA's John Davidson as a co-author, could endanger any carbon dioxide regulations if they are eventually challenged in court. "

Exactly what we, I, popcan and and others, have been saying on this forum. I hope the Senate thinks deeply before going along with the fools in Congress and Obama with hr-2454. Our future depends on it.

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

So Soren and the rest can sleep at night knowing that the snow levels won't creep up Mt. Werner and the Oceans wont rise 20' or the Polar Bears wont get stuck on that lone ice cap. Whew!

0

Fred Duckels 5 years, 2 months ago

Seeuski, The CBS article might explain why the administration only wants to major in minors when going to alternate fuels. If a catastrophy was imminent, nuclear would be about the only way to make a dent in our needs. The solar-wind option is inconsequential, but by going this way, it allows them to introduce socialism and take all our freedoms away. One of the main motives is to tamp down our consumption. They want to go away from carbon with no alternatives, eliminate local production of carbon and we have the perfect recipe for suicide.

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

There's an ulterior motive in this with the Dems. Control and power.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 2 months ago

And for those who didn't read the CBS story, as seeuski obviously didn't judging from the 1st paragraph of the cut & paste, Carlin has and Undergraduate in physics and a PHD in ecomonics...not the other way around. I guess that should easily trump all 28 institutions that nikobesti mentioned. I guess those institutions only rely on "scientists" with GED's.

I also seemed to remember the EPA censoring a certain Dr. James Hansen (go ahead and Wiki him- he's an actual scientist on environmental studies) under the Bush Administration.

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

Stoddard, Are there any scientific studies or dissenting opinions by scientists that disagree with the Al Gore group of scientists?

I don't know much about science but others do. And I think they make a lot more sense than you or Al Gore's gang.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

I say we do our best to conserve and use technology to have better efficiency but we don't put our lives in the hands of politicians. Freedom is not free and once they take it we will have to fight all over again to get it back. And you can bet people will get mad enough when they start seeing the costs of this power grab.

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

James Hanson, Do you mean the anti Bush Hanson who once believed we were heading into an ice age? Maybe you should read up on your poster boys a little more. Reading is good.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

"Gray criticized NASA scientist and global warming alarmist James Hansen, calling him "the most egregious abuser" of data. According to Gray, Hansen's alarmism is exaggerated because the models he uses to predict the increase in global warming count on too much water vapor in the atmosphere. "

Junk science. It reminds me of spy vs. spy.Pretty cool. http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080304113132.aspx

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

"Theon says the same kind of models that now predict runaway warming were predicting runaway cooling prior to 1975, when the popular fear was not melting ice caps but a new ice age, and "not one model predicted the cooling we've had since 1998." Spencer insists "it's all make believe--if you took one look at the assumptions that go into this, you'd laugh." But none of that seems to matter too much."

Just a statement from a non Gore scientist.

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

I really believe you guys are hoping for global warming to prove your point. I think these scientists bring enlightenment and relief from the fear mongering. I feel the universe is involved in unison with weather patterns and the interesting thing is apparently Mars shows signs of melting glaciers similar to ours. Could the sun be the big source here?

http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=681

0

knee_dropper 5 years, 2 months ago

Nice post seeu, next time you should actually bother to read the headline of your link, instead of absent-mindlessly googling and pasting links.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Crackpot Scientist Says

I actually encourage you to read it, you might actually learn something :-)

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 2 months ago

You're one sentence says it all. Thanks for providing it:

"I don't know much about science but others do. And I think they make a lot more sense than you or Al Gore's gang."

If you don't know that much about science, how can you claim a small, dissenting view outweighs others? Yet you decide to put aside nikobesti's 28 listed institutions in favor of an economist's view. Words of wisdom, indeed. LOL!

Now- did you read the 98 page submission? I did and while "I don't know much about science," I can read. A lot of what he writes is based on pure conjecture and it even states so.

Executive Summary page iv, section b states that "there seems to be a strong association between solar sunspots/irradiance and global temperature flucuations." No duh. Sunspot activity is about on it's same low as about 25yrs about (roughly in that mid-80's time period Carlin refers to.) Yet the Earth is also about .4C degrees hotter than it was back then.

Guess what? Sunspots are also involved with Solar flares, due to sunspots having intensified magnetic field areas. Guess what? Solar flares give off high degrees of X-ray and UV rays, especially the UV-B rays which are harmful to terrestrial life. Guess what helps protect us from those harmful rays? Our depleting Ozone Layer. Remember that from the 80's when CFC's were banned because they contributed to depleting the Ozone Layer?

Guess what? Humans were the ones emitting CFC's into the atmosphere. As of September 2006, it was recorded that a hole in the Ozone Layer existed pretty much the size of Antarctica. Having that much UV come thru can help increase the temperature of the Earth.

Wiki it yourself.

Also, Carlin (still just in the Exec Summary) admits that his "science" could be disproved in the "future." That's what this is about, right? Leaving our children a huge deficit is a concern to you, I guess, but you don't care if you help leave them an atmosphere.

Yes, history has shown the Earth changes naturally, but history has never taken into account that one of it's species would knowingly, willingly and purposely take an active role in worldly effects. We've had less than 200yrs of industrial revolution, but I'm betting we have had/are having a profound effect on the natural cycle.

Again- Carlin is an economist 1st, and a physicist 2nd. He's thinking with his wallet, which exists in the now and that's all he cares about.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 2 months ago

knee- I've said it plenty of times before and proved it with seeuski's own links: he/she does not read the articles, just the tagline that suits the need to believe, no matter how incorrect.

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

I t must be good if the blood pressure runs so high.

Knee, the data involving Mars is being rationalized away in that blog because they are global warming believers like you and Stoddard. Unless you can find me a GM factory and OPEC on Mars I am going to stick with the sun. I do think it has been proved that we all revolve around it. Oh and Stoddard, I am going to lose sleep tonight because of my carbon footprint. What a croc. So if you read a few articles you become the maven on climate change? WOW! So I will continue to be honest and admit I know little about the earths atmosphere, I guess I'll have to rely on Soren Jesperson and Al Gore right?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

http://www.opponion.com/about329.html

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0

Cut and paste here we go. This guy must be a crackpot huh Kneejerker? To just blow off a scientist because his studies don't agree with your politics is wrong.What we will be forced into by politicians is sadistic.

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

Oh, and nikobetsi lists not one person, just a bunch of organizations. That's like listing a bunch of unions that support Obama. Woo hoo. Politics make strange bedfellows.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 2 months ago

Start reading, seeuski. Mars' atmosphere is 95% Carbon Dioxide (And what, class, is CO2 listed as??? A Greenhouse Gas. Venus is 97%, just to let you know.) as it is now, while only .038% on Earth. That argument is crap. Plus, we've been studying the Earth a lot longer than Mars, so we don't know what it's atmospheric composition has been over the last few billion years. That much CO2 may have been it's natural state since God knows when...just proving that more CO2 in our atmosphere could be catastrophic. Thanks for making the case! LOL!

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

Ha Ha, You are arguing with scientists not me.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 2 months ago

1) No, I'm agreeing with scientists. You are agreeing with an economist. 2) I guess all those instutions have no actual people behind them...just holograms. sigh (rolls eyes)

Also, take into account that it took human population from approximately 10,000 BC to about 1810 to reach 1 billion people. Almost 12,000 years, approximately.

2 Billion by 1930ish- about 120yrs 3 Billion by 1961ish- about 31yrs 4 Billion by 1974ish- about 13yrs 5 Billion by 1988ish- about 14yrs 6 Billion by 2000ish- about 12yrs 7 Billion estimated by 2011ish- about 11yrs

The estimates up to 2050 come in around 10 billion. 9 billion people in 240 years. Doubled since the late 80's. Think that's not going to have an effect? More people to feed and seeking a place to live. That means either growing upward or outward. More people driving than ever before, putting out more fumes. More industrialized nations in countries still developing in those ways. Yeah- I'm betting on the scientists...not the economist.

You're starting to remind me of this young kid on Grand Theft Auto IV online trying to convince everyone he's an adult. It's funny and sad at the same time. You really are embarrasing the Conservative movement and people such as yourself are why people like me aren't voting for our own party any longer.

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

What a joke! You were never a conservative. You remind of the people who call in to c-span on the Republican line and then preach liberal ideology. You are not a scientist and your fuzzy math is of no consequence. What is in your little mind? Controlling human population? Sounds kind of Naziesque to me. Why not comment on the actual scientists like Gray and Abdussamatov that I sited or does that not help your agenda?

0

knee_dropper 5 years, 2 months ago

Seeu, since you still aren't reading your links. Here's some pertinent information in them you won't be interested in.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html

"Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural-and not a human-induced-cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University."

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)"

http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=681

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural-and not a human- induced-cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

If true this of course raises some serious questions about the current warming trends here on earth, and skeptics (like the one in the National Geographic article) are jumping over this as proof that climate change on earth is not cause by humans. As usual of course none of the skeptics are able to back up their claims with peer-reviewed data. Secondly this 'study' was conducted over a 3 (Martian) year period, which is hardly long enough to separate a long-term trend from seasonal variations, such as the cooling trend since the 1970s.

to the extent it is sensible to speak of a mean temperature for Mars, the evidence is for significant cooling from the 1970's, when Viking made measurements, compared to current temperatures. However, this is essentially due to large scale dust storms that were common back then, compared to a lower level of storminess now.

Luckily real scientists have an explanation for the recent shrinking of the Martian ice caps.

The shrinkage of the Martian South Polar Cap is almost certainly a regional climate change, and is not any indication of global warming trends in the Martian atmosphere. Colaprete et al in Nature 2005 (subscription required) showed, using the Mars GCM, that the south polar climate is unstable due to the peculiar topography near the pole, and the current configuration is on the instability border; we therefore expect to see rapid changes in ice cover as the regional climate transits between the unstable states."

"To just blow off a scientist because his studies don't agree with your politics is wrong."

Again, right out of your linked article-

"Presenting both sides to a story can be important, when there is legitimate debate, but when one side is backed by peer-reviewed data (good and reliable), and the other is backed by special interests (bad and unreliable), the media should weigh each side appropriately."

0

Scott Wedel 5 years, 2 months ago

Global warming has been actively researched since the early 70s. The days are long past of global warming being about one scientist or researcher. Al Gore has not done any research. All he has done is publicize some of the science and some of the projections. Doubting global warming is comparable to doubting quantum dynamics. There are some effects which are not completely understood, but a cell phone works because of some of the well understood parts of quantum dynamics.

Global cooling has more in common with cold fusion than with well researched science. It was closer to a publicity stunt in Newsweek with extensive hyperbole than to serious science. And even some of the scientific papers mentioned that the warming effects of atmospheric CO2 could overwhelm any possibility that orbital effects or a more reflective planet could be leading to a new ice age.

0

the_Lizard 5 years, 2 months ago

Popcorn; the green jobs you've been promised are nothing but government subsidized busy work. Does anyone really think that solar and wind are ever going to pay for themselves...ever? Or be an efficient form of energy for the masses...ever?

0

nikobesti 5 years, 2 months ago

Popcan, you first.

If my references are "just one side of the opinions" on climate change, which are the credible scientific organizations that make up the other side? Please provide them for me. I don't care what right-wing think tanks say, I don't even care what Al Gore says. When it comes to climate change, the only credible voices are climate scientists.

The organizations I listed are the first and foremost in climate science. Are you and seeuski saying they're intentionally misrepresenting science? See, to suggest that somehow there is a grand conspiracy in the scientific community to misrepresent human's role in climate change is ludicrous. That would be a conspiracy that makes the 9/11 inside job conspiracy child's play in comparison. Wow, they even got to organizations in Australia and Africa-what a wide-ranging conspiracy! Plus, a scientific conspiracy of this magnitude is not only impractical, it's impossible. "Junk" science and any incorrect assertions are taken care of through the scientific method. The scientific method was designed specifically to disprove assertions (hypotheses). So far, there literally thousands of peer-reviewed papers supporting anthropogenic climate change. I'm waiting for you to just show me one study that proves this hypothesis to be false.

I am fully in favor of developing our own oil and gas resources in America, as long as it's done right. So is Obama. Tell me what he's done to stop this development. Putting alternatives on equal footing with fossil fuels is not curtailing oil and gas development. We are still drilling for oil and gas, and we will continue to do so under this policy.

I called your question about green jobs "silly" simply because you are maintaining that there should be millions of green jobs already, while the market has been rigged in favor of oil jobs for years. Just wait a few years and you'll see those green jobs.

You guys know we've already done the cap and trade thing for acid deposition, don't you? Did that spell the death of the US economy as we know it?

0

nikobesti 5 years, 2 months ago

Seeuski, I am happy to see that you have the same goal in mind that I do: An energy independent USA with a thriving economy; and I'm equally glad that you realize transitioning to alternative energy technologies is the way to get there (yikes, that is a little weird!). I also agree that we need to continue to responsibly develop our domestic oil and gas resources. However, we need to put in place some market signals that moves us in that direction faster than we are now. Innovators and manufacturers of alternative energy technologies need the confidence and certainty to be able to invest in these technologies. Of course you know oil and gas companies already get huge subsidies. All we're asking for is an even playing field.

America uses 25% of the world's energy and holds 2% of the world's oil. How does drilling more oil wells get us where we need to go? This only furthers our dependence on foreign oil. We need to get off that dependence ASAP. Last thing on this topic: If you also want to eventually see an America free of Middle East oil, how do you propose we get there?

Finally, on your EPA climate change CBS article: If the Obama administration did bury this report, that angers me. It would not only make him as bad as Bush as far as ignoring science, but it would also make him a hypocrite. I don't even care if the guy is an economist and doesn't know what he's talking about. The report should be shared with the scientific community, and if he is a fraud, he should be publicly embarrassed. Let the experts discredit it if it's false. He might be raising many of the arguments that have already been discredited, but we won't know until we see the report. I don't think the science on climate change is completely settled. Let me clarify: I think the notion that humans are affecting global climate is a slam dunk, but what we don't know too well yet is what exactly will happen in the future (climatology is extremely complex). There is a lot more research to be done and there's never anything wrong with a scientific discussion.

0

the_Lizard 5 years, 2 months ago

The most telling part about the Carlin story is not that he has a phd in economics and an undergraduate degree in physics. The important thing is his research was SUPPRESSED. It didn't fit the political and legal needs of this administration, so they shut him up. This administration has an agenda and the EPA nedded to be 100% on board. This email proves that agenda.

""The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. :. I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."" http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Endangerment%20Comments%206-23-09.pdf

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 2 months ago

Viper- It already costs a lot. And I'm not a Global Warming alarmist. I just believe in clean air to breathe. And, if I can help put down misinformation at the same time, I'm all for that, too.

Lizard- I see: it doesn't matter that Carlin admits that he is guessing in the article and even says that future studies may indeed prove him wrong (way to have confidence in your theory) but it's being repressed that matters...even if it's conjecture that has already been taken into account. And mass production of anything can eventually pay for itself.

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

Good work Lizard, although Stoddard will continue to bash Carlin he will ignore the many Scientists that you refer to. Niko, I am not a GW alarmist but I do like to leave our environment as close as possible to how we got it. I remember as a kid in the sixties riding up 95N through B-more to NJ and into NYC and I will never forget the orange skies, it was freaky. The pollution in those days was bad and we have come a long way since with emissions standards and inspection requirements etc. We can do more and we will, but I am not for the craziness that the HR-2454 bill prescribes. It is a tax bill and will be another way for this administration to spread the wealth. I understand to most of you who voted for Obama this seems nutty but to those of us who are not mesmerized we are seeing the loss of freedom and the sneaky transfer of wealth that was promised by Obama.
The firing of Inspector Walpin when he produced his report on the nearly 1 million$$$ theft of tax money to Kevin Johnson is a the tip of the iceberg I feel. Secondly, transferring our production, while needed over the next few decades,of fossil fuels to 3rd world countries who have no regulations on pollution is not going to change the green house emissions for the better.

0

carlyle 5 years, 2 months ago

I've attached an article relevant to this discussion. http://64.4.26.249/att/GetAttachment.aspx?file=c6807ad1-e00b-40db-a486-8390756bedb0.mht&ct=bWVzc2FnZS9yZmM4MjI_3d&name=RnJvbSBBcHJpbCAyMDA5IGFydGljbGUgICAgICBmdW5ueS5taHQ_3d&inline=0&rfc=0&empty=False&imgsrc=&hmlogin=tmkellyjr&hmdomain=hotmail.com&ip=10.1.106.210&d=d285&mf=0&hmts=Tue%2c%2030%20Jun%202009%2015%3a41%3a18%20GMT&hmha=01_fc64132faf21c525792007d88d36dc4c418f57999b063c0df0fcaf8524f05cb3&oneredir=1

0

Scott Wedel 5 years, 2 months ago

What does it mean to be a skeptic? Does it mean that the person has data or chemistry showing that atmospheric CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Does it mean that the person thinks there are other contributing forces? Does it mean that the person thinks planting trees or some other step would have no impact? Does it mean that the person thinks Czech or France is already efficient enough and that the US, China and India are the places that have to cut CO2 emissions?

0

Scott Wedel 5 years, 2 months ago

Wind has been produced for decades in Altamont Pass in northern California. Wind turbines can now be found in many places including eastern Colorado. The issue now is that people tend to not live in the windiest places and there is a lack of transmission lines for some of the best areas.

And there is some nasty local politics in that some of the states are not willing to help build the transmission lines to move the electricity out of their state to where there are existing customers. They want their state to have plentiful cheap clean electricity in order to try to attract industry.

We have seen regionally how the ability to move energy (nat gas pipelines) can dramatically affect production and exploration. So it should be obvious that building the transport infrastructure is critical to making production (installing wind turbines) viable.

0

Fred Duckels 5 years, 2 months ago

It seems strange that those leaning left seem to have cornered the market on science. I don't understand how political views fit into an equation. I guess that I need more schooling.

0

arnonep 5 years, 2 months ago

On this date in 1934 the flow of the Yampa river was 45 cfs.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 2 months ago

1) Carbon emission in the last 260 years http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/CO2/CO2small.gif

2) Global temperature graph from the last 150 years http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg

3) Global temperature vs man-made carbon emissions in the last 130yrs (note that the discrepancy mentioned from '45-'75 was due to sulfate aerosols from burning coal. Read it to understand it.) http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif&imgrefurl=http://zfacts.com/p/226.html&usg=__XD08jvmml62CFN3oOJq3C60HbOA=&h=377&w=526&sz=11&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=nTfsGEnCU9FqPM:&tbnh=95&tbnw=132&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dglobal%2Btemperature%2Bgraph%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26um%3D1

4) Temperature vs Sunspot cycles vs total solar irradiance (TSI). Note in the last 25yrs the temperature has skewed far upward compared to sunspot & TSI cycles. http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/cycles.jpg

Now, we all know seeuski hasn't actually read any of Carlin's 98pg report nor has read the Senate Minority 290ish pg report. Carlin already has admitted that future science could prove him wrong and the SM report is mostly vague quotes with links to their reports...which also express a lack of full confidence in their findings. The temp graphs also don't support one of the scientists claim that we are in a cooling period.

Whomever attributed Mars as the equivalent of Earth by way of natural solar warming is forgetting 2 things:

1) Mars is further from the Sun, lessening the chance at this time in history to support life as we know it. Who's to say what it was like billions of years ago when it was much younger until we can study it up close and in greater detail.

2) As I stated earlier, Mars' atmosphere is already 97% carbon dioxide.

3) Mars has no vegetation to convert any CO2.

What most of the natural cycle of global warming doesn't show is man-made pollutants in the air. The graphs show a steady increase related to the influx of more human on Earth that have ever lived before, adding a billion people every decade on average in the last 35yrs alone. That means more people driving, more natural resources being consumed, less vegetation that ironically uses the CO2 to breathe back oxygen into our lives.

cont'd

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 2 months ago

con't from above:

As for Greenland, while ice core samples from the medieval range do show that it had a much warmer, mild climate, further studies show Greenland experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times in over 100,000 years.

I think we can all agree that the Earth, due to the Sun, has a natural cycle of warming and cooling. I just find it hard to accept we have no stake in skewing results that date back eons when humanity has grown so quickly in just less than half a century, with increased industrial pollutants coming from that many new people who have made their way into the the industrial age. It's common sense that as a species, we can only have a greater impact than all other species who have ever lived...because we do things to the planet they have never been able to do...create things not found in nature.

(Let's hope global geomagnetic reversal theories don't also come into play.)

0

popcan 5 years, 2 months ago

Knee_dropper and other Libs ... You will be long dead by the time any climate change occurs. You keep bringing up the future in which you have absolutely no control over, none! Your progressive president, progressive 16+ Czars, and congress will break Steamboat Springs and other areas in a very short time. Just like GREEN, VERY GREEN CALIFORNIA. Broke California, gee did the Congress Critter (Henry Waxman) from California sponsor HR-2454 Tax bill? We really need to follow California huh Knee_Dropper? Maybe Steamboat Springs is right on track with California with going down the green tube financially. More tourist business will be going down soon due to worries of very high taxes. Remember! Tourists pay bills first then play. You want to play Green and throw away your money to corrupt federal government go ahead. If you really study this issue about the btu tax (Crap and Tax) you will see that it is bottomless pockets waiting for your money. Our country was founded on Freedom not Socialism. Why don't you green liberals move to Europe and play socialist over there

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

Global temp graph charted by climatologists instead of Stoddards buddy Gore.

http://longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

Since Stoddard likes to cherry pick pieces of the Alan Carlin's statement to suit him here is the actual paragraph in full. This man sounds pretty honest to me as science can change in time. The link to the actual report. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/endangermentcommentsv7b1.pdf

"I do not maintain that I or anyone else have all the answers needed to take action now. Some of the conclusions reached in these comments may well be shown to be incorrect by future research. My conclusions do represent the best science in the sense of most closely corresponding to available observations that I currently know of, however, and are sufficiently at variance with those of the IPCC, CCSP, and the Draft TSD that I believe they support my increasing concern that EPA has not critically reviewed the findings by these other groups."

0

knee_dropper 5 years, 2 months ago

Nice graph seeu, why aren't there any units for the y-axis on it? Other than the fact it doesn't have a y-axis, what exactly is the "nomadic time"? Are Harris and Mann predicting a new ice age, as there graph is showing a downward trend towards "colder?"

This is what an actual climate graph looks like.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig1.gif http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Comparison.png

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

Nah nah nuh nah nuh, My graphs better than your graph. Shoot the messenger I guess. Try reading the Carlin report maybe. How can you disagree with actual temperature readings?

0

knee_dropper 5 years, 2 months ago

Oops, broken link. Here goes

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Yeah, really shooting the messenger on that one. Calling out a suspect graph; it sure is pretty though.

0

Fred Duckels 5 years, 2 months ago

I always thought that we only had two certainties in life, death and taxes, but there is one more that I am sure of: I am more qualified to be president than the present prankster.

0

trump_suit 5 years, 2 months ago

Fred Duckels for President is truly a scary thought.

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

Yours has better colors, I like it it's pretty.

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

"Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans Tim P. Barnett,1* David W. Pierce,1 Krishna M. AchutaRao,2 Peter J. Gleckler,2 Benjamin D. Santer,2 Jonathan M. Gregory,3 Warren M. Washington4

A warming signal has penetrated into the world's oceans over the past 40 years. The signal is complex, with a vertical structure that varies widely by ocean; it cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences. Changes in advection combine with surface forcing to give the overall warming pattern. The implications of this study suggest that society needs to seriously consider model predictions of future climate change."

These are statements and agenda of Global Warming enthused scientists. Wow!

I am considering it alright, I'll try and curb exhaling.

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

Oh, and these are some of the people responsible for the pretty graphs you posted.

0

Scott Wedel 5 years, 2 months ago

Seeuski, It does you no good to cite some site of one guy (longrangeweather.com) that writes and posts his own articles that don't even include references. If you think that is a credible source of information then you have no basis for criticizing anyone else's source of information.

The Carlin report is long and detailed. It will be presumably be reviewed by experts to see if there are valid points.

I am no expert, but I observe that he cherry picks some data from the Hadley Center without clearly identifying the data. He says it is "land temp data", but it clearly not the "Global Average" chart produced by the Hadley Center. It appears to be Central England or Wales land temp data. That right there is enough to be fired for academic fraud.

And it mean that his paragraph cited above by seeuski is simply a lie because he is openly ignoring global observations while picking a particular observation.

If that is typical of the sort of work in Carlin's report then it will be ripped to shreds while he gets a job in some right wing (don't) think tank.

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

I think a conclusion to this argument is in order. No one will influence the other here. The Senate will decide our fate soon and the voters will decide theirs after.

0

Scott Wedel 5 years, 2 months ago

What you had trouble reading was scientists saying the oceans are getting warmer, it is caused by human activity and they have computer models that match the data.

I agree that Congress (the Senate will make changes and so the House and Senate will have to vote on the reconciled bill) will vote on a plan and the voters will decide theirs later.

I don't see why there is such confidence on the right that this will be the basis of a smashing victory for them. Seems to me that if the nightmare scenarios fail to come true then they become bad judgment naysayers and will get pummeled again at the ballot box.

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

Take a look at the staggering unemployment numbers that are rising monthly. Take a look at the spending habits of this President. Take a look at the 16 czars that Obama has hired in order to avoid House Lawmakers along with his firings of honest investigators who uncover corruption. Take a look at the nationalization of Industry by this President. Take a look at the International turmoil that is popping up around this President since his world apology tours. Take a look at the HR-2454 tax laws that are going to be imposed on an already struggling population. Items under consideration include a GPS tracking system for each of us in our fueled autos in order to add a monthly mileage tax in adition to the 70 cents a gallon increase that is in the bill. Not to mention the Health Care takeover and what that is projected to cost.

I think you should consider these Marxist style things that we are currently experiencing with this Administration and the Dem House and Senate along with the fact that a majority of Americans are for a Democratic style of Government guided by the laws as written in the Constitution before you promise too many election wins in the coming years. Just a thought.

0

Duke_bets 5 years, 2 months ago

seeuski - Take a look at how GW ruined the international view of America and our economy at the same time. Obama has only been president for 6 months. It will take Obama many years to fix the mess handed down by the past administration. Are you grumbling about gas prices and blaming that on the Dems too? When was gas the most expensive in history? Also, you stated that you were a Democrat a decade ago. Does that mean that you were swayed to the Republican favor by GW? That says it all.
BTW, addition has 2 d's.

0

jk 5 years, 2 months ago

Come on Matt there is no reason to rub seeyus nose in it he/she did that to themselves in the last post That was a rant Dennis Miller would have been proud of!

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 2 months ago

I will agree with seeuski that nobody is going to change their mind here, but let's take a looksee at the graph seeuski provided.

1) The graphs I provided had nothing to do with Gore, himself. I Googled Temperature Charts History and had a few pages to pic from on just images, that are links to specific sites.

2) seeuski's own graph, spanning about 4000yrs, notes that starting in the mid 1800- about the time we hit the 1 billion mark in estimated global population- the fluctuations grew more steady.

3) That same graph shows shorter periods of cold. Yes a lot of volcanic activity but everything from 2009 is based on what predictions of volcanic activity?

4) In fact, it estimates a high temp forecast in 2038 to reach a high on the chart of around 1100 BC, then a sudden downshift...based on what?

Solar irradiance plays a part in the warming, but I've already provided a chart showing recent decades hot/cold cycle outweighing the TSI. This is shown to be so during the latter few decades up until now.

Volcanic activity does play a part of cooling, as the graph seeuski provided points out. The volcanic ash plays an opposite to a greenhouse effect due to it's composition. The ash tends to block out the Sun and heat from the Sun, keeping it from reaching the Earth.

Wiki it.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 2 months ago

Excuse me: end of 2) should be the fluctuation became more rapid, not steady.

0

aichempty 5 years, 2 months ago

Matthew,

Volcanic activity is also responsible for a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere.

It occurred to me the other day that the CO2 data everyone is quacking about comes from the Mauna Kea observatory in Hawaii, on the Island of Maui.

Well, Aloha and Hawaiian airlines used to run hourly hops among the islands. I'll bet they still do. Because that old 737 lost it's top a few years ago, they have limited those airplanes to an enroute altitude of 15,000 feet to reduce metal fatigue from the pressure changes. Maybe the Mauna Kea observatory at 14,000 feet is getting its CO2 boost from jet exhaust. I wonder if anyone has looked at that?

0

knee_dropper 5 years, 2 months ago

Aich, the data comes from many places, not just Mauna Kea. The data between all these sites shows a correlation in the rise of CO2 concentration world-wide.

0

aichempty 5 years, 2 months ago

It would be very interesting to check the CO2 data from 9/11/2001 and the next few days when all the air traffic was grounded, and see if there was a dip when the jets weren't transporting the stuff up to the tradewind and jet stream altitudes.

Just a thought.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 2 months ago

aich- You are right about volcanoes spewing forth CO2, but according to this site's estimate, it's small in comparison to what humans put forth.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

If those estimates are correct, volcanic CO2 output annually is around 145-255 millions compared to human-caused output of 30 billion tons annually.

I am curious to see what you mentioned about 9-11, though. I just don't think a few days would have mattered much, overall. I've been trying to find it on the net, but haven't found anything that comes close to measuring just a few days in a time period. Interesting observation, though.

0

Scott Wedel 5 years, 2 months ago

Mauna Kea observatory is considered a better than average location for taking atmospheric measurements because it is relatively isolated and gets air that has had time to be well mixed traveling half way across an ocean. They are smart enough to isolate their measurements from any activity at that volcano.

The slowdown after 9-11 was too short and too isolated (just the US, not the whole world shutdown and not everything in the US was shutdown) to have a noticeable effect. Though, hey have already noticed a slowdown in the increase of CO2 due to the worldwide recession of the past year or so.

0

trump_suit 5 years, 2 months ago

Well spoken Howard. For once we agree.

Is it not possbile to have a real debate about these issues without resorting to personal attacks and innuendos?

0

seeuski 5 years, 2 months ago

Just wondering who's theory Scott considers to be the established or correct theory.

0

Howard Merken 5 years, 2 months ago

As a Ph.D. chemist and former professor, I know that science is often controlled by money. For example, a professor usually needs to do research, which requires funding. I learned a year or two ago while lecturing in Tennessee that it can be harder to get funding without repeating the global warming mantra.

Notice that I'm not saying that global warming is a problem or that it isn't. However, if I don't believe that it is, then I might have problems getting funding. Al Gore got a Nobel Prize. How dare I disagree with him! (Yassar Arafat got one, too.)

Research is often controlled financially by the companies or the government that sponsors it. It reminds me of the gag order given to a former chemist in North Carolina three decades ago who knew about the dangers of tobacco. He couldn't even talk to a reporter about it. Never mind the science, he'd be breaking the law by telling what he knew.

Science is often called upon by financial interests to do research. Guess what happens if the scientific findings contradict what the company or the government funding the research wants to do? Earlier this week in our newspaper, Paul Krugman called downplaying global warming "treason". OK, so if I'm a scientist and I don't agree with you, I'm a traitor?

Go to the library and order through Marmot (or Interlibrary Loan) a DVD called "The Atomic Cafe" to see just how looney government can be. I've often wondered how much scientific training Al Gore has had.

Again, notice that I'm not taking a stand for or against the opinions surrounding global warming. I only think we should be able to think, discuss, and research this area without the ad hominen attacks associated with politics. But then I guess I'm just a bit naive.

0

Scott Wedel 5 years, 2 months ago

I think Howard makes a very good point. Though, I wish he had also discussed the role of iconoclasts in science. The person that presents a different theory, keeps being told why it is wrong, keeps writing papers answering those questions and answering questions that other theories are having problems dealing with, and starts convincing others of the theory. And then becomes a leader in the field.

Very few iconoclasts turn out to be right so they rarely get funding until their theory keeps staying around and starts looking like it could be right.

Global warming is such a political topic that both right and left wing groups are funding scientists. So unlike typical areas of science, the global warming iconoclast might find politically motivated funding.

0

Howard Merken 5 years, 2 months ago

The problem of "theories" runs deeper than we think.

I've got a link to an article about bees from Bee Culture. I first saw it in print in a medical clinic waiting room. It mentions that the theory that honeybees dance to tell other honeybees where the food is has not withstood more critical analysis. It claims that bees really can tell by smell, that the honeybee dance (I saw diagrams in a book years ago) isn't for real, but that people have believed it so long that it has become factual.

As a creationist who has followed the evolution/creation debate and even taught on it at the collegiate level, I find both camps have had to change their minds on certain things. Secular scientists, probably none of whom believe what Darwin taught any more, are getting closer to a creationist model as more scientific evidence comes in. And creationists--the real scientists, not just scientists turned publicists--are realizing that things do change horizontally, and that we don't know why. The fact is that we don't even know exactly how genetics works, although textbooks pretend to. I'm amazed at what science has learned in my own lifetime, and we've got a way to go.

I say keep scientific debate open. We can exchange information openly without cutting each others' throats. (Here goes my naivite again.) I even find this can be true in religion (my other passion), but that's another story. My real concern is that a person can become a criminal for breaking a law that was passed for supposedly scientific reasons, and that years later, we change our minds scientifically. As I've read, teaching chemistry is flunking a student today for what turns out to be true tomorrow.

Bobby Fischer was arrested for playing chess, remember? Science doesn't scare me, not even scientific debate. But politicians...

0

Howard Merken 5 years, 2 months ago

By the way, I'm all for solar power, geothermal power (even if there's not much in the USA), and wind power. A recent trip to Oregon showed us large numbers of huge wind turbines around 50 miles or more out of Portland.

But here's another complicating factor.

I spent seven and a half years in Alaska. According to the Alaska constitution, 90% of what lies underground belongs to the people of Alaska. So, with 90% royalties given by the oil companies, Alaska has its Permament Fund, and gives annual dividends to all its residents, which can range from a few hundred dollars to well over a thousand dollars per resident per year.

Someone found natural gas on their property, but the State of Alaska said that it wasn't time for natural gas development in that part of the state then, and closed up the well with concrete. That was years ago. Remember the oil pipeline? Alaska is now (if my facts are right--I might be off in my timing) building a natural gas pipeline.

The lesson? Politics controls so much. We prided ourselves in what a bunch of individuals we were up there, especially while spending time in homesteads (some friends on those homesteads were living off food stamps, which shows you what a bunch of pioneers we really were). Yet 90% of our own wealth, if it lay underground (oil, natural gas, minerals, etc.) belonged to the people of Alaska. Good thing I spent most of my time in college dorms, where we benefited from the state (you should see their state universities--nice!). I didn't have to tangle with the state.

I simply wonder if, as the State of Alaska shut down a source of natural gas, other people are shutting down innovation. We have to stop pretending that Americans are on the top of the world technologically. That was true 50 years ago, but no longer. Denmark and Israel are implementing plans for a series of "gas stations" that turn renewable energy into something you can "pump" into your car. We're getting behind. I'm not talking conspiracy theories, just the difficulty we sometime have with replacing outdated technologies with newer, better ones.

0

Sara Gleason 5 years, 2 months ago

Just thought that I'd throw a source out there-

There is a web movie out there called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which actually discusses the science behind climate change. I know the title sounds a little melodramatic, but the science is really worth knowing about and let's face it, you probably would never ever hear about it from most media out there. I have been trying to find a hard copy or get Netflix to carry it, but, just like "Media Malpractice," I guess it's just easier not to challenge the status quo.

Anyway, check it out if you don't want to drink the Kool-Aid without tasting the lemonade first. Never hurts to try both, don't you think?

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 2 months ago

aich- In even a quick research of your statement, CO2 levels in the atmosphere as of 2007 show that the CO2 levels are 35% higher (in parts per million) than compared to 1832 ice core samples. It can dissipate over time, true, but not if we constantly pour more into the air. I believe that due to the recession, "CO2 output levels" are down...not the total concentration currently in the atmosphere, overall.

In fact, that right there should also help prove the human factor since that due to the recession, less people are driving, meaning less fuel being burned at a consistent rate, hence, less noxious fumes in the atmosphere.

As for photosynthesis, I believe you are correct. Unfortunately, with our population growing at a staggering rate (see my posted link further up the chain) that we keep paving over / consuming our plant resources, leaving less CO2 for plants to synthesize.

0

aichempty 5 years, 2 months ago

Matthew, Scott, Howard and All,

It's very interesting that the increase in CO2 appears to have slowed down due to the recession.

CO2 concentraton may be one of those things that can be viewed as a long-term average using Normal (Gaussian) bell-curve analysis. Many other natural phenomena are not Gaussian in nature, such as the exponential growth of infections during an epidemic. The Central Limit Theorem tells us that when we take repeated observations from ANY probability distribution, the "means" (averages) taken over time are Normally distributed.

So, anyway, the fact that average CO2 values have been observed to fall and that can be at least loosely correlated with the global recession, is very important information. It means that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not simply accumulating over time. We've got to keep pumping the stuff out to hold the concentrations up where they are today. Photosynthesis by green plants MUST BE removing CO2 from the atmosphere at a furious rate in order to prevent additive accumulation over time.

My point is that the atmosphere is not like a big barrel that we're filling with CO2. It's like a big barrel with a hole in the side so that a significant amount is being removed at the same time a greater amount is being added. Slow down what's pouring in, and the level will stay constant. Slow it down some more, and the level will drop.

Even if anthropogenic activity is causing the total CO2 concentration to increase over historical levels, photosynthesis is removing it 24 hours a day. I'm not a plant scientist, but my engineering background makes me suspect that plant growth increases as a result of increased CO2 available for photosynthesis, meaning that the solution grows at least in part to address the problem. There's a feedback in the environment that limits CO2. I suspect the whole process can be described by a complex set of differential equations that would show an increase in plant growth, resulting in increased CO2 consumption, as CO2 increases.

(continued)

0

aichempty 5 years, 2 months ago

(continued)

Plants require water, sunlight and CO2 to grow. O2 is a waste product of photosynthesis. They also require a certain temperature range which varies by plant. The thing we are not considering in all this speculation is the possibility of a backlash resulting in low CO2 in the atmosphere and a resulting drop in O2.

There are many geological records through the age of the Earth that point to sudden extinctions of animal life. So, why did fir trees, pines, etc., survive the event that killed off the dinosaurs? Why did small mammal species survive? What about sharks and alligators, turtles, etc? Could it be that an asteroid impact that caused global fires and consumed so much oxygen that large animals with hot-blooded metabolisms simply dropped in their tracks from lack of O2? Fire requires O2 to continue burning. Could it be that a short term event which consumed a lot of oxygen is responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs, and then the green plants and algae that consume CO2 got right to work and put things back into balance?

I don't think we have our fingers on the "destruct" button. I think we have our hands on the throttle of a much larger process that will limit itself by plant growth that will consume CO2 faster than we can pump it out.

The Earth was 10 degrees warmer during the days of the dinosaurs. Maybe that was thanks to higher CO2 concentrations, and resulted in faster plant growth, more O2, and the other environmental factors that nurtured dinosaurs for 100 million years.

Short of a global catastrophe resulting in extremely high CO2 concentrations and consumption of O2 (such as a Yellostone super volcano eruption, or an asteroid impact), I believe there is a limit to how much we can increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

People familiar with hydrodynamics, aerodynamics, etc., know that there is an upper limit on speed due to drag. Sailors (the kind that use sails) know that "hull speed" is an absolute maximum because the power required to push more water out of the way goes up exponentially as speed increases as the vessel approaches its "hull speed." This is why you see little tiny outboard motors on sailboats -- big 'ol outboards and larger engines running at full power won't make the thing go any faster once hull speed is achieved. You have to get up on a "plane" and skim along on a layer of bubbles to go faster, and that's not practical for vessels that require a large-displacement hull.

(continued)

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 2 months ago

Also, while it may be correct that during the time of dinosaurs, the Earth was 10 degrees warmer...but that's not a proper argument. There were no humans back then, so who can say whether that alone would have destroyed our species had it been flourishing back then.

By saying that, one can argue that yes- it was hotter and humans weren't even there to cause it. Or, one could argue that yes- while it was hotter, there were no humans there to actually exist because it was too hot on average. Take your pick.

0

Scott Wedel 5 years, 2 months ago

I think evolution and global warming are valid scientific theories. Just because a scientific theory is not yet so complete that it currently explains everything, does not mean it is false.

The amount of shared DNA between animals and the observed changes in bacteria that mutate so quickly show that evolution is the correct theory.

And increased atmospheric levels of CO2 will retain more heat energy in the lower atmosphere or simple physics is wrong. Exactly what that does to the climate is difficult to predict, but that does not mean it is safe to double or triple the levels of atmospheric CO2. We built cities based upon the current climate and the costs of modifying buildings, road, agriculture and so on to a different climate is not going to be cheap. It is going to cost less to emit less CO2 and limit the climate changes.

In one sense, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity with space time that can be warped proves Newtonian physics to be wrong. But it is also shows that for objects bigger than those at the molecular scale moving far slower than speed of light that calculations based upon Newtonian Physics are good enough.

I just went to Google and looked up the honey bee dance. And there are sites on the first page of results that say there is controversy regarding the amount of information, if any, communicated by the bees dance. It is also clear that the no information theory has problems and that scientists are trying to design studies to more clearly answer the question. So the bee dance is not some "fact" that cannot be questioned. The criticisms of the current theory are being tested. At this time, looks to me like the bee dance was given too much credit as being a pollen locator and that a pollen scent trail is actually more important. But the dance does appear to tell other bees a general direction to head to find the scent trail and whether it is near or far.

0

Scott Wedel 5 years, 2 months ago

Aic, Your overwhelming knowledge and brilliance at solving problems is wasted on us. You are apparently the only one who has thought about any of these issues and have come up with such creative solutions. Why don't you take it to the National Weather Service, CU, MIT and so on show how you have solved the great problems of the day.

And tomorrow you can create a grant unified theory for physics

0

aichempty 5 years, 2 months ago

(continued)

So, could it be that the CO2 concentrations back in dinosaur days are close to the limit of what can be achieved without something occurring on an astronomical or geological scale?

We know from local experience that a grease fire in an apartment can cause asphyxiation for people and animals. That's because the O2 was all used up. Was the CO2 concentraton in that apartment anywhere near a toxic level when the fire went out? Unlikely. If you've ever taken a whiff of CO2 (even from a Coke bottle) you know it gets your attention in a hurry. CO2 easily reaches toxic levels in a closed environment even if additional O2 is pumped in (did you see Apollo 13?).
Instead of people assuming that CO2 will continue to increase in concentration unless we "do something," I'd challenge the doomsdayers to figure out how much CO2 we'd really have to put into the atmosphere, and in how short a time, to achieve and sustain enough of the stuff to result in another 1 degree C increase in global average temperatures. We also need to track how much additional O2 is being produced as a result of the increased CO2.

So, everyone is assuming that we're going to hit a tipping point where the Earth will turn into Venus overnight. How about some tree-ring analysis to show the effects of higher CO2 on promoting plant growth, and atmospheric data on O2 content, to see if we're not already near the maximum CO2 concentration that can be sustained by the global economy?

We'll know we're in trouble when O2 peaks, and then falls. That will show us the limit on photosynthesis.

Scientific research in the past few decades has proved that life is incredibily robust. A warmer climate, with more soil available to host plants, and higher CO2 to nourish them, might make this world a better place to live. In the long run, our real danger is from another ice age.

(continued)

0

aichempty 5 years, 2 months ago

(Finally!)

So, instead of depending on statistical models and correlations to predict climate change, we need to look at the whole ecosystem and the fact that trends relied upon to predict disaster may not be capable of sustainment over the long run. Higher CO2 concentrations require "power" to be put into the system. It requires effort to keep CO2 levels up where they are. If this was not true, the Earth would already be like Venus, and we wouldn't be here at all. We might be able to eke out a few more parts per million of CO2 before the expense and trouble cause us to reach the limit, but there is a limit, nature will impose it. We're just along for the ride.

0

aichempty 5 years, 2 months ago

Matthew,

35% increase in CO2 from 1833 to present is in the neighborhood of 89 parts per million.

That's the same as 9 cents in $1000.

The actual percentage change in the atmospheric composition is only .0089%

Methane is the culprit. It's far higher than CO2, just much harder to measure in air samples from ice cores. CO2 is the canary in the mine, and methane is (literally) the deadly gas.

The only thing we can do by reducing CO2 is starve human beings. Instead of a tax on CO2, how about putting a tax on the source of the problem (people) and see how that one goes over?

0

aichempty 5 years, 2 months ago

Okay, this one is easy.

We all take that box of baking soda out of the refrigerator and dump it into the Yampa. It will flow down to the ocean and solve the acid problem. It's cheap, easy, and makes as much sense as anything else that's being proposed.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 2 months ago

35% in that time is a comparatively small amount, true...but in the history of things, it's a very short and significant time period, also.

Okay- in further study, ice core samples dating back almost 100,000 years show that up until 1832, the PPM count was fairly steady in the 250PPM range, that it's rise to about 380PPM has been within the last century.

Within the last century, our population has grown from 2 billion to just shy of 7 billion. More of the Earth is populated by humankind, which tends to pave over a lot of plant life in order to sustain itself, thereby lessening the amount of photosynthesis of CO2 into O2. So in essence, it's not about starving humans. It's about a growing population wiping out more agriculture for shelter and food. The less photosynthesis and more output combined will (and already does) have an effect. While we haven't reached critical mass yet, when will we? It's immenent unless we are as proactive in addressing it as we have been proactive in ignoring it.

0

aichempty 5 years, 2 months ago

Matthew,

Nobody is paving the ocean. 7 tenths of the surface is sea water, and phytoplankton use photosynthesis to produce food. Warmer water aids the process.

I think that if we did an honest analysis, we'd find we're already reaching the limit of CO2.

0

Viper 5 years, 2 months ago

Aichempty makes many good points that will never be considered by the GW religion crowd. It should also be noted that we are at or near peak oil. We can't keep the CO2 production at these levels much longer even if we wanted to.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 2 months ago

Good point, aich. Here's a counter-point based in 2004:

"Based on our present knowledge, it appears that as seawater CO2 levels rise, the skeletal growth rates of calcareous plankton will be reduced - as a result of the effects of CO2 on calcification," said co-author Victoria Fabry, of California State University, US."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3896425.stm

This means that very same things you cite that help absorb the CO2...and it does indeed do that in abundance for now...has been shown to damage those very same organisms, thus preventing them from being able to process the CO2.

This also states that the rate of absorption is sketchy since most of it occurs at the upper levels of the sea, since oceans "stir" very slowly. It goes on to summarize,

"On the time scale of several thousand years, it is estimated that about 90% of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions will end up in the ocean," said Professor Sabine.

But the key word here is "thousands" of years. In the shorter term, as the surface waters become more saturated, the ocean may become a less efficient sink for CO2. Just what that will mean for the Earth's climate, and for the marine ecosystem, is not quite clear yet."

Here's one from 2007, stating mostly the same type of information, but goes on to how the pH level average has dropped in the ocean over the past 2 centuries and predictions on what the next century could bring, including a range up to 550 PPM. There is no way I could understand someone thinking we've reached the limit when our population grows approximately by a billion people each decade, as estimated to 2050.

http://news.illinois.edu/news/07/0308oceans.html

Interesting observations all around, though, I'd say. This is why while I don't subscribe to human-made global warming, we are exacerbating it just by doing what we do.

0

aichempty 5 years, 2 months ago

Matthew,

Calcareous plankton are zooplankton; animals. They don't use photosynthesis (in most cases, unless the plants live inside the animals, which I think can happen in some) to produce their food.

Phytoplankton are plants.

When one variety of plankton is impaired, others tend to fluorish. The niches are open for exploitation.

We have too look at this problem as a full biological and planetary system in order to understand it.

Again, I'm gonna have to stick with the fact that unless oxygen content is actually falling, more CO2 just leads to more oxygen. Is there any science on that involved in this discussion? I haven't seen it.

More oxygen would be a good thing, up to a point. This is most likely why it's not being reported. This is a trail that needs sniffing.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 2 months ago

Very good, but the decreased pH balance in the ocean (ocean acidification) also has studies (still in their early stages) leading to the term of carbon overconsumption in certain phytoplankton species while others didn't. This means they may not be able to process the CO2 in the way they would normally, and that would have an impact on the coral reef systems in oceans, which face dissolution in elevated CO2 levels. A lot of marine life lives & thrives due to coral reef systems. It can end up being a vicious circle.

That's all for me. My head is hurting and Transformers is on again. Happy 4th!

0

aichempty 5 years, 2 months ago

Scott,

One of my former employers is the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. They manage the Hubble and several other current space exploration efforts. All of their money comes directly from the federal government.

Why do you suppose it is that the big university labs are not working on the global warming problem? It's really very easy. Competent scientists duck and run when their funding is threatened. If they are not finding the results that agree with the administration that's handing out the funding, they avoid getting involved with the work.

Even NASA gives lip service to the issue by "acknowledging" it without doing any research or publishing papers supporting the result. It's like southern politicians who had to "come on board" when civil rights laws were passed, even though they may have disagreed with the concept.

Statistical correlation and extrapolation doesn't work with climate models. They DO it, but it's flawed. It's like ignoring air resistance, the mass of a rope or the friction in a pulley in physics class. In the real world, it's a lot more complicated, and HISTORY indicates that when CO2 levels are higher and the Earth is warmer, plants grow bigger and faster and sequester the carbon. That's where we got coal and oil according to the current theories.

Ever wonder why it's cool after a thunderstorm? It's because convection of hot air rising causes cold air to flow down from high altitude. Without heat in the atmosphere, the Earth would freeze solid at the surface. It's done it before, and can do it again.

We cannot affect global temperatures by fiddling with the CO2. The reason for higher CO2 is that the temperatures are higher. Same effect in the end, but the cause so many claim is, in fact, the side-effect of warming. CO2 is a product of global warming, not the cause.

I can agree that human population growth may be responsible for warming on some level. I simply maintain that the amount of effort required to increase CO2 concentrations much above current levels cannot be sustained.

How can I say this?

Easy.

The population of the Earth has doubled several times since 1833. And in the same time, CO2 has only increased 35%. Population growth is exponential, but CO2 concentration growth is a shallow linear function. That don't make no sense if people are causing CO2. If the population of Earth would have to double from its present level to increase CO2 by another 80 ppm, there is not enough food and energy to sustain that kind of growth.

Consumption sequesters carbon. Our bodies are full of it. It comes from CO2 in the air, via plants, to us. We can't liberate enough of it to cause the proposed effects because we have to consume it to live. If CO2 in the air was proportional to human population growth, it wouldn't be up by 35%. It would be up by something like 400%.

0

aichempty 5 years, 2 months ago

Scott,

You'll notice that nobody else has come up with the answers, eh?

I've dealt with bull$#!+ from people who don't know enough to ask a valid question all my career.

People are looking for a simple solution to this mess that makes it the fault of western industrial societies.

Most non-scientists, and a lot of scientists, don't know that most of the discoveries that gave us our modern world happened by accident while the researcher was searching for something else. These include vulcanized rubber, analine dyes, x-rays, radio, radioactivity and almost everything about electricity and magnetism. The atomic bomb is ONE of the few inventions that was predicted from pure theory; Einstein's famous E=MC^2 equation. Not until that theory was validated by experiment (the confirmation being that the amount of energy released by the decay of a uranium atom was predicted by Einstein's equation) was it possible to construct a nuclear reactor or build a bomb.

And by the way, $mart@$$, I actually do happen to be working on the unified field theory. How about that?

0

Scott Wedel 5 years, 2 months ago

Aic, I am not an expert on all of the physical sciences involved in climate change to knowingly answer all of your questions.

If you are such an expert then you should not be letting your expertise go to waste on a blog, but you should be communicating with the experts, looking at their original research and writing peer reviewed papers. You could be the next Einstein that fundamentally changes science. You could change how the world understands climates and ecosystems.

I note that sources such as the Hadley Center are confident that the planet is warming, that it is caused by human activity and that any mitigating effects are being overwhelmed by the amount of greenhouse gases being produced. And there is concern that amplifying effects could make the effects worse.

It would be great if after proving global warming was not a problem that you came up with a grand unified field theory that is proven true.

0

Howard Merken 5 years, 2 months ago

Although I don't claim that we can look at things this simply, just boil some water. BEFORE the water really boils, you see bubbles in the water, since warm water doesn't hold dissolved gases as well as cold water. So one consideration is that the Earth is warming anyway, so the warming oceans can't hold as much carbon dioxide as they used to. In other words, global warming, specifically ocean warming, causes the increase in carbon dioxide levels, not vice versa. A chemistry professor told me that there was evidence for that. But I'm sure the whole issue is not as simple as that.

I like the remarks in the second paragraph in the post above. I mentioned this issue in my first post way above. Professors need funding, and they're unlikely to get it by not agreeing with the funding agency. We'd like to think science is objective, but money talks.

The writer is Ecclesiastes wrote, "The poor man's wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard". Later, the Greek philosopher Diogenes the Cynic said, "Love of money is the marketplace of every evil." Later still, the apostle Paul alluded to this when he wrote that "love of money is the root of all evil". Even if you don't love money, a professor usually has to live off research funding. It's as if you have to pay your own salary. Professors need to bring in funding, despite whatever salaries they make or whatever startup funds they're given. See Ben Stein's "Expelled" to see what happens to scientific dissidents. Whether you agree with Stein's conclusions or not, the fact is that science these days is often controlled by those higher than those actually working on the projects.

0

aichempty 5 years, 2 months ago

I find that the most dangerous people are those with an IQ around 125. They're smart enough to know theyr'e smarter than a lot of other people, but not smart enough to know how much they don't know. President Obama falls into this range of IQ.

These folks are smart enough to hear an idea and see some evidence and go, "THAT's IT!"

They don't take the next step of validation and verification of the result. That's where they fail in their responsibilites to the rest of mankind.

There are many scientific models of the "unknown" alternate solutions to problems, but my favorite comes from probability theory. It is always assumed that the area under a probability distribution function curve sums up to exactly 1.0 (100%). In some cases the distribution starts at "zero" and grows to the right (like with probability of an event occurring before, after, or at a given time). The right end of the curve goes out to "infinity." It's impossible to compute the probability of an event occurring at say, 10,000 years or later from the present. However, it's easy to compute the probability of an event occurring from "zero" to 10,000 years. Whatever is left over when you subtract that 0-10,000 value from 1.0 gives you probability of it happening later than 10,000 years after time zero.

The global warming controversy is not what we know. That's easy to compute. The part we don't know is way out there in the "tail" of the mathematical function that defines what the climate is going to do, but we don't have a clue what that mathematical function looks like. It's unknown.

Our current analysis is like saying that because a car can accelerate from zero to 60 in 5 seconds, it should be able to accelerate from zero to 120 in 10 seconds, and from zero to 180 in fifteen seconds. Ain't it obvious that the logic breaks down when the car can't go faster than 130 mph? Yet, people don't know enough about science to understand the amount we don't know about what's really going on.

People who stand up and spout unverified opinions as fact without personally verifying the results for themselves are on dangerous ground. And if you say, "we're not all scientists so we can't" then that's your problem, not mine. You should instead examine the engine driving your character and personality to determine why you're so willing to believe what one person says over another.

Hitler's Nazis used propaganda to justify the murder of millions of innocent people. The global warming issue is still in the propaganda stage for most Americans, and we should be spending more time on finding the facts and less time believing the things we want to hear. They might not be true.

0

knee_dropper 5 years, 2 months ago

I think more testing is required before we can say for sure what happens because forces beyond our understanding are influencing it.

0

aichempty 5 years, 2 months ago

Matthew,

You have to downshift or your brakes will burn up.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 1 month ago

aich- that means you need to actually do something to stop the car from going over it's projected speed limit...you downshift. That's exactly what I'm saying. Thanks for the analogy. It works quite well, in this case!

0

seeuski 5 years, 1 month ago

If Yellowstone National Park blows, like scientists fear and predict, will that effect the global weather patterns? Or will we have already saved the planet by Cap and Tax? Just curious.

0

aichempty 5 years, 1 month ago

sookie,

I'm trying to decide whether it would be better to stay put and "go" when Yellowstone erupts, or sell out and move to the eastern hill country in the hope that I might be able to survive it.

Hmmmm . . . perish in the pyroclastic flow, or fight off cannibal refugees from the cities. That's a tough choice.

0

aichempty 5 years, 1 month ago

Au contraire, mon ami!

(That means, wait just a cotton pickin' minute)

The analogy is exactly the opposite of what you proposed. The car is not going downhill. It is going uphill. In order to keep it going uphill, and especially to make it accelerate while going uphill, more power is required for each subsequent mph of speed than the one before. Why? The slope requires more power to keep going uphill, and more power to go faster, and even MORE power as wind resistance increases.

Ever noticed how the cars mostly all slow down heading up to the Eisenhower Tunnel? It's because of the slope, and the fact that less oxygen is available as you go up in altitude. Displacement hull boats can only go so fast, no matter how much power you give them; eventually the props just churn the water without pushing you any faster. Airplanes can only go so high before they don't have enough power to go higher.

Keeping the CO2 level up where it is requires a lot of energy. It cannot be sustained. The more you pump out, the faster it is reabsorbed and converted by photosynthesis back into solid compunds.

The primordial Earth had all CO2 and some nitrogen in the atmosphere, and no oxygen. Our current low levels of CO2 and high levels of oxygen are a sign of run-away plant growth and the resulting shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The CO2 level is less than 4/100 of 1 percent of the atmosphere. Oxygen is 20%. CO2 becomes toxic when it goes over 5% of the atmosphere. CO2 would have to grow 125 times its current level (12,500%) to be toxic to humans.

In experiments, doubling the CO2 concentration resulted in from 2 to 3.5 times greater growth, measured in increases in plant weight, compared to the normal concentration.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/kp2421618282787k/

In layman's terms, this means that plants are HUNGRY for CO2 and increasing the supply of CO2 results in percentage increase in growth greater than the percentage increase in CO2.

The truth we see in the geological and climatological records, ice cores, etc., holds true today. High levels of CO2 cannot be sustained, and they will drop as the Earth cools (as it is doing now, shown by trends in the data since 2005 when, coincidentally, solar irradiance also began to drop).

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 1 month ago

aich- You said:

"Our current analysis is like saying that because a car can accelerate from zero to 60 in 5 seconds, it should be able to accelerate from zero to 120 in 10 seconds, and from zero to 180 in fifteen seconds. Ain't it obvious that the logic breaks down when the car can't go faster than 130 mph? Yet, people don't know enough about science to understand the amount we don't know about what's really going on."

My question was, "What happens when the car is going downhill?" That was in reference to- your car only says it will do 130mph regardless and you head downhill and stil apply the gas, you can go faster than the needle reads.

Downhill...as in our environment is heading that way due to humans proactively refusing to take notice of the signs since the industrial revolution really started.

You answered by downshifting so as not to wear out the brakes. That's right- we purposely "downshift" to things that will slow down our effects instead of waiting for the brick wall at the bottom of the road.

It really was a perfect analogy.

0

aichempty 5 years, 1 month ago

Matthew,

The two responses are distinct and diverse. You assume that CO2 will increase unless we stop it. That's the analogy of the car going down hill. That was your example, not mine.

In fact, as I posted above, the car is slowing down because it's on an upslope. I have already shown that an exponential growth in the population from 1830 to 2009 is a matter of record. http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm

From 1 billion in 1810, to 2 billion in 1930, 3 billion in 1960, 4 billion around 1978, 5 billion in 1990, 6 billion in 2000 and estimating 7 billion in 2010-2011, graphing the data and computing the correlation actually shows a faster-than exponential population growth rate over the period (correlation coefficient of .9285, which is a VERY good predictive fit to the data assuming an exponential distribution) while the supposed resulting CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has only increased by 35% (from around 250 to 340 PPM).

During the time the population has increased 700%, doubling 3 and 1/2 times, CO2 has only grown 35%. If these rates hold steady (and I believe that the rate of CO2 increase will fall off because it cannot be sustained given our current resources) it would take a population increase of 3.8 billion people to raise CO2 to 500 ppm.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raised these issues in India this week, and was told to politely "pump off" by their government. We cannot do anything to limit population growth or industrialization in India and the rest of Asia. I believe that natural causes will ultimately limit the population and CO2 growth, but given the population growth and the correlation with CO2 concentration increases, 300,000,000 Americans cutting their CO2 output by 100% won't be a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the world. Why should WE be the ones to suffer from the responsiblity to reduce carbon emissions when the effect would only be measured in a few years of delay in higher CO2 levels if the trends continued?

But, as I've said above, the trends cannot continue. They cannot be sustained. There's not enough food and fuel to support the projected population growth, and something has to give. It's not us, and there's nothing we can do about it.

Steamboaters like to go down and put flowers and teddy bears on impromptu memorials to our fallen neighbors, but these actions will do no more to bring a dead person back to life than our cutting CO2 is going to reduce the global output.

If you want to feel good, replace all your incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent or LED devices, and you'll see your electric bill go down. It won't save the planet, but it may save you some money, and I'm sure you work very hard for what you have. So live, enjoy, and don't worry about things we cannot change.

Global warming is only a political issue. Real science doesn't support it.

0

trump_suit 5 years, 1 month ago

"Global warming is only a political issue. Real science doesn't support it."

Funny how so many "Real" scientists support this theory.

Things that make you say Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Who to believe here, the multiple peer reviewed scientifc articles available in so many different scientific publications or our own Aich. You make the call.

0

aichempty 5 years, 1 month ago

Matthew,

This is where your native intelligence and sound logic fail to produce the scientific result. This is why science depends upon experimentation, investigation, analysis and hard results to verify theories. It's precisely why NASA has sent certain satellites into space specifically for the purpose of verifying results predicted by theoriticians such as Einsten and Hawking.

You are a smart guy and this is why I keep coming back to the point that lots of smart people go just so far, and then don't consider the rest of the problem.

The analogy which applies in this case is the simple, verifiable fact that in order to make a vehicle go faster on a level road, you have to increase power, and fuel consumption goes up percentage-wise faster than speed. Anybody with a dashboard display of fuel mileage can check this out. Drive a mile at 70, and note the mileage. Then slow down to 50 and check again. Then slow down to 35 and check again. Fuel mileage decreases faster than speed increases, for the simple fact that wind resistance increases by the square of the speed. It's the velocity squared times mass, all divided by 2, that shows how much energy is required to push the air out of the way. Basically, doubling your speed requires four times as much power. Everybody knows this in practice, and the principle is one of the easiest physical phenomena to learn. It's even easier to see with something like a sailboat, where the hull speed is limited by water drag in exactly the same way, no matter how much power you apply.

There is indeed a point where an engine cannot get enough oxygen to produce enough power to fly higher. This is what limits airplane altitudes and requires rocket power.
As for your downshifting on Rabbit Ears example, it's not that hard to find a hill so steep that you can't even make it up in first gear, and may have to use reverse (which is generally a "lower" gear than first). Eventually, the clutch slips or the engine stalls, but when it gets to a certain point, it's too steep to keep climbing. That's what's happening to our population growth, and demand for CO2, and fuel and energy to produce CO2, and why we'll find the limit of how much man can spew out.

CO2 concentration has been climbing by a small fraction of the population growth since 1830, only 35% in 180 years. The population has grown almost 600% in the same time (compared to 1810). My earlier statement of 700% was a "carry the one" error. Oops.

So, the mileage and speed analogies are the ones that apply. No matter how fast you WANT to drive, engine power and air resistance will limit your maximum speed. It's the same reason skiers have to tuck to go faster. Even gravity can't overcome air resistance and make a sky diver go faster unless you reduce the drag.

Population growth will stop when resources hit the limit. CO2 will drop then too.

0

aichempty 5 years, 1 month ago

trumpet,

Peer review is the key phrase. Those of us who understand how to read those articles realize that the data "fits" the historical record showing an increase in CO2 since 1830.

The same sorts of minds that are responsible for the Enron scandal, the collapse of the mortgage and credit industries, and the U S auto industry also exist in the so-called "scientific community." There are personal agendas and political and financial profits to be made in all professions, and science is no different. The "Mad Scientist" stereotype exists for a reason.

Answer me this, Grasshopper: Where are the Class V hurricanes that were predicted by the "experts" only four years ago? Where are the scholarly papers by the same scientists who found evidence for long-term global warming explaining the recent trends toward cooling, greater ice cover at the poles and reduced solar effluence?

Politicians and lawyers only talk about the things that support their arguments. Scientists are supposed to look at the whole picture, and seek and report the truth.

Okay, so, four years ago, the sky was falling. Looks like the sky has stopped falling. Who'd have imagined such a thing would happen?

So, my challenge to you and everyone else is not to believe me, or the "peer reviewed" papers, but to study science and mathematics, learn how do perform analysis based upon first principles, and come to your own conclusions. I don't WANT you to believe ME. I want you to develop the ability to find the truth for yourself, because there will always be people around willing to screw you over for a profit. Depending on the "kindness of strangers" works much better for a shapely young blonde in a red dress and heels than it does for a fat old man sitting in the same bar.

I am constantly amazed that people refuse to believe that a God exists, but then fall into the trap of believing government propaganda because it's on TV. Amazing.

Autism is on the rise, and people blame vaccines for it. No biochemical cause has been discovered, but there's a "correlation" in the data. So, because a few celebrities have spoken out, children are at much higher risk of far more certain illnesses like measles, pertussus (whooping cough) and polio which happen to be FATAL or capable of leaving a person crippled for life.

I've got news for you; the rise in autism is just as highly correlated with recreational drug use by the parents before conception, but nobody dues studies on that . . .

So, don't send all your money to a TV preacher hoping for a cure for some deadly disease, and don't believe everything you hear from a "scientist." The Nazis had scientists too, and look how they ended up by the time 1945 rolled around.

0

seeuski 5 years, 1 month ago

Excellent post aich. The drug use/Autism idea is thought provoking.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 1 month ago

aich- CO2 hasn't been slowing down much and in the next decade, we'll have 1 billion more people on Earth. The downhill idea is that a car will only go so fast, even downhill while coasting (as we are currently doing) until one knowingly hits the accelerator. More people, more building, more carbon fuel use- it's like hitting the accelerator to go faster than the needle allows on the speedometer.

If you want an uphill analogy, sure- the car slows down going uphill...until you hit the accelerator and downshift, spewing out more emissions in order to keep speed. Do you not do that when going up Rabbit Ears Pass to Denver or when you can't go up any further, do you just turn around/start automatically reversing down the Pass (regardless of the season)? Human nature says, "No, I continue on to Denver, no matter what." That's why we need to consciously make the effort in either analogy.

0

jk 5 years, 1 month ago

Aich, not to over simplify this but it seems according to your theories yes the planet will repair itself. What happens to its inhabitants along the way? We all die because we couldn't figure out we were overpopulating the planet as we used up all of our resources? Ok for you and me we will be long gone, but what about future generations?

0

aichempty 5 years, 1 month ago

jk,

England used to be covered with lush forests. Know where that went? Fire wood. Coal came along too late to save the forests.

Oil and natural gas came along and largely replaced coal. More BTUs per pound, easier to transport, etc.

Eventually we will find cleaner and cheaper ways to obtain energy, or else more efficient ways to use it (compare the steam engine to the modern diesel electric for an example).

The fact remains that 300,000,000 Americans are less than 5% of the projected global population for 2010-2012. What do you propose to do about the other 95% who don't have to answer to us?

People who worry about CO2 production in this country are pi$$ing into the wind as far as anything we can do to stop the global effects of population growth. The only thing we have too much of is people, and we have no control over that. Nature will take its way.

Future generations will deal with their world as they find it, and everyone over here needs to understand that everyone "over there" is going to go through what we did in this country, but with advanced technology instead of having to invent it as they go along.

If electrics, renewables and alternate energy sources such as wind and solar can be developed, the developing world will come out of their primitive conditions in hybrid electrics, not 1960s fume-belching gas hogs. Solar will be their power grid source. The short route to develpment in the rest of the world is to use the green methods that are being developed now. There's no other way to do it. The world economy cannot sustain CO2 production because every indication is that internal combustion is on the way out. It costs too much. People cannot afford to keep buring fuel the way we've done it in the past.

No matter what we do here, the rest of the world will do what it wants, and there's no reason we should suffer.

My feeling is that world CO2 production will decrease in the coming decade because the economy is not going to support the current rates of emission. Bankruptcy closes down sources of demand. To assume that the rate of consumption will continue on a per-capita basis is naive. Can't happen. 10% unemployment right now in this country proves it.

Things will go a different way after a painful period, but the current situation in the global economy indicates that we're nearing the limit of what can be sustained.

Given the biomass of green plants, and their ability to use CO2, added to a warmer climate that promotes growth, I don't think we could make CO2 concentrations continue to go up if we actually worked at it.

0

trump_suit 5 years, 1 month ago

Actually Aich, If you check up on the history of Englands forest you will find that that they did very well until the English started building Ships. Building their navy pretty much decimated the Oak forests that covered England up to that point.

What else are you wrong about? Inventing the emergency light strips in airplanes does not qualify you to be an environmental scientist, and your idea of dumping Baking Soda in all of our streams is simply ludicrous.

It is just possible that all of those scientists are right isn't it? Even just a little possible? Is there not any room for doubt in your world?

0

jk 5 years, 1 month ago

Aich, So I have heard you speak of lemmings heading towards the cliff. Wouldn't it be better to have the first bivy, so we can get out of the wind. While all others are feeling that warm wet sensation blowing back on them we could be all clean and dry.

0

aichempty 5 years, 1 month ago

Trump,

Even today, charcoal production is responsible for deforestation in third world countries. Haiti has been like that for decades, and I've seen it with my own eyes.

The English had enough sense not to destroy the forests to build ships. They surveyed the southern American forests for tall straight pine trees for masts for His Majesty's fleet. They had en empire from which to draw raw materials, and did so. Who do you think was building the ships for the American Navy in 1776? English shipwrights in the colonies.

The farm lands around castles were cleared to provide fuel for the castle and the serfs. Check out the texts on the History of Technology by Kranzberg and Purcell.

I don't doubt that English oak went into the ships, but you don't build ships from SMALL TREES! They work fine for charcoal, however.

Oh, and the baking soda comment was just a wise @$$ solution that makes as much sense as shutting down the United States to stop global warming.

jk,

Huh?

People and societies evolve to adapt to current conditions. I have a Native American friend who pointed out a casino on a computer map and asked, "Do you know why there's a casino there?" I told him, "Yeah, because you're not allowed to rob stage coaches anymore." Then I asked him if they performed a "sucker dance" to draw people in. If it works with casinos, then it must surely be working with global warming fears too.

Hey everbody. Just THINK. Figure it out for yourself. If you listen to Al Gore and his cronies you'll end up buying into something that's only going to make Al Gore and his cronies rich. Is that the solultion to Global Warming? I think not.

0

jk 5 years, 1 month ago

Aich, What I was trying to say is wouldn't it be better to be ahead of the game when it comes down to the end of our resources? Ok so we bite the bullet now and start thinking green, while all others could care less. When it comes down to the end of things as we know it we are ahead of the game instead of sucking hind tit. Like I said I know it has nothing to do with you now,but maybe we should start heading in the right direction so we are ahead of the game a little. I have a daughter who said "do you know why we are developing alternative forms of energy? So your great grandchildren can still inhabit the earth."

0

Beavers 5 years, 1 month ago

Hey Soren: Nice call but local physical action is the answer. You know big givernment needs to vote itself out if things are gonna change. Is that gonna happen soon enough? Think Globally Act Locally Your beloved Zirkels have reported in with shockingly significantly higher than normal acid soil samples for decades. Then the blow down? Then the pine beetles? Sounds like a 1-2-3 maybe? Connect the dotted lines. Make sure the monster coal plants are NOT spewing any more CO2 into your beloved Rocky Mountain Air. That is something we all can do for our planet and next generation.

0

trump_suit 5 years, 1 month ago

  1. We know for a fact that we will run out of Oil in the forseeable future. It is already becoming a commodity that we cannot create enough of on any given day. As the world population grows, this equation gets worse and the price goes up.

  2. We strongly suspect that our burning of fossil fuels is damaging our environment.

  3. The technology currently exists to make a dent in our use of fossil fuels. While wind and solar are incapable of completely fueling our energy needs, they can make a big dent if we turn to them. In re: to Mr. Duckels response that the numbers won't work, I respond they must work or the big companies would not be building them, and building they are. The long term profits that are generated by free wind must be staggering. Wind is unstable but when balanced with coal and nuclear it clearly has a role to play.

  4. America should put itself in position to lead the next energy revolution, and should not rely on foreign sources of energy. We are headed towards huge problems in this area that have nothing to do with the environment. A couple of terrorists with good missles could effectively shut down the middle east oil supply for months. Do you really want our country subject to that kind of threat?

Bottom line is that we absolutely know human beings are capable of messing up our air and water. Any satellite picture will show you the filthy state of our coastlines and air. It is time to change the way we manage our energy needs and people like T. Boone Pickens are on the right track in this argument.

Look at it from a simple economic argument, it is simply stupid for America to be sending that much money overseas every single day. It would be a much better solution for our economy to suck up the pain and spend that money here on our shores and pay our citizens to provide for these needs.

Nuclear power is clearly a part of this solution as is wind, solar and natural gas. If we do not start making the transition now, we are just delaying the inevitable and passing the problem on to future generations at a much higher cost. The time to start this process has arrived and it is up to us to begin the journey.

I would rather pay a small price now than see our entire fleet of vehicles become rusting hulks because gasoline is now over $10 per gallon. As the world grows and demands for energy this number is easily forseeable in the near future. The options may be difficult, but to me the solution is clear and it does not sound like "drill baby drill".

0

trump_suit 5 years, 1 month ago

Aich, Do you have even one(1) scientist to back up your beliefs? Show us some studies that back up your contentions. Without them, you are just blowing smoke to confuse the issue just like the tobacco industry paid their representatives to mis-represent the dangers of tobacco and its use by humans.

0

aichempty 5 years, 1 month ago

Everything we are doing in the "green" movement is good EXCEPT thinking that limiting CO2 emissions for the sake of limiting CO2 emissions is going to change anything.

The more I look into this thing from the "first principles" viewpoint, the more it becomes apparent that global warming is causing the higher CO2 levels.

Energy conservation, switching to alternate sources, solar, wind and all the rest are great ideas. We should do every one of them. Just don't be surprised when we do them all, and CO2 levels don't respond. The actual effect is backwards from what is being claimed, and that's because the models are statistical rather than being based on the much more complex chemical interactions across the whole environment. Statistical models are easy, and often wrong. This problem is more like a chemical processing plant with all it's complexities, pressures, concentrations, and interactions which depend on specific conditions.

A few years ago, science believed that life started in a mud puddle under a primordial atmosphere charged with lightening strikes and seeded with cosmically derived amino acids from meteors and comets. Now they're finding life in the deep oceans, at boiling hot temperatures and chemical concentrations of toxins that should make life impossible. Yet, there it is, in the deep ocean volcanic vents. More than that, each time they visit a new vent, they find different species or variations on combinations of bacteria and hyperthermic organisms. The so-called "obvious" facts everyone knew a few years ago don't hold up anymore.

So thinking that a theory so simple regarding global warming is the only possible answer is just naive, and dangerous. We need to continue to look and study and figure this thing out, because if it is possible for us to affect the Earth's atmosphere and the balance of nature, we need to be more careful to understand it before we do anything. Fighting forest fires has killed the forests from pine beetle infestations. Do we really want to fiddle with CO2 on a global scale just because of a statistical model that doesn't consider cause and effect? Correlation is not "cause and effect." That's what people have to understand.

0

aichempty 5 years, 1 month ago

Trump,

Every scientist who has studied complex chemical processes would back up my questions about the global warming theory. It's not so simple as the politically driven would have you believe.

You'll note that nobody has handed out a Nobel Prize for results regarding global warming due to CO2 emissions by man. Think about it.

Do your own Googling and see who questions the CO2 contribution to global warming. There's plenty of literature that says CO2 is a result, not the cause.

Let me give you an example of a statistical correlation that is not a cause and effect phenomenon. If you took every player in the NBA and measured their age, height, weight, shoe size and IQ, you would find that height, weight and shoe size are correlated with membership in the NBA. Age and IQ are probably closely correlated also. If this model was accurate for the general population, you could go out at random and find men whose height, weight and shoe size predicted success at basketball. The point is that while successful NBA players share common characteristics which are undoubtedly statistically correlated, those characteristics do not predict similar success for everyone else in the population who happens to fit the same data.

Correlation and coincidence without an understanding of the physical phenomenon lead people to make decisons based on faulty assumptions. Let's just keep looking for the accurate physical model while, at the same time, moving toward new technologies and conserving along the way. It all makes sense until you only try ONE thing and then that one happens not to work. The danger is in thinking we have the answer because it's "easy" when we don't.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.