Off topic a bit: Climate Change

[geojen]

Al Gore just went on record that if you dont beleive in global warming that's akin to being a member of the flat earth society.

That's the problem with this whole deal. The media and other's (not the scientists) are the one's doing all the talking. They take things out of context and oversimplify them so that people like Rush Limbaugh can go out and denounce the whole thing when something doesn't fit perfectly.

For example--all the people who point to this cold, long winter as "proof" that global warming is not occurring. This is not proof. We will still have winter if the globe warms. That is the point of this whole thing--more extreme highs and lows. That means hotter summers and colder winters. There will still be outliers and situations that don't fit the model perfectly.

[cptacek]

I am suspicious of any computer model that pretends that it can forecast how things are going to be in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, 100 years, if it can't be "taken back in time", do the forecasts and get to where we are now. From everything I've heard, there are no computer models for man made climate change that actually work.

I think that people forget about the effect of the sun and el nino and la nina. And people confuse weather with climate.

I'm in Kansas. I know that I can go to some cuts in the road by my house and find shark teeth. We made fences, houses, churches, barns, almost everything back in the day out of limestone posts. Limestone forms under water. So, there was ocean over at least half of this country at some point in the past. It used to be warmer. It used to be cooler. That is the cyclical nature of climate. The great plains used to be called the Great American Desert, but aren't now. The oceans in Kansas may have been millions of years ago, but I don't think that kills my argument. That just means that the earth has been changing for a really long time. There is no reason to believe that it changed for a long time and then all of a sudden at some point in the past it came into equilibrium and will never change again.

I think it very convenient that people who live very conspicuously, with private jets, humongoid houses, etc. assuage their guilt by buying "carbon credits". I actually looked into selling carbon credits. I have access to lots of land and if the carbon credits were worth anything, I was actually thinking about being a "broker" for them. Linking people with land to sequester carbon with people buying credits. But the "carbon credit" market is dropping faster than Mitzi's panties after prom. It just isn't worth anything. So, people can buy carbon credits for nothing and pretend to be concerned about the environment but only so long as someone else sacrifices. Like saying other people should take the bus so we don't have so much congestion on the roads.

I don't like the religious-like quality that global warming protaganists have. If it is right, it is right. Let the science decide. But don't try to squash the other point of view:
British Lord Stings Senators Rockefeller and Snowe: 'Uphold Free Speech or Resign'

I am hesitant to say this, because I am afraid it will be dismissed out of hand because he is a radio talk show host. But I listed to Glenn Beck when he had Lord Monkton on, the guy who convinced the English parliament to not allow Gore's movie in their schools, and I tell you, that guy sounds sharp. The transcript it here:
Glenn Beck - Interviews - Glenn Beck: Lord Monckton on Global Warming

I think it funny, actually, that the U.S. is being chastised for not signing the Kyoto treaty but no other industrialized country that signed it will be able to fulfill the agreement. At least we aren't breaking the treaty! If you know of one, please let me know. Seriously. I want to be fully informed, and if that is wrong, please tell me.

I want to know who is pushing this issue and more importantly, why. I doubt altruism is the main motivator at the highest level of this movement. It has to boil down to money, and we need to know who is making the money because of this and who stands to gain.

Now, that said, the things we, the hoi pelloi, are supposed to do to help this "disaster" are actually in line with what we all say to save money. Don't drive as much. Shut off your lights, turn down your heat, turn down your air conditioner, plant trees, etc. That is all fine. But when our government starts hinting, or just flat out saying, that they are going to increase taxes, put additional regulations on industries, outlaw other things because of this, we need to know the facts.

The Kansas Secretary of Health and Environment denied two coal power plants because of carbon dioxide. Now, the company that is wanting to put them in is fighting it, but they may just skip over the state line to Colorado or Oklahoma. So we are losing out on tax money and jobs the company would provide and giving that to those other states. And the gases that come out of those plants will still be blowing over our state.
Kansas rejection of coal plant fires up backlash | Environment | Reuters

[jc3900]

For those of you who are worried that we are causing global warming, what do you suggest to stop it? If it at all involves having any type of government regulations, then I suggest you look for a new solution. Most of the proposed solutions only work with one world government regulations aka antichrist. Also, I caution anyone on this topic as its propenents most often use fear to gain support. It is never good when fear is a main driver in peoples support.

[GrimJack]

The 'world river' is called thermohaline circulation. I've posted a few links for more information on it.

Great ocean conveyor belt - Climate Change
The Environmental Literacy Council - The Great Ocean Conveyer Belt

What did you do at NOAA?

Thanks for the links - the last 30 years have dimmed memories already clouded by long nights of drinking beer with OC just back from 6 months in Alaska dropping CTD (conductivity,temp, density) sensors. I was a byte jockey in the Pacific Marine Environmental Labs computer room helping them get data into publishable form. I got to see some early Alvin movies of the vent worms off the coast of Oregon. The movies showed what they called 'marine snow' falling just like snow (duh!) which turns out to be all the biological material that falls from the upper layers -- the ocean conveyor belt redistributes a great deal of organic material as well as heat.

[GrimJack]

I am suspicious of any computer model that pretends that it can forecast how things are going to be in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, 100 years, if it can't be "taken back in time", do the forecasts and get to where we are now. From everything I've heard, there are no computer models for man made climate change that actually work.

The study titled "How Well do Coupled Models Simulate Today’s Climate?" - investigates how well climate models actually do their job in simulating climate. To this end, they compare the output of the models against observations for present climate. The authors apply this method to about 50 different national and international models that were developed over the past two decades at major climate research centers in China, Russia, Australia, Canada, France, Korea, Great Britain, Germany, and the United States. Of course, also included is the very latest model generation that was used for the very recent (2007) report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“Coupled models are becoming increasingly reliable tools for understanding climate and climate change, and the best models are now capable of simulating present-day climate with accuracy approaching conventional atmospheric observations,”.

I think that people forget about the effect of the sun and el nino and la nina. And people confuse weather with climate.

Why on earth do you think this? Who could possibly forget the affects of the sun since it produces most the energy under discussion. With all the weatherdroids tossing El Niño/La Niña it becomes more difficult to lose track of them also.

I'm in Kansas. I know that I can go to some cuts in the road by my house and find shark teeth. We made fences, houses, churches, barns, almost everything back in the day out of limestone posts. Limestone forms under water. So, there was ocean over at least half of this country at some point in the past. It used to be warmer. It used to be cooler. That is the cyclical nature of climate. The great plains used to be called the Great American Desert, but aren't now. The oceans in Kansas may have been millions of years ago, but I don't think that kills my argument. That just means that the earth has been changing for a really long time. There is no reason to believe that it changed for a long time and then all of a sudden at some point in the past it came into equilibrium and will never change again.

Are you aware of Pangeaea and Plate Tectonics? If you run the world time backwards all the continents coalesce into a giant land mass called pangeaea. Not many people are surprised by the fact the landscape changes.

I think it very convenient that people who live very conspicuously, with private jets, humongoid houses, etc. assuage their guilt by buying "carbon credits". I actually looked into selling carbon credits. I have access to lots of land and if the carbon credits were worth anything, I was actually thinking about being a "broker" for them. Linking people with land to sequester carbon with people buying credits. But the "carbon credit" market is dropping faster than Mitzi's panties after prom. It just isn't worth anything. So, people can buy carbon credits for nothing and pretend to be concerned about the environment but only so long as someone else sacrifices. Like saying other people should take the bus so we don't have so much congestion on the roads.

This seems like you are setting up a straw man to knock down.

I don't like the religious-like quality that global warming protaganists have. If it is right, it is right. Let the science decide. But don't try to squash the other point of view:
British Lord Stings Senators Rockefeller and Snowe: 'Uphold Free Speech or Resign'

I am hesitant to say this, because I am afraid it will be dismissed out of hand because he is a radio talk show host. But I listed to Glenn Beck when he had Lord Monkton on, the guy who convinced the English parliament to not allow Gore's movie in their schools, and I tell you, that guy sounds sharp. The transcript it here:
Glenn Beck - Interviews - Glenn Beck: Lord Monckton on Global Warming

I think it funny, actually, that the U.S. is being chastised for not signing the Kyoto treaty but no other industrialized country that signed it will be able to fulfill the agreement. At least we aren't breaking the treaty! If you know of one, please let me know. Seriously. I want to be fully informed, and if that is wrong, please tell me.

Lord Monckton was a crank unable to use actualy statistics, he fell back on 'black body' radiation to come of with his figures but got it pretty much all wrong. He is so proud of his intellectual prowess that he bet a million pounds no one could solve one of his puzzles, - it was solved within a couple weeks and he lost his home over the bet.

I want to know who is pushing this issue and more importantly, why. I doubt altruism is the main motivator at the highest level of this movement. It has to boil down to money, and we need to know who is making the money because of this and who stands to gain.

I think following the money behind what few scientists are trying to debunk global warming would be a better direction to follow the money-- Seems it oil, mining, and power cartels who are following the tobacco cartels' tricks of just producing enoiugh junk scienc to convince the hoi peloi that there is an actuall debate going on.

Now, that said, the things we, the hoi pelloi, are supposed to do to help this "disaster" are actually in line with what we all say to save money. Don't drive as much. Shut off your lights, turn down your heat, turn down your air conditioner, plant trees, etc. That is all fine. But when our government starts hinting, or just flat out saying, that they are going to increase taxes, put additional regulations on industries, outlaw other things because of this, we need to know the facts.

Google on it

The Kansas Secretary of Health and Environment denied two coal power plants because of carbon dioxide. Now, the company that is wanting to put them in is fighting it, but they may just skip over the state line to Colorado or Oklahoma. So we are losing out on tax money and jobs the company would provide and giving that to those other states. And the gases that come out of those plants will still be blowing over our state.

I would guess that the plant did not want to put any scrubbers on the outgassing - I suppose that that eventually they will find a state that will let them deficate into the atmosphere.][/QUOTE]

[geojen]

For those of you who are worried that we are causing global warming, what do you suggest to stop it? If it at all involves having any type of government regulations, then I suggest you look for a new solution. Most of the proposed solutions only work with one world government regulations aka antichrist. Also, I caution anyone on this topic as its propenents most often use fear to gain support. It is never good when fear is a main driver in peoples support.

If anyone is using fear to garner support, it is because the climatologists, geomorphologists, geologists, and climatologists have been raising the warming flag for nigh 30 years now. Seems no one wanted to listen. Kinda like Hubbard's curve and peak oil. Apparently, the American public can only be roused to do something if it is in danger of causing them some kind of personal inconvenience.

Again, I forward the question--what is the downside of getting off foreign oil? I've seen estimates of what a gallon of gas actually costs the American public when all of its costs are factored in. These costs include the cost of recovering the oil, shipping it, and refining of course, but also the costs of the military bases established in the middle east to ensure that the oil keeps flowing and the subsidies given to the oil companies. If we actually paid at the pump what it cost, we would be paying over 15.00 a gallon for gas.

[JimInOK]

If anyone is using fear to garner support, it is because the climatologists, geomorphologists, geologists, and climatologists have been raising the warming flag for nigh 30 years now. Seems no one wanted to listen. Kinda like Hubbard's curve and peak oil. Apparently, the American public can only be roused to do something if it is in danger of causing them some kind of personal inconvenience.

Again, I forward the question--what is the downside of getting off foreign oil? I've seen estimates of what a gallon of gas actually costs the American public when all of its costs are factored in. These costs include the cost of recovering the oil, shipping it, and refining of course, but also the costs of the military bases established in the middle east to ensure that the oil keeps flowing and the subsidies given to the oil companies. If we actually paid at the pump what it cost, we would be paying over 15.00 a gallon for gas.

How do you propose we get off of foreign oil? Alternative fuels at this point are simply not a feasible substitute. Ethanol's effects have thus far been nothing short of disastrous for the environment (consult the Time article I referenced earlier). ANWR, even if opened up, will not produce nearly enough oil to get us "off" foreign oil.

"Getting off foreign oil" is a political soundbite, not a reality that is acheivable with any technology on the horizon.

[bjl584]

How do you propose we get off of foreign oil? Alternative fuels at this point are simply not a feasible substitute. Ethanol's effects have thus far been nothing short of disastrous for the environment (consult the Time article I referenced earlier). ANWR, even if opened up, will not produce nearly enough oil to get us "off" foreign oil.

"Getting off foreign oil" is a political soundbite, not a reality that is acheivable with any technology on the horizon.

We could probably do it if we started more exploration and refinery development here in the states. There are huge oil deposits in Colorado, Alaska, and in the mid western states. There are also huge untapped deposits offshore. But, due to political and environmental factors, we are not allowed to use our own resources or build a new refinery. The demand is high and our capacity to produce enough supply has been severely limited. Hence, $3.50+ per gallon at the pump. Alternative fuels do provide some hope, but as of now the technology just isn't there. There needs to be more R&D on these before they are a viable alternative. Ethanol causes a lot more pollution than gasoline. Not to mention it uses up crop land which raises other grocery prices. Hydrogen Fuel Cells are interesting, but right now the only way to get a viable source of hydrogen is to burn fossil fuels. The whole hybrid car craze is probably just that. In the long run, they actually pollute more due to the chemicals and the processes that go into producing the batteries for these cars. Maybe someday as battery technology improves these cars will be more practical. There is no easy answer. Everything has its pros and cons. The reality is, right now in this day and age, oil is the fuel of the world's economy. Alternative sources of energy are important to explore, but that doesn't mean that we should cut ourselves off of our present means to power our world.

[geojen]

How do you propose we get off of foreign oil? Alternative fuels at this point are simply not a feasible substitute. Ethanol's effects have thus far been nothing short of disastrous for the environment (consult the Time article I referenced earlier). ANWR, even if opened up, will not produce nearly enough oil to get us "off" foreign oil.

"Getting off foreign oil" is a political soundbite, not a reality that is acheivable with any technology on the horizon.

Getting off foreign oil is not a soundbite, its a goal, a necessary goal. You are right, the technology doesn't exist right now. But how about this: we transfer the billions of dollars we give the oil companies to green technology companies to come up with a solution. That might actual move us forward rather than hold us back. Because, lets face it, what other choice do we have? Oil isn't called a nonrenewable resource for nothing.

[JimInOK]

Getting off foreign oil is not a soundbite, its a goal, a necessary goal. You are right, the technology doesn't exist right now. But how about this: we transfer the billions of dollars we give the oil companies to green technology companies to come up with a solution. That might actual move us forward rather than hold us back. Because, lets face it, what other choice do we have? Oil isn't called a nonrenewable resource for nothing.

I agree that it is a necessary goal, but I disagree that it's acheivable in the time frame necessary to avert global warming (keeping the subject tied to the OP's original interest). I agree its pursuit is necessary and something very akin to an obligation on the part of this generation. But I also see too often a desire to punish the oil companies for the absolutely vital service they provide our society. I don't believe they are the ones who have resisted development of new refineries. But I do believe they are the ones best positioned to find that miracle alternative fuel and with the greatest incentive to find it.

I just don't know who these green technology companies are that you reference. Do they have even a tiny fraction of the resources that Big Oil has? I don't believe so. I also honestly believe the oil companies are heavily invested in the search for alternative energies. Just think, the company that develops the first legitimate form of alternative energy to solve this problem will stand to profit in an unprecedented fashion. However, those profits that are currently being reported are also necessary. Their first obligation is to their shareholders, after all.

Some wish to punish Big Oil by taking away their tax incentives. Fair enough. My belief, however, is that will simply be passed through to the consumer in the form of significantly higher fuel prices and will not change their behavior (should it even need to be changed) one bit.

So, I stand by my original statement that getting off foreign oil, as it's currently being proposed by Big Oil's opponents, is nothing more than a political soundbite. And one that will dramatically increase the price of fuel should the proposed methods pass into law. IMHO.

[JimInOK]

We could probably do it if we started more exploration and refinery development here in the states. There are huge oil deposits in Colorado, Alaska, and in the mid western states. There are also huge untapped deposits offshore. But, due to political and environmental factors, we are not allowed to use our own resources or build a new refinery. The demand is high and our capacity to produce enough supply has been severely limited. Hence, $3.50+ per gallon at the pump. Alternative fuels do provide some hope, but as of now the technology just isn't there. There needs to be more R&D on these before they are a viable alternative. Ethanol causes a lot more pollution than gasoline. Not to mention it uses up crop land which raises other grocery prices. Hydrogen Fuel Cells are interesting, but right now the only way to get a viable source of hydrogen is to burn fossil fuels. The whole hybrid car craze is probably just that. In the long run, they actually pollute more due to the chemicals and the processes that go into producing the batteries for these cars. Maybe someday as battery technology improves these cars will be more practical. There is no easy answer. Everything has its pros and cons. The reality is, right now in this day and age, oil is the fuel of the world's economy. Alternative sources of energy are important to explore, but that doesn't mean that we should cut ourselves off of our present means to power our world.

I agree with much of what you said, though I have less faith in our ability to ever produce enough domestic oil to get us off of a heavy dependence on foreign oil.

If fuel prices are the primary concern, however, I honestly believe we are currently in a classic bubble phase when it comes to oil prices. It is nowhere near universally accepted that we are approaching peak oil within the next one, two, even three or four decades. The people I hear advocating that most strenuously are those who benefit from high oil prices (Boone Pickens, etc). Oil is a classic boom-bust industry. Much of the current bubble is due to little more than rampant speculation which is boosted by the weak dollar. These conditions are not permanent. I know the argument is that there is a new paradigm sustaining these levels, but that argument has been heard during every speculative bubble known to man.

These prices will eventually bust, and they will bust hard. IMHO.

But peak oil eventually will come, which is why I agreed in my last post that the search for that miracle alternative is necessary.