Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[BartW]

China is whipping our butts in what regard? Have you seen the pictures of Beijing where the smog is so bad you can't see much further than 100 yards in any direction?

If you're going to continue to hold China up as an example for the US to follow, you're going to lose credibility quickly.

China is whooping our butts with regards to alternative energy development. They're also polluting like crazy with all their coal power plants. I would hate to live in Beijing

 

[BartW]

How cute.

Do you deny there was information covered up that was counter to the established party line?

Please do tell. Are you referring to climategate?

 

[Grand Vol]

Please do tell. Are you referring to climategate?

Do we have to go through this again?

And the answer to my question is yes, there was information that was suppressed. And whether or not you happen to believe in the relevancy of that information, the fact that there were attempts to cover up contrary evidence is what is at hand.

Ever hear of an abstract within a debate? Since when did global climatic change become an absolute?

 

[BartW]

Do we have to go through this again?

And the answer to my question is yes, there was information that was suppressed. And whether or not you happen to believe in the relevancy of that information, the fact that there were attempts to cover up contrary evidence is what is at hand.

Ever hear of an abstract within a debate? Since when did global climatic change become an absolute?

We have been through this. No information has been suppressed. It's all been published. The controversy stems from skeptics' "honest misinterpretation" (or more likely, dishonest misrepresentation) of certain phrases in the hacked e-mails. It's been discussed ad nauseam in this thread. If you have anything new feel free to share.

I'm not familiar with the phrase "abstract within a debate". GCC has been certain within the scientific community for well over a decade. Continued research has only strengthened the body of evidence.

 

[hog88]

China is whooping our butts with regards to alternative energy development. They're also polluting like crazy with all their coal power plants. I would hate to live in Beijing

They are whipping our butts in producing solar and other alternative energy machinery and components which they are selling right back to us and Europe. They are not whipping our butts in environmental stewardship!

 

[BartW]

They are whipping our butts in producing solar and other alternative energy machinery and components which they are selling right back to us and Europe. They are not whipping our butts in environmental stewardship!

I agree. I'm saying if we want to make some money we need to be the ones developing and exporting alternative energy technology.

 

[Obsessed]

The USA is the Saudis Arabia of natural gas. We have plenty

 

[MG1968]

I agree. I'm saying if we want to make some money we need to be the ones developing and exporting alternative energy technology.

ever heard of Solyndra?

 

[Grand Vol]

ever heard of Solyndra?

President Obama's Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures

 

[hog88]

I agree. I'm saying if we want to make some money we need to be the ones developing and exporting alternative energy technology.

We would if we could do it competitively but that's the thing. It's hard to be competive when you're hands are tied with government regulations.

 

[BartW]

President Obama's Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures

I've never claimed to be an Obama supporter. This list would be more meaningful with context. How many taxpayer backed green energy companies are succeeding? How many of the companies on that list contributed to Obama's campaign? How many startup fossil fuel companies fail?

I don't know the answer to these questions but a quick google told me the DoE loan guarantee program has a 97% success rate.

link

 

[hog88]

I've never claimed to be an Obama supporter. This list would be more meaningful with context. How many taxpayer backed green energy companies are succeeding? How many of the companies on that list contributed to Obama's campaign? How many startup fossil fuel companies fail?

I don't know the answer to these questions but a quick google told me the DoE loan guarantee program has a 97% success rate.

link

How many of them were financed by taxpayer money?

BTW, nice unbiased link....

 

[BartW]

How many of them were financed by taxpayer money?

BTW, nice unbiased link....

What's your beef with the link? If any of the facts are incorrect tell me. I was merely citing it for the 97% figure.

The fossil fuel industry is subsidized too. Have some nice unbiased Wikipedia

 

[hog88]

What's your beef with the link? If any of the facts are incorrect tell me. I was merely citing it for the 97% figure.

The fossil fuel industry is subsidized too. Have some nice unbiased Wikipedia

The link is from ACORE, a completely biased organization.

I think you need to do some research on what is classified as a "green job" or "green industry" you just might be surprised. One example is if a bus driver is hired to drive a NG, electric or other alt fuel bus, that is considered a green job.

 

[BartW]

The link is from ACORE, a completely biased organization.

I think you need to do some research on what is classified as a "green job" or "green industry" you just might be surprised. One example is if a bus driver is hired to drive a NG, electric or other alt fuel bus, that is considered a green job.

“Established as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, ACORE does not lobby at the federal or state level. Instead, ACORE’s focus is to disseminate factual information about current renewable energy policy, market trends, and the numerous benefits of renewable energy and energy efficiency, without bias for specific technologies, to its members and the general public.”

How does ACORE’s mission invalidate the facts? Every claim is cited. The 97% figure came directly from DoE.

I don’t see how the definition of green jobs/industries is relevant.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Just last week I was promised/assured that on a particular day, in the particular hours of such and such, I would have another 2-5 inches of snow on the ground. This was all predicted within 24 hours with a vast array of real-time data and computer models. In reality, on that particular day we not only received no additional snow, but all the snow that was on the ground (5 inches) melted pretty quickly.

I find it humorous and worrisome that many put so such faith in computer models predicting climate over a span of years, decades, or centuries when we have a really hard time predicted what will happen within 24 hours given all the radar, weather equipment, and computer model information.

That said, I think it is pretty self-explanatory that pumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, etc into the atmosphere isn't ideal. However, this seemingly common sense idea has been hijacked by future foolhardy predictions.

At any rate, the desire to relinquish fossil fuels has always been there. It is just a matter time until technological innovation makes ditching fossil fuels worthwhile on a significant scale.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Just last week I was promised/assured that on a particular day, in the particular hours of such and such, I would have another 2-5 inches of snow on the ground. This was all predicted within 24 hours with a vast array of real-time data and computer models. In reality, on that particular day we not only received no additional snow, but all the snow that was on the ground (5 inches) melted pretty quickly.

I find it humorous and worrisome that many put so such faith in computer models predicting climate over a span of years, decades, or centuries when we have a really hard time predicted what will happen within 24 hours given all the radar, weather equipment, and computer model information.

That said, I think it is pretty self-explanatory that pumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, etc into the atmosphere isn't ideal. However, this seemingly common sense idea has been hijacked by future foolhardy predictions.

At any rate, the desire to relinquish fossil fuels has always been there. It is just a matter time until technological innovation makes ditching fossil fuels worthwhile on a significant scale.

The earth is nowhere even close to running out of fossil fuels and it may never run out. It will likely be many decades before a suitable alternative to crude oil is developed. As long as there are machines with moving parts, gears etc that need lubrication, oil will always remain.

As far as global warming goes, I have a question. If the whole earth reduced greenhouse gas emissions by say 90% by the end of this year, would it really make that much of a difference? Do people really think humans have a major effect on the weather?

 

[zreeves]

The earth is nowhere even close to running out of fossil fuels and it may never run out. It will likely be many decades before a suitable alternative to crude oil is developed. As long as there are machines with moving parts, gears etc that need lubrication, oil will always remain.

As far as global warming goes, I have a question. If the whole earth reduced greenhouse gas emissions by say 90% by the end of this year, would it really make that much of a difference? Do people really think humans have a major effect on the weather?

the projections that i have seen (in textbooks, although i have no idea how certain/uncertain they are) have the earth running out of oil in roughly 2050 or at least severely decreasing in availability, meaning the prices will be outrageous.

do we have that much of an effect on the weather? the weather isnt the issue as much as pH levels in the ocean, heat/energy (temperature) of the ocean increasing, sea level variations, salinity variations and all of these combining to have drastic effects on ecosystems. we do depend and/or enjoy other lifeforms for the style of life we have.

in response to someone earlier, even if our computer models are not 100% accurate (which they obviously arent) i still think it is worth it to start weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels, if not for the environmental impacts, at least to have a back up plan when fossil fuels run out. which is inevitable since there were a finite amount of dinosaurs lol

 

[govols/cc]

the projections that i have seen (in textbooks, although i have no idea how certain/uncertain they are) have the earth running out of oil in roughly 2050 or at least severely decreasing in availability, meaning the prices will be outrageous.

do we have that much of an effect on the weather? the weather isnt the issue as much as pH levels in the ocean, heat/energy (temperature) of the ocean increasing, sea level variations, salinity variations and all of these combining to have drastic effects on ecosystems. we do depend and/or enjoy other lifeforms for the style of life we have.

in response to someone earlier, even if our computer models are not 100% accurate (which they obviously arent) i still think it is worth it to start weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels, if not for the environmental impacts, at least to have a back up plan when fossil fuels run out. which is inevitable since there were a finite amount of dinosaurs lol

Methane is a fossil fuel that doesn't require dinosaurs. It can be produced from what comes out of a lot of folks mouth in here.

 

[BartW]

Just last week I was promised/assured that on a particular day, in the particular hours of such and such, I would have another 2-5 inches of snow on the ground. This was all predicted within 24 hours with a vast array of real-time data and computer models. In reality, on that particular day we not only received no additional snow, but all the snow that was on the ground (5 inches) melted pretty quickly.
I find it humorous and worrisome that many put so such faith in computer models predicting climate over a span of years, decades, or centuries when we have a really hard time predicted what will happen within 24 hours given all the radar, weather equipment, and computer model information.
That said, I think it is pretty self-explanatory that pumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, etc into the atmosphere isn't ideal. However, this seemingly common sense idea has been hijacked by future foolhardy predictions.
At any rate, the desire to relinquish fossil fuels has always been there. It is just a matter time until technological innovation makes ditching fossil fuels worthwhile on a significant scale.

We’ve been through the weather =/= climate discussion (even sandvol has conceded this), but I’ll rehash it. The essential difference between them is weather is chaotic while climate is weather averaged over time.

“A change in temperature of 7º Celsius from one day to the next is barely worth noting when you are discussing weather. Seven degrees, however, make a dramatic difference when talking about climate. When the Earth's AVERAGE temperature was 7ºC cooler than the present, ice sheets a mile thick were on top of Manhattan! A good analogy of the difference between weather and climate is to consider a swimming pool. Imagine that the pool is being slowly filled. If someone dives in there will be waves. The waves are weather, and the average water level is the climate. A diver jumping into the pool the next day will create more waves, but the water level (aka the climate) will be higher as more water flows into the pool. In the atmosphere the water hose is increasing greenhouse gases. They will cause the climate to warm but we will still have changing weather (waves). Climate scientists use models to forecast the average water level in the pool, not the waves.”

The difference between weather and climate

The earth is nowhere even close to running out of fossil fuels and it may never run out. It will likely be many decades before a suitable alternative to crude oil is developed. As long as there are machines with moving parts, gears etc that need lubrication, oil will always remain.

As far as global warming goes, I have a question. If the whole earth reduced greenhouse gas emissions by say 90% by the end of this year, would it really make that much of a difference? Do people really think humans have a major effect on the weather?

Most estimate fossil fuels will last us on the order of a hundred years. If we reduce emissions by 90% now (unrealistic obviously) instead of 100 years from now that could make a difference of 2-3 degrees C. Even if we stop now enough damage has been done that we’d still warm 1-2 degrees. And as you can see in the quote above, it doesn’t take a large change in global average temperature to dramatically alter the climate. Yes, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists (and scientists in general) think humans have a major effect on climate.

 

[zreeves]

Methane is a fossil fuel that doesn't require dinosaurs. It can be produced from what comes out of a lot of folks mouth in here.

hahaha im glad you can lighten up this thread with me. you knew what i was saying though that resources are finite until we figure fusion out which would be balling

 

[hog88]

the projections that i have seen (in textbooks, although i have no idea how certain/uncertain they are) have the earth running out of oil in roughly 2050 or at least severely decreasing in availability, meaning the prices will be outrageous.

do we have that much of an effect on the weather? the weather isnt the issue as much as pH levels in the ocean, heat/energy (temperature) of the ocean increasing, sea level variations, salinity variations and all of these combining to have drastic effects on ecosystems. we do depend and/or enjoy other lifeforms for the style of life we have.

in response to someone earlier, even if our computer models are not 100% accurate (which they obviously arent) i still think it is worth it to start weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels, if not for the environmental impacts, at least to have a back up plan when fossil fuels run out. which is inevitable since there were a finite amount of dinosaurs lol

We are 100s if not 1000s of years (if ever) away from running out of fossil fuels. No need to panic. In the 70's our teachers and textbooks said we would be out by the early 21st century. They kinda missed on that one too.

 

[McDad]

the projections that i have seen (in textbooks, although i have no idea how certain/uncertain they are) have the earth running out of oil in roughly 2050 or at least severely decreasing in availability, meaning the prices will be outrageous. l

when my mom was in high school in the late 40's, her textbooks predicted another 30-40 years of available fossil fuels. When I was in 8th grade '84, my science book predicted approximately 30-40 years before depletion (or cost prohibited extraction) of fossil fuels. Looks like your books are following the trend.

Times change but the prediction stays the same. Good news is one of these 30-40 year predictions will eventually be correct sometime in the future..

 

[zreeves]

We are 100s if not 1000s of years (if ever) away from running out of fossil fuels. No need to panic. In the 70's our teachers and textbooks said we would be out by the early 21st century. They kinda missed on that one too.

when my mom was in high school in the late 40's, her textbooks predicted another 30-40 years of available fossil fuels. When I was in 8th grade '84, my science book predicted approximately 30-40 years before depletion (or cost prohibited extraction) of fossil fuels. Looks like your books are following the trend.

Times change but the prediction stays the same. Good news is one of these 30-40 year predictions will eventually be correct sometime in the future..

guess there are some things you cant find in a text book. as long as it provides a job for me the next 40-50 years, id be happy

 

[hog88]

guess there are some things you cant find in a text book. as long as it provides a job for me the next 40-50 years, id be happy

That's the spirit!